Pepin z Hané: Recent Episodes
Sean Finnegan
Restitutio is a Christian theology podcast designed to get you thinking about biblical theology, church history, and apologetics in an effort to recover the original Christian faith of Jesus and the apostles apart from all of the later traditions that settled on it like so much sediment, obscuring and mutating primitive Christianity into dogma and ritual. Pastor Sean Finnegan, the host of Restitutio, holds to a Berean approach to truth: that everyone should have an open mind, but check everything against the bible to see how it measures up. Restitutio is also the home of Off Script, where Daniel Fitzsimmons and Rose Rider join Sean Finnegan to discuss how cultural forces are quietly molding us and how we can resist the pressure to conform to this age and follow Christ authentically in our complicated and confusing time. If you are looking for biblical unitarian resources, information about the kingdom of God, or teachings about conditional immortality, Restitutio is the Christian podcast for you.
In our last episode, we examined the broad scope of scripture, stopping at many texts along the way that teach about a future kingdom when Jesus returns. In this session, we’ll take a look at a number of sometimes misunderstood texts that seem to imply the kingdom is either already present or in heaven.
Here is the picture of the Greek manuscript known as Codex Vaticanus on Luke 23.43 with an arrow pointing to the alleged comma:
And here is Codex Sinaiaticus on 1 Timothy 3.16, with the hand of a later scribe “correcting” ?? to ??, changing “who” to “God.”
—— Notes ——
State the Doctrine Simply The kingdom is the age when Jesus rules over the world from the throne of David in Jerusalem. It is present in that the sense that his followers already recognize him as king and submit to his kingdom way. (It’s been inaugurated but not consummated.) When it arrives, it will fill the earth.
Texts that Support This Teaching Gen 1.28; Ps 2.6-9; 37.9-11, 22, 29, 34; 110; Is 11.1-9; 25.6-9; 35; Dan 2.44; 7.13-14, 18, 22, 27; Mic 4.1-8; Am 9.11-15; Zeph 3.8-20; 45.18; Mt 5.5; 6.9-10; 13.24-30, 36-43; 19.27-28; 25.31-46; Lk 1.31-33; 13.23-30; Acts 1.3-8; 3.19-21; 1 Cor 6.1-3; 15.24-28; 2 Tim 2.11-13; Rev 2.26-27; 5.10; 11.15-18
Difficult Texts: Kingdom Is Already Here (Either as Spiritual Reality or Came on Pentecost) Luke 10.9
Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’
Luke 11.20
But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
these two clearly imply the kingdom is not future but present in the ministry of Jesus
we don’t have to take an “either or” hermeneutic; we can take a “both and” position
Luke 17.20-31
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” 22 And he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them. 24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot– they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all– 30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back.
Albert Nolan:
“Many Christians have been misled for centuries about the nature of God’s kingdom by the well-known mistranslation of Lk 17:21: “The kingdom of God is within” Today all serious scholars and translators agree that the text should be read: “The kingdom of God is among you or in your midst.” The Greek word entos can mean “within” or “among” but in the present context to translate it “within” would mean that in answer to the Pharisees’ question about when the kingdom of God would come (17:20) Jesus told them that the kingdom of God was within them! This would contradict everything else Jesus ever said about the kingdom or about the Pharisees. Moreover, since every other reference to the kingdom presupposes that it is yet to come and since the verb in every other clause in this passage (17:20-37) is in the future tense, this verse must be understood to mean that one day they will find that the kingdom of God is suddenly and unexpectedly in their midst.”[1]
another option is that Jesus, as the king, represents the kingdom, thus they are staring at the kingdom and yet they don’t perceive that its right in front of them
Matthew 24.29-34
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
three options for understanding “this generation:”
This generation refers to the generation of his original disciples.
Generation really means a race. The Jewish race will not pass away before the end.
This generation is the future generation that sees the abomination of desolation. Once these signs come, the end will occur within a generation.
could it mean both 1 & 3?
Could it be that Jesus spoke in such a way that it related both to his immediate audience as well as his ultimate audience way off in the future? Perhaps Jesus grouped the two events—the temple’s destruction and the coming of the son of man—together because of their similarities not their timing.
Craig Keener put it this way:
“Old Testament prophets often grouped events together by their topic rather than their chronology, and in this discourse Jesus does the same. He addresses what are grammatically two separate questions: the time of the temple’s destruction and the time of the end.”[2]
Matthew 16.28-17.9
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” 17.1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” 8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only. 9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”
they received a vision of the kingdom with Jesus glorified and Moses and Elijah resurrected
this fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy that they wouldn’t die before “seeing” the son of man coming in his kingdom
Kingdom Is in Heaven John 14.1-3
1 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
some say these “rooms” refer to dwelling places in heaven where the faithful go at death
God’s house is spiritual not literal (see the rest of the chapter where Jesus repeatedly talks about coming to dwell in the believers, obviously not physically)
he is going away to prepare a place and will come again to receive them
Jesus, of course, is coming back to establish God’s kingdom
that where I am you may be also
if Jesus is here reigning then so will we
this is the role of the son of man (Dan 7.13-14) and the saints (Dan 7.18, 22, 27)
John 18.36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
N. T. Wright writes:
“’The world,’ as we’ve seen again and again, is in John the source of evil and rebellion against God. Jesus is denying that his kingdom has a this-worldly origin or quality. He is not denying that it has a this-worldly destination. That’s why he has come into the world himself (verse 37), and why he has sent, and will send, his followers into the world (17.18; 20.21). His kingdom doesn’t come from this wolrd, but it is for this world. That is the crucial distinction.”[3]
Luke 23.39-43
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
some say that very day, the thief and Jesus went to heaven
others say they went to a subterranean waiting area, aka Abraham’s bosom
didn’t go to heaven b/c:
John 20.17
Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
and he said he would be in the heart of the earth
Matthew 12.40
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
context is king
asked if he will remember him when he comes into his kingdom
Jesus is not telling him he’ll be in the kingdom today, but that he doesn’t have to wait until then to remember him. he makes the decision “today” right then and there, that he will be (in the future) with him in paradise
[1] Albert Nolan, Jesus before Christianity (1992), p. 58-59
[2] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pp. 111-2.
[3] N. T. Wright, John for Everyone: Part 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), p. 115.
—— Links——
see KingdomUprising.com for more resources on the kingdom, including a video class by Victor Gluckin.
check out my own audio kingdom of God class starting at podcast 84
See other episodes in this Theology Class
Find more Restitutio classes here
For more on the kingdom of God see these posts
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
We now begin a series of four lectures on the eternal destiny of the righteous and the wicked, including the kingdom and the judgement. For today we are going to focus on what God promises for his own people in the age to come. We’ll cruise through the entire bible (right from Genesis to Revelation), making key stops along the way to understand the golden thread, woven throughout scripture of the kingdom.
—— Notes ——
eschatology
understanding of the last things or end times
destiny of the righteous: kingdom
destiny of the wicked: hell
3 dimensions to kingdom
hope
gospel
way
we are just talking about hope right now
creation theology
the first book of the bible begins with a poem, detailing God’s creation of universe
Genesis 1
what repeats?
