Review: Christ and the Kosmoses by Charles W. Asbell

Christ and the Kosmoses by Charles W. Asbell
Scripture Research - Vol 4 - No. 14

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This little book was actually a nice read. I honestly was not sure what to expect, knowing nothing of the background or theological stance of the author. Even their web site had little theological affiliations listed to reveal their position. But I read on anyway, awaiting an answer.

This booklet deal with the idea of the Greek term kosmos, as used throughout the NT, is not actually referring to the world as a whole, but to a dispensation - a time - an era containing a specific people, and their dealing with God within it. I am not alien to this concept, and so it was not at all startling. I guess I just never looked at applying the use of kosmos to such a thought. I knew of the overarching "this age" and the "age to come" separation of the Hebrew understanding, and this kosmos understanding kind of aligns right along side of that.

By What Atonement? - God's Failed Plan?

Ideas have consequences, and I wonder sometimes if people were to follow some of their ideas through to their logical conclusion, if they would/could still hold to them.

For the last 2000+ years, the Christian church has preached that the gospel - the good news - is that Christ died in our place, paying the ransom, fulfilling the law, and making atonement for our sin. We were once alienated from God, in darkness, but have now been converted, and born again, through the work of Christ on the cross. He died so that we would have life. The death of Christ on the cross is pretty much the central point of the Christian faith, and without it, we would all still be stuck in our sins and death.

Yet, to read that many in the modern dispensationalist camp teach that the crucifixion of Christ was in fact not the plan, and that had the Jews not rejected and crucified him, that he would have in fact set up the promised earthly kingdom.

Reinventing Jesus (Pt. 5)

Section five is the final section of the book I've been discussing, Reinventing Jesus, and it takes a look at the accusations that Christianity and its elements are simply a relabeling of pagan religions. This is a very fascinating section, since it is one of the root issues even today among Christians who oppose a celebration of Christmas for similar reasons; a group of which I was formerly a member of.

Why should we consider the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Mithras, and other Pagan Mystery saviors as fables, yet come across essentially the same story told in a Jewish context and believe it to be the biography of a carpenter from Bethlehem? ... Jesus was a Pagan god...and Christianity was a heretical product of Paganism!

- Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy,
The Jesus Mysteries, 9

Nothing in Christianity is original.

- Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, 232

The traditional history of Christianity cannot convincingly explain why the Jesus story is so similar to ancient Pagan myths.

- Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
The Laughing Jesus, 61

Reinventing Jesus (Pt. 3)

The holiday weekend allowed me to catch up on a bit more reading than usual, so I was able to finish this book I have been discussing, Reinventing Jesus. Picking up with part four of the book, this section deals with the divinity of Jesus. Some of these modern writers like to claim that Jesus was only "declared" diving centuries after his death at the council of Nicaea. I found this, as well as section five to be probably the highlight of this whole book, as far as things I really wanted to know more about. OK, so I think I could probably say the same thing about part three. Actually, this whole book has been a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it.

Jesus' establishment as "the Son of God" was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.

- Dan Brown
The Da Vinci Code, 233

There is nothing recorded in the Gospels showing that Jesus clearly affirmed his own divinity.

-Shabir Ally
Muslim apologist on PAX's Faith Under Fire program
November 27, 2004

Reinventing Jesus (Pt. 1)

One day last week, I rented and watched the Dan Brown inspired movie "Angels and Demons." Unlike the previous "Da Vinci Code" movie, which had it's little 15 minute segment directly attacking Scripture and the historic Jesus, this movie was pretty tame. It was more an "attack" on fictitious corruption in the Roman Catholic Papal system and the Vatican, and nothing against Christianity itself. After watching the movie, it made me recall a book I had started reading about two or so years ago called Reinventing Jesus: What The Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You, which I know I never finished. So, I went and got it off the shelf and started up where I left off (though I do plan to go back and re-read the early sections), and spent part of my Christmas vacation reading (surprising I know).

The Shack Attack

Ok, so I may be a little out of touch with modern literature (I tend to read more books by dead guys), especially when it comes to all of the modern day fiction that gets pumped out in the Christian market. When it comes to fiction, the main books which have caught my eye would be the more modern Hanegraaff/Brouwer Last Disciple series, of course the classics like the Narnia series and the Lord of the Rings series, as well as the even more classic Bunyan writings Pilgrim's Progress and The Holy War. With the tons of fiction that gets pumped out these days, it is no surprise that I missed hearing about The Shack by William P. Young until just recently.

I was intrigued by the comparison that this book might be potentially as influential on our generation as Bunyan's classic was on his, I thought it worth looking into what all the discussion was about. The book has obviously generated great interest in both the Christian and secular world, so what exactly is it about? I had noticed in passing that something about the book had been mentioned for a few weeks in our church bulletin, but never paid much attention to it, since they often mention book reviews, etc. in there. When I heard that the book was controversial, I read the mention in the bulletin more closely to find that our church had a couple printed book reviews of it on the church book table, so I picked up some copies and dug into them today.

I have not read the book, and from what I am reading review wise, have no plans on running out and buying or reading it (I have way too many other great books to read, why waste time on what I am finding to be less than truthful material). So, while there are tons of reviews on this book, I found the following ones to be quite informative and revealing, so simply wanted to share these links.

They reveal the attacks that the books make upon the modern Church, Seminaries, and many aspects of biblical theology (mainly God's sovereignty, free will, sin and the trinity). When books like Dan Brown's ridiculously fictitious Da Vinci Codeand Angels and Demons become so hugely popular in the secular market because of their attacks on historic Christian truths, it is understandable. The Christian market rose up and spoke out against such attacks. The books went on to be huge and became high grossing movies.

When a book like The Shack comes along, and has just as many (actually, it sound like it has even more) glaring historic and biblical errors in it (and talks of a movie seem to be in the works too), it is quite a surprise to find many in the church buying, consuming, and giving praise for it.

There are so many good points from these reviews that I would love to highlight to entice you to read further, but instead will just say please...read further. Be informed about the issues and controversy surrounding this book. It has become so hugely popular, even (oddly) by many Christians, that you will probably need to be equipped in case you run into someone (maybe even in your own church) praising this compelling and theology altering slab of fiction.