And God said
let there be
and God saw that it was good
and there was evening and there was morning—the ?? day
every stanza begins with, “And God said” and “let there be”
every stanza ends with, “and God saw that it was good” and “it was evening and morning”
more patterns
God creates heavens on day 1
God populates heavens on day 4
God creates the waters on day 2
God populates waters on day 5
God creates the land on day 3
God populates the land on day 6
Gen 1.26: The poem climaxes at the creation of humanity
first time God brings others into creation
the first thing he says about humans is for them to have dominion over everything else on earth
Gen 1.27: God made us in his own image
we are similar to him in some way
also similar to the angels (cf. v26)
he does not say the animals are in his image
Gen 1.28: first commands God gives
reproduce
rule the world
Gen 1.29: God gives his people food (vegetables, grains, & fruits)
robust creation theology is the foundation for eschatology
example of Gnostics who believed the physical universe was an accident
people generally believe God will get in the end what he wanted in the beginning
Isaiah 45.18
God’s plan is not to evacuate but to have his world inhabited
last book reflects the first book
Genesis records the beginning Revelation records the end
river flowing out of Eden river flowing from God’s throne
tree of life in the garden tree of life on either side of the river
gold, bdellium, and onyx a ton of different precious stones
God walking in the garden God dwelling with his people (see his face)
garden city
probationary permanent
satan deceives satan done away with
God curses ground no more curse
first marriage last marriage
what God originally wanted in the beginning he will get in the end!
typically people conceive of the end based on what they believe God originally wanted in the beginning
Promise to Abraham
Gen 17.4-8
father of a multitude of nations (not just Israel!)
to be God to you and your offspring
give you land Canaan as an everlasting possession
Promise to David
1 Chronicles 17.11-14
raise up one of your sins
he will build me a house
I will establish his throne forever
Psalms
Psalm 2.6-9
Psalm 37.9-11, 22, 29, 34
Psalm 110
Prophets
Isaiah 11.1-9; 25.6-9; 35
Micah 4.1-8
Amos 9.11-15
Zephaniah 3.8-20
Daniel: hinge (1st to use term “kingdom”)
Daniel 2.44
Daniel 7.13-14, 18, 22, 27
all of this background is critical because Jesus never takes the time to define the kingdom; he just expects his audience knows what he is talking about
Jesus
Luke 1.31-33
Luke 13.23-30
reclining at table with Abraham in kingdom
Matthew 5.5; 6.9-102
Matthew 13.24-30, 36-43
explain “kingdom of heaven”
Matthew 19.27-28
12 apostles judging the 12 tribes
Matthew 25.31-46
sheep and goats
Acts 1.3-8
Jesus kept right on talking about the kingdom after his resurrection
see also Luke 23.50-52 for Joseph of Arimathea waiting for the kingdom
Paul
Acts 3.19-21
Jesus is in heaven UNTIL the time for restoring all things
1 Corinthians 6.1-3
don’t you know you will judge the world?
1 Corinthians 15.24-28
reign until he puts all enemies under foot
2 Timothy 2.11-13
Apocalypse
Rev 2.26-27
Rev 11.15-18
—— Links ——
see KingdomUprising.com for more resources on the kingdom, including a video class by Victor Gluckin.
check out my own audio kingdom of God class starting at podcast 84
See other episodes in this Theology Class
Find more Restitutio classes here
For more on the kingdom of God see these posts
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
In our last episode we looked at what the scriptures teach about humanity, including creation, death, and resurrection. I laid out a case for conditional immortality from several important texts. This time, we will consider a number of challenges to this understanding including:
Philippians 1.23 “depart and be with Christ”
1 Corinthians 5.8 “absent from the body…present with the Lord”
Luke 23.43 “Today you will be with me in paradise”
Revelation 6.9-10 “under the altar the souls…cried out”
Luke 16.19ff Rich man and Lazarus
1 Samuel 28.7ff the witch of Endor
—— Notes ——
State the Doctrine Simply The dead are asleep—unconscious—until the resurrection when they are brought back to life at the return of Christ.
Texts that Support This Teaching Gen 2.7; 1 Kings 2.10; 11.43; 14.20; Job 3.11-14; Ecc 9.5-10; Ps 6.4-5; 13.3; 115.17; 146.3-4; Dan 12.2; Jn 11.11-14;5.28-29; 6.39-40, 44, 54; Acts 2.29, 34; 7.60; 1 Cor 15.6, 21-23, 51-55; 1 Thes 4.13-17
Logical Arguments
comfort to know loved one is just resting in peace (RIP)
would be weird if they watched everything you do
don’t need to pray for them a million times hoping to change God’s mind
immortality of the soul opens the door for spiritualism
Lev 20.6 people whoring after mediums and necromancers will be cut off
Lev 20.27 any medium/necromancer will be put to death
Deut 18.9-13 abominable practice, a reason why Canaanites were expelled
derives from pagan sources
Plato, Egyptians, Norse, Hindu, etc.
creepy to think deceased loved ones are watching everything we do
has led to church abuse, i.e. sale of indulgences
Difficult Texts Hand out article by Matt Perman at Desiring God:
The “intermediate state” is the time between the death and the resurrection. Some have held that during this time we are unconscious or possibly even go out of existence. We do not think that this is biblical.
The biblical evidence is that our soul continues on after death and that we remain conscious in the intermediate state while awaiting our final destiny of resurrected existence in the new heavens and new earth.
First, Paul spoke of having the desire “to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better” (Philippians 1:23). Notice first of all that Paul speaks of death as a departure (from the body) not into temporary nothingness or unconsciousness but to be with Christ. If we are with Christ once we have died, then we continue existing. Second, notice that Paul speaks of this state as “very much better” than the present state. It would be hard to say such a thing of a state of complete unconsciousness. Particularly when we consider that Paul’s passion was to know Christ, it would seem that the reason the state beyond death is better than this present life is because we are with Christ and know it. If we were suddenly unconscious at death until the resurrection, wouldn’t it be better to remain in this life because at least then we would have conscious fellowship with Christ?
Second, Paul also said that “while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord” and that therefore he would “prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). First, it is significant that he speaks of the possibility of being absent from the body. This implies that we indeed do have souls which continue existing after the body dies. Second, notice again that he speaks of this state as his preference, which indicates (as in Philippians 1:23) that we not only continue existing between death and the resurrection, but that we are aware of our existence.
Third, even though the thief on the cross has been used to prove about every point in Christian theology, his case is still relevant here: “And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise'” (Luke 23:43). The Jehovah’s Witness’s New World Translation punctuates Jesus words as “Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise,” giving the impression that “today” refers simply to the time of Jesus’ statement. But the context demands that the “today” refer to when the thief on the cross would be with Jesus in paradise, because Jesus is responding to his request in the previous verse: “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom!” The response, “Today you shall be with Me in paradise” can in this context only be taken to mean, “Not only will I remember you when I come in my kingdom, but already today you shall be with me in heaven.”
Fourth, Revelation 6:9 speaks of John seeing underneath the altar “the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God.” These individuals are surely not in a state of soul sleep because in the next verse they cry out “How long, O Lord.”
Philippians 1.23-24 (depart and be with Christ)
23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
here Paul simply skips over the intermediate state
this makes since b/c there is no awareness
like getting knocked out for surgery
we know he believes resurrection happens when Christ comes, not when we die (1 Cor 15.23)
death is gain b/c then he will have relief from prison and persecution and the constant backbiting
2 Corinthians 5.6-8 (absent but present)
6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
take a look at the context before
2 Corinthians 5.1-10 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened– not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
he’s already stated he doesn’t want to be naked—disembodied
he’d rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord (in his resurrected body)
Paul elsewhere clearly believes in the sleep of the dead followed by a corporate resurrection
Sleep of death – 1 Cor. 15:6,18,20,51 (cf. Dan: 12:2); 1 Thess. 4:13,14.
Resurrection and judgment – 2 Tim. 4:1,8; 2 Cor. 4:14 cf. 5:10.