The first review is from Paul Grimmond written in Nov. 2008:

We Need more shack time

and the second is a bit longer and thorough one, being more of a booklet (in .pdf format) but well worth the time investment, by Tim Challies:

A Reader's Review of The Shack

Read...and be informed.

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 4)

As we continue our brief look at the doctrine of universalism and their belief that God wishes, desires and sets out to accomplish the ultimate salvation of every single human on earth, I now turn attention to some passages that have a definite "limited" scope of redemption. We've already discussed and looked at many misused passages where the Greek word for "all" has a limited scope and meaning, so we know that the original language in these instances are not as far reaching as the universalist would like to imply, but what about some of the more clearer passages that show redemption was intended to be more restrictive?

Let us turn our attention to one of the earliest passages regarding the prophecy of the coming messiah and his promised redemption. Isaiah 53 tells us much about the coming Messiah and the suffering he would do and the ultimate redemption he would accomplish. Now, look closely at the scope of his redemption:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

So, we are told he would come, and by his sacrifice, he shall bare the sins of every single human? All? No..., he would bare the sins of many. Looking at the Hebrew word used here for many, which is rab, none of the meanings for this word could be stretched to apply to every single person, it has a limited scope in mind. So, this was the prophesied hope given to Israel. Also, note, in this redemption plan, it is noted that he shall "see his seed." Some may try to argue that we are all God's children, we are all his seed, and therefore this obviously applies to every single person. However it takes little effort to prove otherwise. Flip back to the garden, and God's declaration of the promise of a savior back then.

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen. 3:14-15)

So, we have two seeds mentioned, the seed of the women (speaking directly of Jesus and ultimately those that are his) and the seed of the serpent (and ultimately those who are his). We'll come back to this in a moment.

Now, jump back to the Greek Scriptures, and what are we told there? First, we have Joseph being told of his wife's pregnancy, and the angel tells him:

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt. 1:21)

His people? Not every single person, just those that are his? But aren't all people on Earth the children of God, therefore his people? Obviously not, as we have already seen there are two seed lines. On top of that, we find Jesus later making a distinct delineation between the two lines and their fathers when speaking with some Jewish leaders:

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. (John 8:38-44)

So, Jesus divides the lines into the children of his Father, and the children of the devil, similar to what we have seen in Genesis.

Jesus divides again using different languages when he speaks of the story of the Good Shepherd, he divides mankind into those that are his sheep and those that are not, and then plainly states:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11, 15)

...and then he further explains in verses 24 and following what it is he gives to these sheep of his:

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

So, if Jesus says he lays his life down for the sheep only...then he tells these Jews that they are not his sheep, and that further, he gives only his sheep eternal life (where are non-sheep promised eternal life?), and again, these men being addressed are plainly told they are not part of the sheep; then how can we twist this to say he laid down his life and paid the price to give every single person in the world, without exception, eternal life? Was Jesus confused about what he was come to do, or was he just lying to them?

In an echo of the passages we looked at in Isaiah, even Jesus himself repeats

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45)

At another time, when he was establishing the actual new covenant, he states:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24)

This of course leads us to look at the same language used later in Matthew, where Jesus' people are again to referred to as the sheep, while the rest are referred to as the goats, when they come to the judgment and are separated:

Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...“Then he will say to those on his left (the goats), ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...And these (goats) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (sheeps) into eternal life. (Matt. 25:31-46)

So, again, the language of blessing for sheep, and not for others (goats) is evident; so how can we possibly make these things out to say salvation is universally applied to every single member of mankind, and that all will be ultimately given eternal, blessed life?

While there are a couple other stray, seemingly "universal" sounding verses about Jesus dying for the whole world and the like, this part is already too long to jump into that. The Bible can't be promoting both a limited and unlimited scope as truth, and hopefully the evidence we've seen for a limited view has been persuasive enough to cause a further study into these other seemingly universal sounding words. We'll look into those in the next part...Lord willing.

Until then....

Book Review: The Promise of His Coming (Peter Leithart)

I recently finished reading Peter Leithart's short (only 105 pages), but power packed overview/commentary on 2 Peter and found it to be packing a lot more than I had anticipated considering it's size.

Not only does it do an excellent job at explaining the first century context and fulfillment of the book, but he even spends some time doing a good job at defending the authenticity and authorship of the book; an added bonus I was not expecting in this short treatise.

He writes this overview from a purely Preterist interpretation, seeking to prove the events discussed were indeed relevant and came to pass during the lifetime of the first century audience it was written to. The book could be divided into five main discussion, which he refers to as his "Knock Down Arguments" and are as follows:

Knock Down Argument #1:
Peter wrote his second letter on the theme of the coming of Jesus, which he says was also a theme of his first letter, which is 1 Peter. Since 1 Peter's teaching about the "coming" of Jesus highlights its imminence, 2 Peter must be dealing with the same looming event.
Knock Down Argument #2:
Peter defends the reliability of the promised coming of Jesus by reference to the Transfiguration. In each of the Synoptics, this event is connected immediately with a prophecy of Jesus' "coming" within the lifetime of some of His disciples, a prophecy filled out in the Olivet Discourse. Peter's argument from the Transfiguration makes best sense if he is using it to support this prophecy. Thus the "coming" that Peter insists will happen is an event that Jesus said would take place in the first century.
Knock Down Argument #3:
Peter says explicitly that the destruction of false teachers is coming "soon." Their destruction is the same event as the destruction of the present heavens and earth, the "day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (3:7). If the destruction of false teachers was near when Peter wrote, so also was the destruction of the heavens and earth and the coming of a new heavens and earth.
Knock Down Argument #4
Peter responds to mockers who doubt the promise of Jesus' coming because time has passed without any sign of the Parousia. If there were no time limit on the original prophecy, then the mockers would have no grounds for their mockery and no way to attract converts to their skeptical views. Therefore, the original prophecy must have included a time limit, a terminus ad quem, and that time limit must have been the lifetime of the apostles.
Knock Down Argument #5:
For the mockers, the passing of the "fathers," the apostles and their associates, casts doubt on the truth of Jesus' promise to come in power. This objection has weight only if Jesus had in fact promised to come before the "fathers" passed from the scene. Thus the prophecy in dispute in 2 Peter 3 promised a "coming" within the apostolic generation. The prophecy Peter says will be fulfilled is a prophecy about Jesus' coming within the generation.