Luke 23.43 (thief on the cross)
43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
take a look at the verse before
Luke 23.42-43
42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Revelation 6.9-10 (souls under altar)
9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
a literal interpretation here results in absurdity…see the next verse
Revelation 6.11
11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
Rich Man and Lazarus Luke 16.19-31 (rich man and Lazarus)
19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house– 28 for I have five brothers– so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'”
Some argue that this is not a parable because (1) it starts with the phrase “a certain man.” But this assertion is groundless because the parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke 16.1 starts just this way. A second reason given that this is not a parable is (2) that it never calls itself a parable. But, 11 out of the 26 parables in Luke’s Gospel do not self identify as parables. A third reason given that this is not a parable is that (3) Lazarus is named. However, Lazarus means “God has helped,” which would certainly be an appropriate fictitious name considering the irony of the story.
Some observations about this parable.
(adapted from Wrested Scriptures by R. Abel, pages 107-110, also available online at www.wrestedscriptures.com/b03hell/luke16v19-31.html)
No mention is made of either “heaven” or “hell”
No mention is made of “souls”
If taken literally of someone’s soul going off to Abraham’s bosom there is a problem because the passage speaks of bodies not disembodied souls
Body parts mentioned include eyes, the tip of a finger, and the tongue
If souls are immaterial then how can they be carried by the angels?
If their is a great chasm or gulf fixed between Abraham’s bosom and hades, how is it that they can see across it and converse with each other effortlessly?
Just imagine living forever within ear shot of the agonizing screams of the tortured. Would that not be torture itself?
If taken literally then we have a contradiction with Hebrews 11.8,13, 39-40 because there it says that Abraham has not yet received his reward. (Note that Hebrews was written decades after Jesus told this parable).
If one is being tormented in flames of fire, would he ask for just a drop of water?
If the righteous dead go to Abraham’s bosom at death, then what about those who died before Abraham? Did Noah go to Abraham’s bosom at death?
If one takes into account the fact that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable not a literal account, then all of these problems go away. Edward Fudge is insightful when he says,
Two Views of Hell, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 41.
Few serious interpreters attempt to make the details of the story literal. To do so would require us to imagine the saved and lost conversing with each other after death in full view of each other and at close range. We also would have to think of literal tongues that burn with literal fire and literal water that does not cool them. Not to mention physical bodies that can be tortured by fire but which somehow do not burn up.
Another note about parables needs to be made.
Warren Prestidge, Life, Death and Destiny,
(Takanini, New Zealand: Resurrection Publishing, 1998), p. 39.
First of all, there is no doubt that this is a parable, not a report of actual events. It begins the same way many parables do: “There was a (rich) man (19; compare 16.1, 15.11; 14.16). As with any parable, then, it is essential to distinguish between what it says and what it teaches For example, the parable in the first half of Luke 16 speaks of a steward cheating his master and says: good on him! But Jesus is not teaching that we should cheat our bosses. What he is teaching is that we should give to the poor, in view of God’s coming judgment. That, also, is what the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is teaching: it is simply a vehicle for his teaching.
We are not supposed to imitate what happens in the parables. We are supposed to get the point of the parable—understand what Jesus is teaching through the parable.
Now, I will have to admit that upon first inspection, instantaneously our minds go to the typical modern picture of someone burning mercilessly in hell while others are up in heaven. But, the audience of Jesus had a different worldview and would have read this parable in a different way. In order to bring out what Jesus’ hearers would have understood we need to look at the parallels in their own literature.
For example, if I make a reference about the Trinity from The Matrix. What would come to mind? Probably one would think of a young attractive girl who wears a lot of black clothing and does incredible martial arts. Obviously, no one would think about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is because we share the context of the word “Matrix.” We understand that The Matrix is a movie. However, if someone a thousand years from now looked back on a conversation two people had about The Matrix and Trinity they would be more likely to associate a matrix with a grouping of numbers and the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (three yet one). They could totally miss what was being talked about because they would miss the cultural context. Unless we are familiar with the stories of a culture (movies are stories, by the way) then we might miss a reference to a well-known story and end up taking everything the wrong way. This is why it is so important to do the historical research into the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.
It just so happens that there was a story going around during the time of Jesus in which fates were reversed after death.
The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale 1982), p. 347.
In Luke 16.23 it is the place of torment for the wicked after death in accordance with some contemporary Jewish thinking, but it is doubtful whether this parabolic use of current ideas can be treated as teaching about the state of the dead.
Edward Fudge, The Fire that Consumes,
(Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com, 2001) pp. 203-204.
The plot of the parable, the reversal of earthly fortunes after death, was familiar in popular Palestinian stories of Jesus’ times. Hugo Gressmann cites a Greek parallel from a first-century Egyptian papyrus, and he says there are at least seven versions of the story in Jewish literature. One of the most famous involved a poor student of the Law and a rich publican named Bar Ma’jan. There are differences between these stories and Jesus’, of course, and therein lies the Lord’s uniqueness. But the basic plot was well-known folklore.
Froom cites a discourse of Josephus concerning Hades which paints almost precisely the same picture found in Luke. He concludes that “Jesus was clearly using a then-common tradition of the Jews to press home a moral lesson in a related field.” Although the Whiston edition of Josephus offers a lengthy defense of the treatise’s authenticity on internal and external grounds, most scholars today regard it as spurious, as conditionalists Edward White and Henry Constable both note.
It was like the Jews had watched movies in which this idea of two people whose fates were reversed in the afterlife was common (that would be our modern equivalent). If this story was in fact common in the time of Jesus then what matters is not so much the idea of fates reversed in the afterlife but what Jesus does with the parable, how he sharpens it up to prick the Pharisees’ hearts.
Joachim Jeremias, Rediscovering the Parables (New York: SCM Press Ltd.: 1966), p. 145.
To understand the parable in detail and as a whole, we have to recognize that the first part derives from well-known folk-material concerned with the reversal of fortune in the after-life. This is the Egyptian folk-tale of the journey of Si-Osiris and his father Setme Chamois to the underworld; it ends with the words: ‘He who has been good on earth will be blessed in the kingdom of the dead; and he who has been evil on earth will suffer in the kingdom of the dead.’ Alexandrian Jews brought this story to Palestine, where it became very popular as the story of the poor scholar and the rich tax-collector Bar Ma’jan.
So, the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable (not a literal story). Furthermore it is a story that is very similar (in its first half) to other stories that were already around in the culture at the time. Jesus starts the story in the familiar way but then adds a twist half-way through once he has his hearers’ interest.
Lazarus is a man in a wretched state who has sores all over his body. He is starving even for the leftover food that the Rich Man feasts on lavishly. He is so weakened that he cannot even drive away the dogs (who were scavengers not house pets) from licking his soars. The typical understanding people had at the time would dictate that this Lazarus is actually being punished by God for his sins. People who walked past him would be asking themselves, “What must this man have done for God to punish him like this?” So the first move of the parable is to reverse the fates of the two. This demonstrates that the Rich Man is really poor and Lazarus is really rich in the eyes of God. Lazarus is blessed to be at “Abraham’s bosom” which is the highest place of honor at a banquet (John 13.23). This honor is given to Lazarus who had the lowest position in society.
Before we go on, it is important to realize that one of the keys to understanding the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus is that it works together with the parable from the first half of the chapter called the parable of The Unjust Steward. Sandwiched in between these two parables that each start with the phrase “there was a rich man” (Luke 16.1, 19) the Scripture says:
Luke 16.14-15
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.
So this entire chapter is addressing the issue of wealth. The first parable is speaking more to the disciples and the second parable is reproving the Pharisees.
The Rich Man and Lazarus, article by Dr. Ralph Wilson from the Jesus Walk website www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm
Jesus has been teaching about materialism and money–the unjust steward, serving Mammon, and stewardship. His audience includes his disciples (16.1) as well as “the Pharisees who loved money” and ridiculed his stand on money (16.14)…The parable we are studying…condemns the Pharisees love of money and neglect of showing compassion for the poor (16.19-31)…
Many scholars believe that Jesus is drawing upon a popular Jewish folk tale that had roots in Egypt about a rich man and poor man whose lots after death are completely reversed. The story doesn’t have to be true in all its particulars, but the popular mind can relate to its stereotyped characters–rich man, poor man, and Father Abraham.
Jesus is telling a common story about the afterlife in order to make a different point. What does the parable teach? In order to answer this question, let’s go through it section by section. I have divided up this parable into four sections: [1] the setting [2] fates reversed [3] the first question [4] the second question. (All references are from Luke chapter sixteen).
[1] the setting
19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 “And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.”
We have already touched on the state of Lazarus to a certain extent. To summarize, he is poor, sick, and miserable. Lazarus “was laid” at the rich man’s gate. Perhaps Lazarus was also crippled and had to depend on others to put him in public areas where he could acquire food or money. The fact that Lazarus is at the gate tells us that the rich man passes by him every time he leaves his house or returns home. The rich man cannot claim to be ignorant of Lazarus nor can he claim that he is unable to help him, for he certainly has the means. Lazarus desired so little—the mere crumbs falling from the rich man’s table—yet there he laid, destitute.
[2] fates reversed
22 “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 “In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.”
Now their fates are reversed. This is to be expected from the hearers’ familiarity with other stories like this that were circulating at the time. Notice that the poor man is again carried but this time by angels to Abraham’s bosom—the place of highest honor. Meanwhile the rich man dies, is buried, and then in the realm of the dead (Hades) is being tormented yet he can see Abraham and Lazarus at a distance. [It is noteworthy to mention that we are not talking about hell (gehenna) which will not exist until the coming of Jesus when judgment is passed (see Revelation 20).]
[3] the first question
24 “And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 “But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 ‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’”
This question, asked by the rich man is to gain comfort while he is “in agony in this flame.” He wants mercy even though he had shown none while he was living. Notice that he still thinks Lazarus is someone to be ordered around and requests that Abraham to send him. Abraham’s response explains that because of their respective lots in life they have been reversed now. The chasm between them cannot be crossed, for that is its purpose–to keep the two realms separate. The point of the chasm is that no one can change their fate once he dies. Still there would have been nothing shocking up to this point in the parable; though I’m sure the Pharisees were already beginning to become aware that Jesus was reproving their love of money.
[4] the second question
27 “And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house– 28 for I have five brothers– in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 “But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
He wants Abraham to send Lazarus back to tell his five brothers about this place of torment. The answer that comes back is, “No,” because his brothers already have a witness that tells them how to live–Moses and the Prophets. The rich man argues back that his brothers would repent if someone went to them from the dead. Yet Abraham does not change his prior answer. He is utterly convinced that if someone does not listen to Moses and the Prophets then he will also not listen even if someone rises from the dead. The living should already know based on the Scriptures how to treat the poor. (There is perhaps a foreshadowing here of the disbelief that many would maintain even after eye-witnesses testify that Jesus was raised from the dead.) Two major points can be made from this parable:
The Rich Man and Lazarus, article by Dr. Ralph Wilson from the Jesus Walk website (http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm)
1. Wealth without active mercy for the poor is great wickedness.
2. If we close our eyes to the truth we are given, then we are doomed
…It isn’t their piety that he is condemning, but what they AREN’T doing–showing mercy to the poor, seeking justice for the downtrodden. It is ironic that the Pharisees who prided themselves on being such Bible scholars largely missed the spirit of the Old Testament–mercy and justice.
Joachim Jeremias, Rediscovering the Parables (New York: SCM Press Ltd.: 1966), p. 147.
The parable is one of the four two-edged parables. The first point is concerned with the reversal of fortune in the life to come (vv. 19-23), the second (vv. 24-31) with the refusal of the rich man’s request that Abraham send Lazarus to him and to his five brothers. As the first part is drawn from well known folk-material, the emphasis lies on the fresh part that Jesus added—on the epilogue. Like all the two-edged parables, this one stresses the second point. That means that Jesus does not want to comment on a social problem, or intend to give a teaching about life after death—he tells the parable to warn people like the rich man and his brothers of the impending fate. Lazarus is therefore only a secondary figure, introduced by way of contrast; the parable is about the six brothers…
With parables it is always important to get the point without getting lost in the details. It may be fine to speculate on all of the different symbolisms in a parable, and sometimes they are meant to represent many different things (like The Sower and the Seed or The Tares and the Wheat in Matthew 13), but we have to be careful not to obfuscate the intent of the parable. This parable is about generosity towards the poor not the afterlife. William Barclay has aptly titled this parable, “The Punishment of the Man Who Never Noticed.” Dr. Wilson is again insightful when he says:
The Rich Man and Lazarus, article by Dr. Ralph Wilson from the Jesus Walk website (http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm)
We are Bible-toting Christians who have the benefit of the Old Testament AND the New. If we don’t notice and minister to the poor, what excuse will we have? In the final analysis, the rich man’s punishment is not for riches, but for neglect of the Scriptures and what they teach.
That doesn’t mean we should give out of guilt or give unwisely or give to whoever cries the loudest. Instead, we are to give out of the love of God within us. Not selfishly to assuage our guilt, but selflessly to care for someone else’s need.
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is about money, all right. Money and wealth and self-centeredness. And mercy. It is especially a parable about mercy–mercy now!
The parable is about how we live now; because once we die we cannot come back and fix anything. We have the Law, we have the Prophets, and we have the poor man. The Scriptures teach that we should love justice and mercy. The poor man gives an opportunity to practice that teaching. The question is: are we going to do something about this or are we going to ignore the destitute, enjoy our lives, and in the end suffer as a result of it?
Warren Prestidge, Life, Death and Destiny,
(Takanini, New Zealand: Resurrection Publishing, 1998), p. 39.
No, Jesus is not endorsing the story’s paraphernalia. He is using it simply to meet his opponents, the Pharisees, on their own ground: using a story familiar to them, in order to convict them out of their own mouths, as it were, for their indifference to the poor, and perhaps to “sinners” and even Gentiles in general. All that he actually endorses here is “Moses and the prophets” (29). “…it was not the intention of Jesus…to give a topographical guide to the underworld.” “…he does not intend here to give a preview of life after death. On this almost all commentators agree.”
We should not allow ourselves to get distracted with theological discussions about life after death when it comes to this parable. We need to understand, not just what the parable isn’t saying but also what it is saying. David Smith summarizes the point of the parable well:
David Smith, Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible: Lazarus, ed. by James Hastings, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), p. 539.
The purpose of the parable is not to condemn riches and exalt poverty in the spirit of Ebionitic asceticism. [In other words, the parable is not saying that poverty is a virtue.] It is an enlargement of the Lord’s admonition in v9: ‘Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles’ (RV). The merit of Lazarus was not that he was poor, but that he had found his help in God; the offence of the Rich Man was not that he was rich, but that he lived a self-indulgent and luxurious life, regardless of the misery around him. Had he made friends to himself of Lazarus and others like him by means of his mammon of unrighteousness, he would have had a place and a welcome among them when he entered the unseen world.
Let us take Jesus’ parable to heart. If we have money, then let’s open our eyes to see our Lazarus at the gate. If we don’t have money, there are still many things we can do for the poor (somebody had to put Lazarus at the gate of the rich man). This issue will not go away (“the poor you will have with you always”) until Jesus comes and makes things right on earth as in heaven, but that should in no way discourage us from carrying out compassionate acts of love toward the afflicted in this age.
Witch of Endor 1 Samuel 28.1-25; 31.2-6
1 Chronicles 10.13 “So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance.”
Did the medium really call up Samuel from the dead?
no
she faked the whole thing
an evil spirit spoke through her
God gave her a vision
yes
she had the power to wake up the dead
demons have the power to wake up the dead
God enabled the séance to work
“Ancient necromancy, essentially the same as modern spiritualism (spiritism) involves the medium’s coming under demon influence and consulting not the spirits of the departed dead, but evil spirts who have superphysical knowledge.” – Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, p. 169
Leviticus 19.31
31 ‘Do not turn to mediums or spiritists [ESV=necromancers]; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.