One by one, he pounds and punches holes in the futurist position, until finally, the futurist argument has no leg to stand on.
The only small section which I found was weak, was his dealing with the angels of 2 Peter 2:4, where he takes the lineage of Seth view over the actual historically understood angelic presence view. This should be understandable considering the lengthy discussion I already had on this issue in prior blog posts (see postings starting HERE). Even with that disagreement aside, this has got to be one of the best looks at 2 Peter I have seen, especially considering the size of the work as mentioned.
The only other slightly odd comment I found relating to this book, was the description on the back cover, which states:

In this study, Peter Leithart offers a preterist reading of the epistle, arguing that it describes first-century events rather than the end of history. At the same time, he maintains orthodoxy, avoiding hyper-preterism and affirming both the real future return of Christ...

Maybe I missed it the first time around, or maybe I misunderstand what a hyper-preterist view would be on 2 Peter, but aside from his simply denying a hyper-preterist position in the early chapter, the book itself never seems to address how his view on this epistle would in anyway differ from the "hyper" position's view on it. Leithart's plain words at the open of chapter three seem to be exactly what the "hyper" view would hold on this topic:

By this point, I hope I have made a plausible case that Peter's entire letter is about a set of prophecies that Peter expected to be fulfilled during the readers' lifetimes.

So aside from just drawing a distinction in his overall eschatological view from the other view, I do not see how this statement has any plausible relation to the discussions or conclusions in this book itself. Not a big point, but the back cover led me to believe the book might contain some kind of attention given as to how his conclusions would differ from the "hyper" position on this epistle, which it did not.

This book is readily available in both paperback and audio book format through the Apologia Book Shoppe (unless you feel the need to support the large monster stores like Amazon.com...lol).

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 3)

Let us look now at the covenantal aspects that some of these universalism interpreters seem to be totally missing. I am going to keep this really simple, and will be assuming most readers already understand much of this (in other words, time and space will not be given to expound or defend this very deeply).

The Old Testament tells us of God's dealing with his people; a special people chosen out of all the nations. A small group in comparison to many nations, but a group in which God showed special treatment to. They had the oracles and sacraments of God; they had his laws, his words, he special blessings (and cursings). They were HIS people unlike any other nation.

God had this special relationship with them, and established what is known as the Covenant, with them. They lived under the blessings of this Covenant, and received things that no other people received from God. One of the promises God gave to his people was that of a Messiah. A savior who would come and set them free. They, the people of God, this small group of people, were given a special promise of redemption by their creator, that no other nation was promised.

When this savior came upon the scene, he came first and foremost to his people; that was his mission, to his people, the covenant people of God (Matt. 15:22-24). His mission was to them, as their Messiah. He collected and taught the twelve, and then sent them only out to these same covenant people (Matt. 10).

Sure, this is painting with broad strokes, but I am trying to keep it simple, since that is what is required here. Sure, I know the promise of the Gentiles coming in was prophesied, and the eventual divorce and destruction of God's once covenant people had already been foretold (Deut. 32, Isaiah 65-66, etc.); but for now, the playing out that was going on at the time of Jesus, was the Messiah reaching out to HIS chosen and covenanted people.

So, his mission was limited to that of the nation that was God's covenanted people. He was their savior, he had come for them, and he sent forth apostles to them for their repentance. The focal point of Jesus' ministry while he was here, was to those covenanted people of God.

The Jews likewise had in their mind that it was them and them alone who God was for. Even the Apostles, who knew who Jesus was, were still under the impression he was there solely to bless and save the Jews. Those who converted from the Jewish ways to become followers of Jesus, likewise thought he was solely concerned with his covenanted people of old. We know even Peter had some issues with this, and had a hard time when Paul was called into the scene to be the preacher unto the Gentiles.

This is (or should be) common knowledge to those reading the Bible. This is the culture and understanding of those living at that time. The Jews were IT when it came to a relationship with the creator, the Gentiles were NOT. So, you have these preachers (the Apostles) now burst on the scene with claims that not only was Jesus the sacrifice and savior of the Covenant people, but that this salvation was also now being offered to those outside the old covenanted people. The gospel went to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). A hard pill to swallow as a Jewish man of that time frame.

So, with this understanding in your hand now, and I hope the universalists can get their head around this historical truth; is it so hard to understand that when it is proclaimed by a teacher that "Jesus died for all," it was not a declaration of Jesus' sacrifice being for every single member of mankind, but that it was a direct address to, a direct attack against, the idea that if Jesus was the Messiah (as many of these former Jews fully believed now), that his sacrifice was not simply only for the Jews as they still tended to think, but that he had died for...you guessed it..."all manner of men," both Jews AND Gentiles. They had to be taught and convinced that now, in this gospel age, the old ways of Judaism were quickly passing away, and that salvation was being offered to all men everywhere, all types of men, not just the Jews. Again, a hard pill to swallow, but the reality that needed to be preached.

That is why in part one I could declare (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that I AM a universalist also. I believe that the gospel message went from being for one small group of the world's population, to now being declared to be applicable to all of mankind...all manner of men everywhere, and not just the Jews any longer. The gospel and sacrifice was for all...in it's proper understanding as we have seen.

This leads us right back to our look at one of the universalist's scriptures we discussed...let us see how, in context, this is exactly what Paul was also saying here in 1 Timothy 2:1-8:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all (types of) men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all (types of) men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all (types), to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

Paul makes it a special point to note that he has been called to be an Apostles unto the Gentiles, again, letting them know that the message and promises are no longer to be thought of as strictly applying only to the single group of God's original covenant people, but now the message, hope, redemption and promises are for all (types of) men.

Paul is in no way saying that God was wishing for every single solitary member of the human race to be saved, as that would be contradictory to so many other passages...some of which we will look at in the next section.

Jump on over to PART 4

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 2)

OK, picking up where I left off the other day, let us delve into the original languages some; something most universalist promoters I have talked to do not like to do, or deny what is being said. Either they are trying to be dishonest to the text to fit their position, or they are just not wanting to admit that the English translation can only mean what it means in English as we use it today.