“Necromancy is a form of magic involving communication with the deceased—either by summoning their spirit as an apparition or raising them bodily—for the purpose of divination, imparting the means to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge or to use the deceased as a weapon…Early necromancy was related to – and most likely evolved from – shamanism, which calls upon spirits such as the ghosts of ancestors. Classical necromancers addressed the dead in “a mixture of high-pitch squeaking and low droning”, comparable to the trance-state mutterings of shamans.” –Wikipedia
Deuteronomy 18.9-12
9 “When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. 10 “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 “For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.
Talking to the Dead Offends God
Leviticus 20.6
6 ‘As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 20.27
27 ‘Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'”
Isaiah 8.19
19 When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?
—— Links ——
See Warren Prestidge’s book Life, Death, and Destiny on Amazon
Check out the movie about Edward Fudge, “Hell and Mr. Fudge“
Here’s the commentary on the Rich man and Lazarus by itself
See other episodes in this Theology Class
Find more Restitutio classes here
For more on conditional immortality see these posts
For excellent podcasts and biblical resources on conditional immortality, see rethinkinghell.com
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
In this lecture, you’ll learn about anthropology–the bible’s view of humanity. In particular, we’ll focus on the two ends of the spectrum: creation and death. We’ll see how the biblical view of humanity is rather exalted since we are made in God’s image. We’ll examine what the bible teaches about death and resurrection and how the intermediate state is regularly labeled sleep.
—— Notes ——
Why start here? it’s where the bible starts (creation)
anthropology: your understanding of humanity
where do humans come from?
two typical answers
unguided natural processes based on huge amounts of time and inconceivably unlikely chance events (evolution)
God made the first people (imago dei)
Genesis account
Gen 2.7: God personally creates humans
with heavenly bodies God says, “let there be”
with plants God says, “let there be”
with animals (air, land, or sea) God says, “let there be”
with humankind God stoops down
he forms us; he shapes us from dust, like clay
he breaths into our nostrils the breath of life
sounds like mouth to mouth
animals have the breath of life, but not such a tender description
consider God’s human design
22 square feet of skin
206 bones
25 feet of intestines
45 miles of nerves
100,000 miles of blood vessels
can live from hottest equatorial climates to the frigid polar caps
skin provides
waterproof barrier
temperature regulation
sensory input
fingers are both finely tuned (painting) and strong (boxers)
wrists enjoy 160 degrees of motion
throw frisbee
ride a motorcycle
ball and socket shoulder joint allows
360 degrees of motion
lift an object from the ground over our heads in one fluid motion
hearts pump 2,000 gallons of blood each day
never rest
stomachs produce hydrochloric acid powerful enough to digest solid metal
biped design allows for ridiculous range of activities
climb trees
run marathons
ballet
ears pick up incredible range of sounds
soft sounds
rock concerts
voices can whisper, speak, yell, sing
eyes allow for nearly 180 degrees of horizontal vision
three dimensions
brains process everything effortlessly
and assemble a realistic perception of the external world
capable of thinking abstractly (what’s better courage or integrity?)
can imagine future possibilities
mental simulator to run through plans
art, science, relationships, sports, etc.
people are capable of incredible creations
Shakespeare
your favorite song
Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai (more than a half mile high)
Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge in China (more than 100 miles)
bicycles, performance cars, submarines, airplanes, and spaceships
we are discoverers
charted a billion stars
catalogued over a million animals species
we are producers
130 million books
over 28 million songs
more than 2 million movies
we peer into space far away and examine the minute DNA within the microscopic world
you gotta admit, that God did a pretty amazing job making us!
God’s creation was good (7x)
significant b/c it means God made the universe and people the way he wanted
it wasn’t some accident (Gnostics)
was God’s original plan for humans to live forever?
how do you know?
Gen 2.9; 3.22-24
something went wrong
our first parents rebelled
what was the consequence?
Gen 3.19
What is death?
simple definition: the absence of life
whatever death means it can’t be the same as being alive
you can use the bible to support any view of death you have
options include
heaven (be a star like Lion King, float on a cloud, stare at God forever)
purgatory (tortured for a little while before going to heaven)
hell (tortured forever)
reincarnation (turn into a bear)
annihilation
ghosts, spirits that haunt buildings (6th sense)
asleep until the resurrection
the question is: where does the preponderance of the evidence lie?
what is the dominant phrase people use to talk about death?
so-and-so “passed away”
doesn’t that assume that they went somewhere?
sleep is the dominant metaphor the bible uses to talk about death
1 Kings 2.10 David slept with his fathers
1 Kings 11.43 Solomon slept with his fathers
1 Kings 14.20 Jeroboam slept with his fathers
Job 3.11-14 death is lying down, quietly in sleep, and at rest
Ecclesiastes 9.5-6 the dead know nothing; they are clueless about what happens under the sun
Ecclesiastes 9.10 no work, thought, knowledge, or wisdom in the grave (clearly teaches dead are unconscious)
Psalm 6.4-5 in death/the grave people have no remembrance or praise of God
Psalm 13.3 help me or else I’ll sleep the sleep of death
Psalm 115.17 the dead do not praise the LORD
Psalm 146.3-4 breath [ruach/spirit] departs, return to earth, plans perish
John 11.11-14 Jesus calls Lazarus asleep when he is dead
Acts 2.29, 34 David died, was buried, and did not ascend into heaven
Acts 7.60 Stephen cried out and then fell asleep
1 Corinthians 15.6 some of the 500 who saw Jesus have fallen asleep
death is like time travel
ex 1: fall asleep in car and wake up a couple of hours later
ex 2: getting wisdom teeth removed (Ruth: “How was it” me: “They didn’t do it yet”)
two perspectives
from one point of view king David has waited in the grave for 3,000 years
from David’s perspective he instantaneously goes from his last breath to the resurrection
resurrection is the key to immortality
this is how someone escapes death and acquires immortality
Daniel 12.2
John 5.28-29
1 Cor 15.51-55
resurrection happens at the coming of Jesus on the “last day” at the “last trump”
1 Cor 15.17-24
John 6.39-40, 44, 54
1 Thes 4.13-17
dangers of believing in conscious intermediate state
opens the door for spiritualism
Lev 20.6 people whoring after mediums and necromancers will be cut off
Lev 20.27 any medium/necromancer will be put to death
Deut 18.9-13 abominable practice, a reason why Canaanites were expelled
advantages of the sleep of the dead
comfort to know loved one is just resting in peace (RIP)
would be really weird if they watched everything you do
don’t need to pray for them a million times hoping to change God’s mind
avoid abuses by church (sale of indulgences)
conditional immortality: immortality is conditioned on God giving it at resurrection, rather than innate
why are most Christians confused about this?
ancient Egyptians believed in the kingdom of the dead and built huge tombs (Pyramids)
Plato famously defended immortality of the soul in his Phaedo (talking about Socrates’ death)
Socrates: Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? Simmias: To be sure, replied Simmias.
Socrates: Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death?