There are two main root words that are usually used and translated in some form of the English term all. Anyone with an interlinear Bible, Strong concordance, or electronic Bible program would have no problem quickly looking this up:

The first of these words is Strong's number 3650 - holos

In the KJV, it has been translated "all" 65 times, "whole" 43 times, "every whit" 2 times, and "altogether" 1 time

The meaning is listed as - all, whole, completely and would be more of what we would consider a word for all-inclusive, the whole of something.

The second word is Strong's numbered 3956 - pas

In the KJV, this one has been translated "all" 748 times, "all things" 170, "every" 117 times, "all men" 41 times, "whosoever" 31 times, "everyone" 28 times, "whole" 12 times, "all manner of" 11 times, and "every man" 11 times.

The meaning of this word is two-fold:

When used in the context of an individual:
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

When used in reference to a large number, or collectively (of a group, etc.):
2a) some of all types

So, in a nutshell, holos would mean whole, all-inclusive, the whole of what ever is the topic; pas would depend on what the topic is, but in the case of speaking of a large number or group, is speaking of part of them, all-types of the group; not all-inclusive or every single one, but a selection of them. Now, with the original understanding in hand, let us go examine some of the usages in Scripture. Let us start where we left off in part one, and put one of those verses I used to the test:

And Jesus went about all (holo) Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of (pas) sickness and all manner of (pas) disease among the people. (Matt. 4:23)

So, we have both words used here, "holo" meaning whole, meaning he did go throughout all of the land, but did he heal every single disease and sickness in the place? No, the word "pas" tells us he healed all kind and types of them, but not every single one without exclusion. Let us look at the very next verse for an example of translation confusion for those not knowing the original word and usage:

And his fame went throughout all (holo) Syria: and they brought unto him all (pas) sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Again, both words are used, but the English translates slightly different, even though the same root words are used in the same manner. He was known throughout the entire, whole land of Syria, and they brought to him "pas" - speaking of a large group of people - so "all types" or "all manner of" sick people; not every single sick person without exception.

There are so many numerous examples I could use, but for the sake of brevity, I will stop with these examples (look further, here are just a few more, Matt. 14:35; 24:14; 26:56; Mark 12:33; 12:44).

Lets turn back to one of the key passages the universalists like to toss around, which is 1 Tim. 2:4, which states about God "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." But now, let us put it back into it's context and look closer:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 1-4)

God wills for all men to be saved...and you guessed it, every single use of "all" in these series of verses in pas. How are we to understand the use of pas here; look at the context, he is talking about groups of people...kings...and all those in authority; therefore pas refers to "all manner" of these men, and not every single solitary one of them. So a more proper rendering of this verse would be (in summary), "pray for kings and those in authority, for God wills for all manner of men to be saved (even the rulers, in other words). Hmmmmmmmm.

The few verses that follow and finish up this section of Paul's address are even more revealing, bringing this entire section into more understanding from a covenantal standpoint, but I will save that for next time.

Continue to part 3

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 1)

I AM A UNIVERSALIST! There you go, I said it, go run and spread the news of my heretical views....or, stick around and let me explain.

I had another slight run in with a handful of people who would fall into a universalist understanding of salvation last week, and so it sparked the idea of laying down some of my thoughts here (since they never listen long enough to consider what is being said). Let me first make a brief, and probably too wide of a brush definition of what is the normal understanding of universalism.

Universalism is at the basic root, the belief that since God will not be thwarted by Satan, and Satan will win nothing, that God has a plan to take it all back. God desires that all mankind be saved (1 Tim 2:4). He therefore sent His Son Jesus to lay down his life and provide a blood covering for all, and since Jesus' blood is effective, all will be saved.

So, how am I a universalist? I believe God wishes all to be saved, and sent his Son to die for all. The key difference lies in the understanding of the Greek word lying behind the English translation "all." Sadly, I will not get deeper into this till part two...so don't go spreading rumors about me yet.

Oddly, when you try to bring up what the little word all means in the original language, they close out everything you have to say, it seems. They start throwing out things like, "stop speaking to me of man made understandings," as if I am using tricks of man to distort the word of God; but isn't that backwards thinking? After all, the Scriptures in question come from a Greek and Hebrew language background that has been translated as closely as possible to an English understanding, by man. So the English Bible translation is the only real "man-made" part of the equation, and is only as good as the translators were (and we know how that can be ;-}).

The universalist crowd would, and have said, all means all; implying it means all-inclusive when applied to whatever the topic is. So, when it says God wishes all to be saved, it means He wishes all people, without exclusion of any, every single individual, to be eternally saved. When Jesus died for all, it means He died for all men, without exclusion, every single person to have ever lived. They don't get that from looking at the original language, or from even considering the usage of the word in Scriptures that won't fit this understanding they have, they simply just keep repeating, ALL MEANS ALL.

I agree, all does mean all; but all does not always mean all-inclusive. It doesn't in English, nor does it in the original language, and when you consider the Scriptures within their proper Covenantal context, it makes no sense at all when you try to force that upon it.

Now before I break out the original languages and get all theological and technical, let us just simply consider in this first part, how the English word itself is used, to see some examples of variances in use that even we have for it in our day and time, and how it can mean something different in different scenarios, contradicting their understanding with their own modern language.

"Man, I tossed and turned and was up all night." So, are we saying that we did not sleep a single moment of the entire night? Sure, we could be saying that is literally true, but is that commonly what we mean?

"I wish you'd stop, you're stay on my case about that all the time." So, not a minute goes by when the person is not on the other person's case about the issue?

"I think about you all the time." Not a minute goes by that I am not thinking about you?

"All of America was glued to their TV that night." Every single individual in America was watching TV that night?

"When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." (Matt. 2:3) Every single person in Jerusalem was troubled?

"Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt. 3:5-6) So, we are to understand that every single person of Judea and every single person in every region of Jordan went and got baptized by John?

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (Matt. 4:8) So, from the top of that mountain Jesus saw every single kingdom on the whole globe (or does world always mean whole globe...a topic for another day).

I could go on and on, but you hopefully get the point. Context (in sentence structure as well as cultural/covenantal use) plays a huge part of how a word is to be understood, and we still to this day use simple translational understandings with such words as all.