Simmias: Just so, he replied.
the biblical idea was hard for people without a Jewish background to swallow
two unique ideas
the dead are asleep until resurrection (Jewish)
souls escape their bodies at death (Pagan)
hybrid view: bodies sleep while soul enjoys heaven until resurrection when it reunites with the body (“Christian”)
contradicts all the scripture that says people sleep (not just their bodies, see also John 11.34; 20.15)
makes the resurrection an awkward leftover
why would you want to become restricted by your body after you had lived as pure energy in heaven
what about Lazarus getting torn out of heavenly bliss to inhabit his body?
eclipses the real hope by putting heaven-at-death
doctrines are interconnected
CI leads to a proper understanding of Christ
CI leads to a proper understanding of the atonement
CI leads to a proper understanding of the kingdom
CI leads to a proper understanding of hell
this one is really good to start with when talking to Christian friends
it doesn’t seem all that threatening
it’s so easy to show from so many verses
—— Links ——
See other episodes in this Theology Class
Find more Restitutio classes here
For more on conditional immortality see these posts
For excellent podcasts and biblical resources on CI, see rethinkinghell.com
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
In this presentation you’ll learn about the core creed of the bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, the Shema, and how that relates to the smattering of texts in which Jesus may be called “God.” If Yahweh alone is God then how can Jesus be God too? Are there two Gods or is something else going on? The answer is the principle of agency. Jesus can be called God because he represents God.
It is much more likely that Jesus is called God because he represents God, just like Moses did to Pharaoh, the judges did to Israel, and the king did as God’s anointed one. Jesus is the ultimate proxy, God’s agent through whom God’s word became a human being and spoke to his people. Jesus was utterly transparent, always doing his father’s works, pursuing his God’s will, and speaking Yahweh’s words and thus can rightly be called God. He’s not a separate God, but God’s human representative. To meet Jesus is to meet God, not because he is God in himself, but because God was so at work within him.
—— Links ——
For a written version of this talk, see my article, “Explanations to Verses Commonly Used to Teach that Jesus Is God” Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Are you curious how Dale Tuggy thinks he did on the Trinity debate with Michael Brown? In this post-debate interview I ask him about his strongest points as well as what he thought Brown’s strongest arguments were. I ask Tuggy about Brown’s Trinity theory and he explains the “one self” version of the Trinity as well as some of the major problems with that position. In the end, Tuggy both gave Brown a lot of credit for his rhetorical style while remaining completely unconvinced that Brown’s position can stand up to the bible or plain old logic.
Stay tuned next time when Jerry Wierwille and I discuss Brown’s opening statement and give brief answers to his many opening arguments.
—— Links ——
Visit Dale Tuggy’s website and podcast at trinities.org
Check out Tuggy’s excellent YouTube video entitled, “Who Should Christians Worship“
You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Are you curious how Michael Brown thinks he did on the Trinity debate last weekend? In this post-debate interview I ask him about his strongest points as well as what he thought Dale Tuggy’s strongest points were. We talk about his reticence to use traditional trinitarian language in light of his own unique heritage and ministry focus. I press him gently to explain his view of the Trinity in light of some of the confusion that arose during the debate. Next time, I’ll be interviewing Dr. Tuggy and getting his response and then after that Jerry Wierwille and I are planning on thoroughly reviewing and rebutting Dr. Brown’s opening statement, verse by verse.
Now, I realize that a number of you may not appreciate me giving Dr. Brown an opportunity to defend his view of the deity of Christ, but if you’ve listened to this podcast for any length of time, you know that I end every episode with the words “the truth has nothing to fear.” For me, that’s not just a tag line, it’s how I believe. I’m not afraid to hear arguments for the deity of Christ or the Trinity. It’s healthy for those of us who are biblical unitarians to be challenged by passionate defenders of opposing positions. If I’m wrong about Jesus, I want to be corrected and if I’m right then hearing another viewpoint shouldn’t be a threat.
—— Links ——
Visit Michael Brown’s website and radio show at askdrbrown.org
You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Last night Michael Brown (PhD NYU) and Dale Tuggy (PhD Brown U) debated the question, “Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?” Tuggy affirmed while Brown denied. Both scholars recognize the inspiration and the authority of scripture over tradition. Both made an effort to found their beliefs using the bible, reason, and history. The debate went for nearly three hours and followed this format:
Opening Statements (20 minutes each)
Rebuttals (12 minutes each)
2 Rounds of Cross-Examination (7 minutes each)
Concluding Statements (5 minutes each)
Questions from the Audience (54 minutes total)
Please leave your comments below. Who do you think won? Were both sides fairly represented? Whom should Tuggy debate next?
Before delving into specific biblical doctrines, we need to first think about what the bible is. In this lecture you’ll learn what the bible says about itself, some reasons to believe God inspired it, as well as the major types of biblical scholars and how they approach scripture. This episode, along with the last one, serves to round out the introduction to this course.
—— Notes ——
bibliology: one’s understanding about the bible
what is the bible?
a library of 66 books
written by 40 people
how should you interact with it?
claims that God inspired the bible
Matthew 1.22-23
Mark 12.36
Acts 1.16
Acts 3.18
Acts 4.25
Acts 28.25-26
Hebrews 3.7
Hebrews 10.15-17
2 Timothy 3.16
2 Peter 1.16-21
Revelation 1.1-2
reasons why I believe the bible is genuinely inspired
it claims it
predictive prophecy
unflattering honesty
medical insights
martyrdom
archeology
some more reasons
ear-marks of eye-witnesses
historicity of the resurrection of Jesus
changed my life
incredible preservation
survived some Israelite and Judean kings who disregarded it (Manasseh->Amon->Josiah)
survived 70 year exile in Babylonia
survived Antiochus Epiphanes who tried to destroy the Torah
survived destruction of Temple in a.d. 70
survived destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 135
survived several Muslim empires
survived all the crusades
OT survived in high quality manuscripts (Aleppo, Leningrad, DSS, LXX)
Diocletian tried to destroy the NT
NT survived in over 5,000 Greek mss
531 language for whole bible, 1329 languages for NT
dichotomy today between bible-believing and bible-critical approaches to doctrine
refer to youtube video of my lecture on Losing Faith from 500
enlightenment gave rise to intense philosophical and biblical criticisms
most bible professors in most secular universities examine the bible from an atheist worldview
some Christians affirmed these criticisms but tried to save Christianity
Schleiermacher (1822): feeling of absolute dependence; entering into Christ’s perfect God consciousness
Albrecht Ritschl (1852): kingdom of God = community of brotherly love (focus on Jesus’ ethics not miracles)
Adolf Harnack (1886): fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man, worth of each soul, love rather than law
Walter Rauschenbusch (1917): social gospel movement—focus on humanitarian needs
other Christians dug in and fought the criticisms
John Locke (1695) published The Reasonableness of Christianity
William Paley (1802) early proponent of intelligent design
Charles Hodge (1874) defended infallibility and attacked Darwinism
Fundamentalist Movement (1910)
In 19th and 20th centuries the liberals and conservatives fight it out
major denominations split (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans)
as universities go liberal and biblical conservatives leave and start new schools
1806 Harvard splits to form Andover Theological Seminary
1908 Lyman Stewart started BIOLA; he’s the man who funded the 1910 “The Fundamentals”
1929 Princeton splits to form Westminster Theological Seminary
1976 Liberty University Founded as Lynchburg Baptist College by Jerry Falwell
1978 Regent University Founded as Christian Broadcasting Network University by Pat Robertson
four types of bible scholars today
non-religious (majority)
liberal Christians (mainline denominations)
evangelicals
Catholic/Orthodox
views of inspiration (list all 6 and describe for quiz)
skeptical view (entirely a human creation, containing truth and error)
the authors of the bible interpreted their experiences and told stories on the basis of what they believed God was and had done.
mixed view (partially of human origin, containing truth and error)
God inspired some parts of the bible but not others
typically the parts of the bible rejected are those that conflict with present day views of morality, history, and science
limited inspiration (partially of divine origin, containing truth and error (but not doctrinal))
the bible holds authority with regard to belief and practice, but not with regard to history or science
infallible but not inerrant
inerrant (of divine origin, containing truth only)
superintendence view: God had worked with those who wrote the bible, giving them experiences and understandings such that when they came to write, they communicated the truths/concepts God wanted (though not exact words)
superintendence plenary verbal view (every word is exactly what God wanted)
dictation view: God dictated the exact words he wanted written even if the writer didn’t understand them, making God the sole author and everyone else mere secretaries
views 1-2 put the reader over the text, at least part of the time
views 3-4 put the reader under the text, all of the time
if you are over the text, you have a say in whether or not what it says is correct
if you are under the text, when the bible disagrees with what you think, you are wrong and it is right
furthermore, depending on your view for inspiration, you will have a different methodology when it comes to forming bible doctrines
for this class we assuming the bible is true as it relates to doctrine (compatible w/ views 3 and 4)
this is necessary to do biblical theology as opposed to liberal theology (ex. of Ehrman saying each gospel author had a different christology!)
principles of biblical theology
Ask God for help to illuminate scripture through his spirit.
Be willing to change if the preponderance of the biblical evidence turns out to challenge what you currently believe. The truth has nothing to fear.
Don’t insist on figuring everything out. It’s better to live with uncertainty when it comes to a particular doctrine or practice than to force yourself to adopt a position that you know is flawed.
Collect all the verses on the subject. This is best achieved by reading through the entire bible with your particular doctrine in mind. Alternatively, the internet or bible software can aid you in gathering the relevant texts.
Take into consideration the history of redemption. In other words, don’t insist that something must remain unchanged from an earlier part of the bible to a latter section.
Work to arrive at a position that has the greatest explanatory scope.
Include others in your study. Invite criticism of your position. Iron sharpens iron (Prov 27.17).
Figure out how to live this out today. What good are your beliefs if you don’t apply them to life?
—— Links ——
See other episodes in this Theology Class
Find more Restitutio classes here
For more on correct bible study, listen to Interview 28: Exegetical Fallacies with Jerry Wierwille or these on bible interpreation
Learn about the Atlanta Bible College
Happy New Year. I’m so excited to begin with you a new class that covers a whole range of biblical doctrines. In fact, I’m going to combine two classes into one and I think they will work together really well. The first class was originally titled “Basic Bible Doctrine” and it covered approximately fifteen different major beliefs. The goal was to explain these aspects of theology and give supporting scripture and reasons for them. I’m combining this with a more advanced class called “Solutions to Bible Texts,” which deals with commonly misunderstood verses on a bunch of doctrines. I’m going to attempt to interweave these two, so that you get a comprehensive understanding of theology.
Now I realize that you very well may disagree with my understanding on some of these beliefs, so we may have some exciting dialog in the comments on these episodes. I will freely admit at the outset that I don’t know everything and that I have been wrong in the past. I just ask that you give this class a charitable listen and check it against the scriptures to see if it is true. Hopefully, this will be a good way to lay it all out there and see what you think. To begin with, this episode is an introduction that covers some important basics about approaching truth and building biblical doctrines.
—— Notes ——
In one sense there’s nothing basic about bible doctrine. Constructing a coherent biblical theology on any topic takes immense effort from collecting the many texts on the topic to interpreting each of them based on their own literary, historical, and theological contexts to conceiving of an understanding that simply yet elegantly embraces the most texts possible while minimizing the number of difficult texts to comparing other doctrinal systems both ancient and modern—the process is anything but “basic.” Even so, the end result is often simple enough to comprehend and communicate, though it rests upon the work of teams of specialists drawn from a variety of fields.
the bereans
Acts 17.11
what was Paul trying to convince them to believe?
neither accepted nor rejected<–really impressed Paul
tested Paul’s message against the scriptures
why is it so important to be willing to change our beliefs?
b/c it’s easy to misunderstand the bible
geographic separation (what’s the Arabah?)
cultural separation (did they have divorce? could they read? did they have running water?)
different religious groups (what’s the difference between a Saducee and a Pharisee?)
language (what language did Jesus speak? how do we know that? ephphatha)
metaphysics: function over essence (why did God call the light day?)
anachronism: since everything is so different, it takes serious work to not read our own ideas into the bible
reasons why it can be hard to change our beliefs
easier to keep them the same
might need to leave our church
might lose friends, relationship with kids (Ray Faircloth), marriage (1 Cor 7)
might lose job opportunities
identity might be wrapped up in being 3rd generation church of God or whatever
remember when I went to BU and got asked what I was
anabaptist, adventist, biblical unitarian, restorationist
my core identity (what defines me at more core, but doesn’t change no matter where I am on my quest for understanding)
love God
follow Christ
seek truth
typical to think doctrine doesn’t matter or worse that it’s divisive
not taught to argue constructively
head knowledge vs. heart knowledge
mind vs. emotions vs. actions
false way of splitting things up
you should have emotional attachment to your doctrine
your doctrine does affect what you do, how you live and vice versa
the bible simply doesn’t talk this way
don’t split yourself up, but recognize you are a whole person
how much deviation from the truth puts someone in trouble?
Jesus had 10 apostles and was in the grave 4 days instead of 3?
think Jesus is messiah but didn’t die for our sins (Muslims)?
think Jesus came to America to preach to the natives (Mormons)?
a good double standard
I want to know, so I’ll look into everything for myself
I won’t judge others for disagreeing unless it is something that could compromise their salvation (i.e. not knowing the gospel, not following Jesus, practicing idolatry, etc.)
why doctrine matters
how you think affects what you do
a bad doctrine can lead to damnation
a good doctrine can bring countless people to salvation
an example of a bad doctrine:
burning heretics
heretics are going to hell
if we don’t do anything they will convince others of their ideas and cause others to go to hell
hell is a burning fire of eternal torment
burn them now as a public example to show everyone what hell will be like if you believe their ideas
an example of good doctrine:
martyrs
Christ has already broken the power of death when God raised him from the dead
he will raise me up on the last day
If I confess him, he will confess me; if I deny him, he will deny me
I should follow his example of how he died
dying for Christ is a high honor
I can’t do this on my own, but God will strengthen me so I can testify
three levels of theology
level 1: understand the biblical doctrine
level 2: understand the alternatives, their reasons and texts
level 3: develop a cogent and detailed response to criticisms of your beliefs
—— Links ——
See other episodes in this Theology Class
Find more Restitutio classes here
For more on correct bible study, listen to Interview 28: Exegetical Fallacies with Jerry Wierwille or these on bible interpreation
Learn about the Atlanta Bible College
Greg Deuble grew up in the Church of Christ in Australia, went to N.S.W. Bible College in Sydney, and spent fifteen years serving as a pastor and evangelist. One day he attended a meeting during which Anthony Buzzard challenged him on his belief in the deity of Christ. Rattled, Deuble began on a quest to reassess all of his doctrinal convictions in light of scripture. As a lifelong member of the restorationist tradition, Deuble always wanted to practice the authentic Christianity of the apostles and couldn’t just slough off such important questions. The result was his book, They Never Told Me This in Church, an exposé of how bad philosophy corrupted the teaching of scripture.
—— Links ——
Visit Greg Deuble’s website at thebiblejesus.com
Get his book They Never Told Me This in Church on Amazon
Take a look at this YouTube video where Deuble shares his testimony
Get in touch with Deuble at greg@thebiblejesus.com
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
For more than a decade, Sam An has faithfully served as an administrator and teacher at the Korean Extension of the Atlanta Bible College. In this interview, you’ll learn about his own story of faith as well as what God is doing through his ministry to touch Koreans both in America and in South Korea.
—— Links ——
Check out the Korean Extension’s website at abcke.weebly.com
Watch Steve An teaching in Korean on his YouTube channel
Apply to be a student at the Atlanta Bible College Korean Extension
Get in touch with Sam An at info.abcke@gmail.com or by calling (678) 392 – 2600
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Have you heard of the Christian Disciples Church? They are a biblical unitarian group scattered throughout Asia primarily. In this episode Calvin Chan, who has been with the disciples since the beginning, will tell you the story of how this group got started as a student disciple movement. He also shares about how the founder, Pastor Eric Chang, reexamined what the bible says about Jesus and had the courage to change his mind when he was in his seventies.