Let me end by revealing the thrust of my argument, and set it up for part two of this series. While I wish, as I am sure many of you do too, that translators were always consistent in translation, this is not always so, and if taken strictly at English face value, can lead to confusions such as the universalists make. I leave you with but one single example of the same exact same Greek word for all being translated in a more proper manner.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. (Matt. 4:23)

The same single little Greek word is here translated as the phrase "all manner of" which is exactly the thrust of the word more often than not.

Click to get to Part 2

Book Recommendation: The Day and the Hour (Francis X. Gumerlock)

I have had this book on my shelf for some time, but finally pulled it down and have been reading through it. The Day and the Hour (by Francis X. Gumerlock) is a fascination wealth of blurbs about people throughout most all of history who have predicted the "second coming" and/or the "end of the world" and all such similar surrounding theological positions. I am surprised at just how much content there is, and some of the obscure people and teachings. It must have been some feat to gather so much information

The book starts with predictions as early as 41 AD, and goes through predictions set as late as 3836 (yes, even a small blurb about 2012...lol). Most of the comments range from simple one-liners to a small paragraph (except for the more modern times discussions), but the huge amount of reference and footnotes for each chapter is a wealth of resources worth the price of the book itself.

Much of it is quite humorous, but overall, it just shows how quick man has been to jump on the "end of the world" bandwagon over the simplest things in history. Of course, it also shows how they have ALL been so wrong. Of course when it comes to our own generation, and you see the failed predictions over and over again by men who are still being published, preaching and teaching, it makes you wonder what is wrong with people...and what if we brought back the death penalty for false prophets ;-]

Interesting reading for sure.

Death Examined (Pt 2)

I have always been taught, as many of you probably have, that Adam was created immortal, and would never had died if he had been faithful and not eaten from the tree. I had never really questioned it, rarely ever giving it a second thought, until I started reading and asking questions about things, then found out that many other reputable theologians taught that this was not the case.

One of the first things that hit me was, why was Adam given free access to the tree of life if he was immortal? Why would he need life if he would never die?

Actually, the first thing that got me thinking and looking further, was the way it was written in the Young's Literal translation of the Bible:

and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die

In dying you will die? That struck me as odd, and appears to be saying that when you die, you will die. I then flipped over to the Septuagint, which basically says "die by death." So, was there a way to die without being by "death" is one question? The English translations all basically say "shall surely die" yet looking at the original Hebrew there, the words thou shalt surely do not actually exist, and you have just two words, similar Hebrew words, both labeled with the same Strong's code for die; yet the two words differ slightly, so technically would be dying die.

Now remember, this is the same verse that says in the very day that they eat, they shall "die" (by death?), so whatever is being said here, we have every right to assume that it will take place on the very day they transgress. Since we know they did not drop down and physically die after eating, we have every right to understand the death being spoken of as differing from physical death. It does NOT say when they eat they will begin dying, as some stretch it to say; nor does it say they will become mortal and thus be on track to die. It says on the day they eat, they will die.

One thing we do know for certain, on the day they ate, within moments after the act, they were changed for sure. So, who was right, God or the serpent? God said they would die (by death), the serpent said they wouldn't die, but would have their eyes opened. Did they die? Did they have their eyes open? Yes, it seems they did both, which seems to imply that their eyes being opened is related to the death promised. So, was God's promise of "dying" on the day of eating relating to actual physical end of life?

Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period to begin the search, and found the following regarding death:

Views of death in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish texts, and the New Testament vary widely. Death is seen as both natural and a result of sin. The tension appears already in Genesis 2-3. God warns the first humans that if they transgress the commandment they will die (2:17). Nonetheless, their exclusion from the immortality that the tree of life could give them indicates that they were mortal at the time they sinned (3:22-24).

So, we see the connection made as I mentioned before. The tree of life, in some way, would prolong their life, possibly even grant immortality, meaning they did not already possess immortality. It goes on:

The term "death" developed a moral dimension, particularly in the wisdom literature in the concept of the two ways of life and death. To sin was to walk in the way of death, in two senses. One's sins could lead to premature death. The person who lived an unrighteous life, apart from God, was already walking in the realm of death.

This is an important remark, I believe. Someone who is living in sin, living outside of God's righteous commands, later to be referred to as living outside of God's covenant, are said to already be dead. When Adam disobeyed God...when he broke the commandment...when he broke the "covenant"...he entered the realm of "death" and left the realm of life he previously enjoyed. He went from being alive in God, to being dead in the flesh, yet no physical transition occurred. This is commonly referred to in the theological world as spiritual death.

I will stop here, as I am still arranging my thoughts on how to best proceed beyond this point (and I try to keep these posts real short for ease of reading).

If you have not already, go back and read my series called Descended into hell...? which discussed where Christ went for three days after he physical life ended, the place of "death" that all mankind went after life above ground. The connection will be hopefully tied together in future segments of this series on death.

Death Examined (Pt 1)

In my current studies, I wish to spend some time looking at death and the various ways it is used in the Scriptures. Unfortunately many Bible readers see the English word death and immediately assume it to always be speaking of literal end-of-life scenarios...but is it? Most all Christians know that there is both a spiritual and physical death spoken of in Scripture, but even breaking it into those two categories is still a pretty "physical" and literal meaning for the words.

What other ways do we find it used throughout scripture? What other ways is it used that might be commonly misunderstood outside of a deep rooted understanding of Hebrew culture? I know I for one, have gotten confused over the many ways the Scripture uses the same word to refer to many different kinds of "life" other than just physical and spiritual, like when it is used to refer to someone outside of God's covenant...an understanding I know I am not always quick to catch due to my "Greek-ness."

Some examples I hope to dig deeper into and examine are things like:

• God promised Adam in the garden regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Obviously this has nothing to do with physically dying, for we know he ate and did not physically die. So, we know he spiritually "died" as his eyes were opened that same day. However, then in the NT we are told that Christ came to fix/reverse the death that was brought by Adam...and we always assume that to mean physical death, yet it was not physical death that Adam gave us...so what are the implications?


• Quite often in the OT, when the people of God were breaking covenant with God, they are referred to as "dead" and without life; and when they return to faithfulness, they are said to be restored to life, raised from the dead, resurrected, etc. Yet we are too quick to assume these terms always means something physical, especially in the NT.