—— Links ——
Check out the Christian Disciple Church online
Take a look at The Only True God online or on Amazon.
Also, here’s the sequel, The Only Perfect Man
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
This is the fourth and final part of our Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series with Bill Schlegel. In this episode he offers remarks on Philippians 2.5-6, Colossians 2.9, and Revelation 1.17. After this, I ask him one of the biggest questions on this subject: if Jesus isn’t God then how can his sacrifice possibly pay for our sins? As usual Schlegel points out that this is not a biblical question–Jesus never asked it, Paul never asked it, and John never asked it. If no one ever makes this point in scripture, maybe we should wonder why our questions are so out of line with theirs?
—— Links ——
Check out the other episodes in the Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series.
To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job
Check out his excellent book, the Satellite Bible Atlas
Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube
For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right)
Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
In parts one and two, we examined ten misunderstood verses in the Gospel of John. In part three, we’ll examine seven more texts from the rest of the bible:
Genesis 1.26
Isaiah 9.6
Matthew 2.2
Matthew 28.9
Matthew 28.19 (cf. 2 Cor 13.14)
Romans 9.5
Acts 20.28
Repeatedly, Bill Schlegel calls us back to understand each verse within its immediate and canonical contexts, rather than reading in later theological commitments.
—— Links ——
Check out the other episodes in the Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series.
To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job
Check out his excellent book, the Satellite Bible Atlas
Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube
For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right)
Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
This is part two of my series with Bill Schlegel, former professor of the Israel Bible Extension and long time bible teacher and geography expert. Last time we discussed five major texts in the Gospel of John and this time we cover four or five more:
John 10.30
John 10.33
John 13.18-19
John 20.28
1 John 5.20
Next time we’ll discuss a number of more important verses in the rest of the bible.
—— Links ——
Check out the other episodes in the Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series.
To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job
Check out his excellent book, the Satellite Bible Atlas here
Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube
For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right)
Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Today we are beginning a new series called “Misunderstood Texts about Jesus” with Bill Schlegel. Professor Schlegel lived and taught the bible and geography in Israel for more than three decades. Recently, he came to change his mind on the deity of Jesus, seeing him now as God’s man rather than a God-man. Since he made this change, several friends and acquaintances have brought up a number of scriptures that they believe prove Jesus is God. This podcast series is Schlegel’s opportunity to answer these commonly misunderstood verses and explain what they mean. In this episode we discuss the following texts:
John 1.1
John 1.14
John 1.18
John 5.18
John 8.58
Next time we’ll discuss five more scriptures from John.
—— Links ——
To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job
Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube
For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right)
Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Q: How do you know the bible is true?
A: Because God wrote it.
Q: How do you know God wrote it?
A: Because the bible says God wrote it.
Q: But, how do you know the bible is true?
Here we encounter the classic circular argument for the bible’s inspiration. Surely, there’s a better way to go about establishing God’s influence on this book.
In this episode we’ll take a look at three main comparative texts from the same part of the world and same time as the bible was written, including the Enuma Elish, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Ebers Papyrus. By comparing the bible to these Babylonian and Egyptian texts we can see just how unusual it was in its own context. This, in turn, helps up have more confidence that God in fact did work with the authors of his book, providing them with an alternative source of information that cut against the grain of wisdom of their age.
Stay tuned afterwards for a couple of event announcements
Winter Teen Camp
held at Living Faith Christian Church in Warwick, RI (Dec 28-30)
winterteencamp.com
a weekend for teens to learn about God and spend time together building relationships and serving the community
early bird rate is only $60.00 for those who register by December 9th. After December 10th the cost is $75
Revive 2019
held at Woodstock, CT (Jan 4-6)
lhim.org/revive
a weekend for young adults (20+) to worship and enjoy time with other believers
theme is Wisdom, looking at the wisdom literature, including Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes
$146 per person, please register if you know you’re coming so we can get a good count
—— Links ——
See also the YouTube video God Speaks through Scripture (10 reasons to believe the bible is true)
More resources on the reliability and trustworthiness of the bible
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Our world seems intent on trotting out the same extremist examples of Christianity as either a homophobic religion (think Westboro Baptist Church) or a totally accepting faith (think Episcopalians). However, these are not the only positions Christians take on this subject. In this talk, Wesley Hill, assistant professor of biblical studies at Trinity School for Ministry, not only advocates for but lives out a third way.
Hill identifies as gay while agreeing with the historic view of the church that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Not only that, he wants to help other gay and lesbian people come into Christianity without compromising what the bible teaches on sexuality or lying to themselves about same-sex attraction. Consequently, he is committed to singleness for life. This is hard road to walk, but he believes it’s the best way forward. Even so, he’s concerned about gay Christians getting their needs met for intimacy and friendship within the church. How tragic would it be to heroically sacrifice marriage and parenthood on the altar of biblical faithfulness only to wake up at 65 years old, alone, single, isolated, and without meaningful connections to anyone?
Hill says the church needs to step up not only by rooting out homophobia, but also building and strengthening friendship bonds between singles and singles as well as singles and families. He concludes, “God calls us precisely in saying, ‘No’ to same-sex marriage to say, ‘Yes’ to intimacy, ‘Yes’ to Christian community, ‘Yes’ to same-sex friendship, ‘Yes’ to a life of love in the body of Christ.”
—— Links ——
Read more about spiritual friendship at spiritualfriendship.org
Hill’s faculty page at the Trinity School for Ministry
Check out his book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, which tells his story of reconciling his faith with his sexuality and how he came to think of celibacy as his calling.
See also Interview 18 with Becket Cook, a fashion set designer who likewise embraced celibacy to follow Christ
For more, search Youtube for testimonies by Christopher Yuan, Rosaria Butterfield, Jackie Hill, and Sam Allberry.
Also, see Podcast 82: Biblical Boundaries for Same-Sex Attraction as well as Podcast 83: Questions about Gay and Lesbian Christians
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Our culture longs for authenticity. We’re tired of fakers and phonies who say one thing and do another. People should just be true to themselves and have the courage to flout tradition when it holds them back from genuine self-expression. However, this mentality results in major individual and social problems from sexually transmitted diseases to sexual harassment to racism and mass shootings. Christianity offers a better way, by providing a standard to conform ourselves to that maximally enables human flourishing.
—— Notes ——
Colossians 3:1-5 The terminology in v5 is excessively hostile: “put to death what is earthly in you.” Don’t reason with it, or seek to diminish its influence. Don’t try to understand it, or make excuses for it. Kill it! Put it down.
Colossians 3:6 God did not design us to behave this way. He gave us passions but placed boundaries on them. When people defy His original intention, it bothers Him.
Colossians 3:7-10 This is the language of clothing: put off and put on. We must strip off the old way of being a human (Adam) and clothe ourselves with the new way of being a human (Christ), which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its Creator—the way God originally designed us.
Colossians 3:11 Not only behavior but social barriers need to change. Ethnicity, social status, education, independence are all outshone by the splendor of Christ’s radiant glory, enabling harmony between us all.
Colossians 3:12-17 Imagine that there are two towns that live by each of these opposing ways: Freetown and Corpus Christi. Which would you rather live in? As you conform to the Christian lifestyle, it becomes second nature. It does not crush you or rob you of your humanity, but it provides the necessary boundaries to make human growth and flourishing possible.
—— Links ——
More episodes like this:
Off Script 1: Seeing the Filter
Off Script 2: Hyper-Individualism
Off Script 3: Tolerance
72: Free as a Fish on Land
Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.