• Jesus says in John 8:51: Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death. yet first century Christians who believed and followed him have long since died...physically at least. What "death was Jesus referring to that they would never "see."

These are just some of the type issues that I would like to study, research and share as time permits. Actually, I am hoping to find and purchase a book on the subject, that has already examined this in detail. If anyone knows of one, one that explores the deep Hebrew understanding, let me know. In the meantime, I will use what resources I currently have on my self, and piece-meal together what I can on the subject. So here we begin a new little series...Death Examined! 

Descended into hell? (Pt 9): Testimony from the Church Fathers

In this part, I pick up sort of where I left off in the previous part, looking again at what the early church fathers had to say on the topic of Jesus descending into Hades, as we have been examining this often misunderstood phrase from the Apostle's Creed.

The book on the church fathers that I have been using gives four main "proof texts" for the understanding of Jesus' descent into Hades, one of which being Ephesians 4:9 as discussed in the last part, and the others are:

For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. (Acts 2:25-27)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does. (1 Peter 4:6)

Again, the purpose of my quoting of the early church fathers is not so much because they have more authority, but because of the light they shed on the reason and purpose and teaching surrounding the phrase in the Apostle's Creed. So many churches seek to explain it away, and have all but ignored the original intent, and have caused much confusion. Here is what the historic church has believed concerning the subject:

Christ rose from the place of the dead, and raised up the race of Adam from the grave below. Melito (c.170).

They fully believed and understood the Scriptures to teach that when Jesus rose, he rose from somewhere. He had not simply ceased to exist for three days, nor had he been asleep, and he had not yet gone to the heavenly realm, but he had been busy and had returned from his work.

For their benefit, "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth," to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labors...For Christ did not come merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar. Nor did the Father exercise His providence only for the men who are presently alive. Rather, He exercised it for all men altogether, who from the beginning...have both feared and loved God.

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also. And he [declared] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.

He gathered from the ends of the earth into His Father's fold the children who were scattered abroad. And He remembered His own dead ones, who had previously fallen asleep. He came down to them so that He might deliver them.

For three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet said concerning Him. "And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of the dead. And he descended to them to rescue and save them." The Lord Himself said, "As Jonah remained three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth." Irenaeus (c.180) - four separate quotes

I could go on with multiple other quotes, but I think after all the previous parts of this series, that ending the topic with a few additional quotes would be sufficient to show that we as a modern church have strayed far from the original and historical understanding of this (among other) doctrines. I will end with just one more:

Hades is not supposed by us to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world. Rather it is a vast deep space in the interior of the earth...For we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth...He did not ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth. This was so that He might there [in Hades] make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. Tertullian (c.210)

As high of an importance as most Reformed churches place on adherence to the Apostle's Creed as a test of orthodoxy, I find it odd that they would reinterpret parts of it to their liking in the face of such overwhelming information against the view. This understanding of these verses was the common doctrine of those instrumental in forming the early creeds. Most modern churches strike out at and/or reinterpret this very doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades as taught in the Creed and history; are we to assume they feel the framers of the creed were in error on this point; and if they were in error on this phrase, how can we hold any of the other parts of the creed as a irrefutable, beyond discussion, test or orthodoxy?
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
 

---

Nothing New about the New Testament

Back in the 1990's (and earlier of course), before the internet was such a huge part of everyone's life, and before anyone and everyone had a web page they called "home," most people or ministries that had anything to say, did it via a periodic printed and mailed newsletter or magazine. I was one of those types that also ran an underground music magazine from about 1988 through 1990, and a smaller newsletter from 1991 through about 1998 before launching finally moving most everything to a web page.

Well, I was digging through a filing cabinet today and found folder after folders of these printed newsletters and magazines from other ministries from back in the day, I ran across one that brought back thoughts and understandings that I have only in recent years really started to grasp, so I wanted to share some thoughts on the topic.

The articles in question come from the pen of one Steve Schlissel of Messiah's Congregation in Brooklyn, NY. He published the "Messiah Mandate" in various forms for many years, and the articles I am speaking of appeared in the third and fourth letters of 1998. Part one was entitled "All I Really Need to Know I Learn in the Old Testament" and part two was...maybe you guessed it..."All I Really Need to Know I Learn in the New Testament." You can click the links to go read them yourself (yes, of course they are now on the web...lol)

For a bit less than a year back in 1994, my family and I attended Pastor Schlissel's church, and were truly blessed by his preaching. While he may be considered somewhat controversial nowadays, I still consider him one of the best teachers I have had the pleasure of sitting under in my Christian life.

The articles make a strong position for the proper understanding and place of the Old Testament (OT), and how it not only contains all we need to know to preach the gospel, but that without it, the New Testament (NT) makes little sense. In today's church, there are more and more teachers that have basically thrown out the OT and focus mainly on the NT, as if the gospel originated and find its substance there alone. Even the practice of Bible companies making and distributing the little NT Bibles is a great injustice to the Word of God.

How would we look on it if say someone took the last three chapters of Pilgrims Progress and released it on its own and expected people to fully grasp what is being said. The articles go into much more excellent detail on the importance of returning to a view that see the Bible as one complete story, and not two main divisions, one old and out dated, and the other new and exciting. As it has been put before, there is nothing new about the NT; it is simply a expounding and opening of the mysteries of the OT.

When Christ and the Apostles went from town to town preaching the gospel, and pointing to the importance of the Scriptures, what Scriptures were they speaking of? The letters of Paul, Peter, etc.? Of course not, they taught all things from the written word of God, which at that time consisted of the writings of the OT (along with other Jewish writings that we have since deemed non-canonical).

For instance, in Acts 8:26 and following, we find the story of Philip and the eunuch, and we find Philip expounding the gospel and Christ from Isaiah and other OT books. Then we have the common verse in 2 Timothy 3:16, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, etc. When 2 Timothy was written in the mid 60's, it is true much of the NT had already been pinned, but we can't think for a moment that there was any kind of coherent collection of writings that even closely resembled what we now call the NT. There were letters circulating, and while what is being said by Paul here to Timothy may possibly be addressing and acknowledging some of these writings, we have to see the thrust of what is being said is directed at that which was commonly known as being the Scripture, which of course is the OT.

The book of Acts finds the Apostles preaching often in the synagogues and elsewhere, expounding from the Scriptures...the OT...and thousands are coming to Christ. One of the most interesting of sayings was when Paul said:

...because of these things the Jews—having caught me in the temple—were endeavoring to kill me. Having obtained, therefore, help from God, till this day, I have stood witnessing both to small and to great, saying nothing besides the things that both the prophets and Moses spake of as about to come, that the Christ is to suffer, whether first by a rising from the dead, he is about to proclaim light to the people and to the nations. (Acts 26:21-23)

Paul said that all of his preaching, on Christ, and even resurrection, was what came from Moses and the prophets. Even Peter, in dealing with issues of the last days things taking place in his time, tells them to remember that what he is saying is from the words of the prophets (2 Peter 1:2). He was not saying they were preaching of revealing totally new issues, but they kept harking back to the prophets of old, and what they said would happen in those last days.

We should surely view the NT as nothing really new, but just the writings of the infant church that assist us in the more clear revealing and fulfilling of the things prophesied of old.

So, could YOU mimic the first century Christians and preach the gospel and the message of salvation to others without relying on the NT?

Where two or three are gathered....? - OUT OF CONTEXT SCRIPTURE!

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matthew 18:19-20)

If I had a nickle for every time I heard someone use this verse to claim some kind of special presence or assistance from Christ whenever two or more Christian brethren assembled in agreement with each other for some reason, I could definitely enjoy quite a few Venti Starbucks beverages.

What exactly is being said in this verse that is so often used out of context? In order to grasp the context, you must start at the beginning of the topic, back at verses fifteen. If you have a Christian brother who has sinned against you, you are to go and tell him. If he he won't listen to youAgain I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
, then you are to:

...take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. (v. 16)

So right here we see why the two or three are mentioned to begin with, for the sole purpose of being witnesses against the sin of the brother in question. This standard practice hearkens back to the ancient Jewish practice and law established in Deuteronomy:

On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deut. 17:6-7)

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. (Deut. 19:15)

Part of a legal hearing requires two or three witnesses for a case to be established. In Matthew 18, we are dealing with a case against a brother who has sinned. He has been approached by the one sinned against, then he has been approached with two or three others to witness his stubborn rebellion against repentance in the matter, and after those steps have been taken, by the word of the two or three witnesses, his sin is made public to the whole church body, and if he still is in rebellion and won't listen, then he is to be cast out, excommunicated from the body, and treated as one outside the faith, a pagan.

So, the two or three gathered together are not asking God for favors or prayers, but are in agreement over a judgment in the body. The Apostles were given the keys to loose and bind things on earth, and this is an example of that power in action. If you, as a member of a church, are processed legitimately through the Matthew 18 process, and are cast out, then it is indeed a fearful thing for you, as you have legally, by the very power and presence of Christ found present among the words of the two or three witnesses, been removed from the body of Christ for your rebellion.

One commentator states is clearly:

This is connected with the previous verses. The connection is this: The obstinate man is to be excluded from the church. The care of the church — the power of admitting or excluding members — of organizing and establishing it — is committed to you, the apostles (Mt 18:18). Yet there is not need of the whole to give validity to the transaction. When two of you agree, or have the same mind, feelings, and opinion, about the arrangement of affairs in the church, or about things desired for its welfare, and shall ask of God, it shall be done for them. See Acts 1:14-26, 15:1-29. The promise here has respect to the apostles in organizing the church. It cannot, with any propriety, be applied to the ordinary prayers of believers. Other promises are made to them, and it is true that the prayer of faith will be answered; but that is not the truth taught here. (Barne's Notes)

Many today have ignored the power the local, legitimate church body was given to bind and loose such things, pertaining to your very standing in the eyes of God.

Today, if someone disagrees with a church, they simply leave and move on to find one they agree with more fully. But don't be fooled, God doesn't look so simply at rebellion and lack of repentance as we might. If you leave a church in a rebellious manner, without resolving the issue via Matthew 18, your very salvation may be in question before God.

Matthew 18:19-20 is not a comfort for anyone that Jesus is present when they met; it is a call of judgment against those rebellious to the legal offices of the church established by Christ and the Apostles.

View Other "Out of Context" Verses
 

Descended into hell? (Pt 8): Church Fathers on Sheol and Ephesians 4:9

OK, shifting gears ever so slightly in this conversation. After writing part seven yesterday, I started kind of flipping through other books on my shelf that might contain related material on this topic, and I found quite a few interesting comments in this early church fathers reference guide A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (not sure why I never went to this book before now). This book has nearly six pages loaded with quotations from these men regarding the intermediate state of Hades; I will only touch on a couple of them.

I do not quote the church fathers because I hold that they have a more correct understanding like some, and I do not hold them up on a pedestal of orthodoxy as some are known to do. I just share these quotes to show what some of the common teachings were in the days when the "descended into hades" clause was supposedly written/added to the Apostle's Creed. But more astonishing to me, was the quotes dealing with Ephesians 4:9, and just how totally opposite the view was from that which is normally held since the Reformation. So I wish to deal specifically with those surrounding verses, which state:

Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) Ephesians 4:8-10 (ESV)

Now it appears from the commentators and Bible study notes I have read on this section of Ephesians, the modern, common position in the Reformed world, is that the "he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth" refers to his original descent from heaven to earth, and his low estate while on earth. So it is assumed to mean the lower parts of the earth is life above ground as we know every day. A few examples should hopefully suffice for this point regarding the clause Into the lower parts of the earth. of verse 9:

To the lowest state of humiliation. This seems to be the fair meaning of the words. Heaven stands opposed to earth. One is above; the other is beneath. From the one, Christ descended to the other; and he came not only to the earth, but he stooped to the most humble condition of humanity here. Some have understood this of the grave; others of the region of departed spirits; but these interpretations do not seem to be necessary. It is the earth itself that stands in contrast with the heavens; and the idea is, that the Redeemer descended from his lofty eminence in heaven, and became a man of humble rank and condition. (Barnes NT Notes)

The point that I seem to see so clearly that seems missed here, is the ascending and descending are being spoken to in reference to Christ's work (and the relation to the hearer should not be discounted) on the earth. From earth he ascended, but before he ascended from earth, he descended below the earth. The other view is seeking to jump backwards in time to show that before he could have ascended from earth to heaven, he had to first have come down from heaven to earth. Well, that is an obvious point, and does not seem to be what Paul is getting across here, that I can see. John Calvin get a bit more agitated when dealing with this passage in his commentaries:

These words mean nothing more than the condition of the present life. To torture them so as to make them mean purgatory or hell, is exceedingly foolish. The argument taken from the comparative degree, "the lower parts," is quite untenable. A comparison is drawn, not between one part of the earth and another, but between the whole earth and heaven; as if he had said, that from that lofty habitation Christ descended into our deep gulf.

Again, it seems Calvin misses the timing of the issue. Christ stood on earth and is said to have ascended, but that before he ascended from earth to heaven, he descended from earth to the lower parts of the earth. Why would Paul be telling the Ephesians something so obvious - that Christ came to earth long before? Plus, as we have seen in the earlier parts of this series, "lower parts," "beneath the earth" and such terms as that have always been used to refer to the hadaen realm, and not to the above ground earthly living.

Some prime examples of this: "But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth." (Ps 63:9) which obviously speaks of his enemies going to the place of the dead. The same can be understood from many verses in Ezekiel

"When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living" (26:20)

"...for they are all delivered unto death, to the nether parts of the earth (same Hebrew word), in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit." (31:14)

See also Ezekiel 31:16, 18, 32:18, 24 if you need more similar examples, they all portray the same concept.

Some will put more weight on the one verse of Ps 139:15 to imply that the term simply refers to being given life through birth, and says "lowest parts of the earth" refers to the womb. But in light of the overwhelming amount of other scriptures for this term, I don't see how that single verse in Psalms cannot be made the measuring rod for the meaning here.

Now for the final example of the understanding of the phrase, this time from Baptist preacher John Gill, who gets even more defensive when dealing with this phrase, and practically strikes out at every point made through this entire series so far:

This the Papists understand of his decent into a place they call Limbus Patrum, which they make to be contiguous to hell; and where they say the patriarchs were detained till Christ’s coming; and that he went thither to deliver them out of it; and that these are the captivity he led captive; all which is fictitious and fabulous: for certain it is, that the place where Abraham was with Lazarus in his bosom was not near to hell, but afar off, and that there was a great gulf between them, and the spirits or souls of the patriarchs returned to God that gave them, when separated from their bodies, as the souls of men do now, nor did Christ enter any such feigned place at his death, but went to paradise, where the penitent thief was that day with him; nor were the patriarchs, but the principalities and powers Christ spoiled, the captivity he led captive and triumphed over: some interpret this of Christ’s descent into hell, which must be understood not locally, but of his enduring the wrath of God for sin, which was equivalent to the torments of hell, and of his being in the state of the dead; but it may rather design the whole of his humiliation, as his descent from heaven and incarnation in the virgin’s womb, where his human nature was curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth; and his humbling himself and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, when he was made sin and a curse for his people, and bore all the punishment due to their transgressions; and his being in Hades, in the state of the dead, in the grave, in the heart of the earth, as Jonah in the whale’s belly. (John Gill's Expositor)

So, this view point was the basic understanding that most in the Reformed faith have believed in the past and the present in most cases. But let us turn now to the early church fathers for support for or against such a view. One reference directly deals with many of the issues we just discussed:

The Lord observed the law of the dead so that He might become the First-Begotten from the dead. And He waited until the third day "in the lower parts of the earth." ... [Accordingly,] these men [the Gnostics] must be put to confusion, who say that "the lower parts" refer to this world of ours...The Lord "went away in the midst of the shadow of death," where the souls of the dead were. However, afterwards, He arose in the body. And after the resurrection, he was taken up [into heaven]. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.560.

So to Irenaeus, it was the Gnostic's who believed the "lower parts of the earth" referred to earth. Irenaeus also stated:

For their benefit, "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth," to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labors. (c.180, E/W), 1.494

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also. And he [declared] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. (c. 180, E/W), 1.499

And similarly we find Tertullian stating:

For we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth... He did not ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth. This was so that He might there [in Hades] make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. (c.210, W), 9.316

There are many other quotes that reference the belief in the intermediate state after death, more than enough to show that common belief not only during the time of Jesus, but for the first couple hundred years, the church believed and taught of the hadean realm, and the belief that Christ did indeed "descend into hades" after his death on the cross.

According to church history, and logic itself, I have always been kind of perplexed by all of this as it fits the current belief system. Maybe such a confusion as mine is why the later church counsels and preachers began to explain the whole system away, and began teaching an immediate ascension to heaven of Christ and all mankind. My confusion goes like this:

If all mankind goes to the hadean realm awaiting the return of Christ, a physical resurrection in our future; then logically, no one has yet to ascend to the heavenly realm at all. As further back-up for this, Christ said in John 14, that he goes to prepare a place for us and would return to take us to be with him; and again, since he has not returned, then logically he has not taken anyone to be with him yet, and so heaven has yet to be open. Tertullian and others would agree:

How indeed, will the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father's right hand? For the archangel's trumpet has not yet been heard by the command of God...To no one is heaven opened...When the world indeed, will pass away, then the kingdom of heaven will be opened. (c. 210, W), 3.231.

Justin Martyr states it was the Gnostic belief that stated there is no intermediate state, and that mankind upon death are immediately taken to heaven:

You may have fallen in with some [Gnostics] who are called Christians. However, they do not admit this [intermediate state], and they venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham...They say there is no resurrection of the dead. Rather, they say that when they die, their souls are taken to heaven. Do not imagine they are Christians. (emphasis mine) (Justin Martyr, c. 160, E, 1.239)

So which is it? Do we die and go to heaven now, in a "naked" (2 Cor 5) state, awaiting a time of being fused back with our dead body, changed, and then to re-enter heaven? Do we die today and continue in the resting place of hades, awaiting the resurrection and judgment in the future, while heaven stands empty for centuries? Maybe I'll get more into that in a future study...who knows?!?
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
 

---

Descended into hell? (Pt 7): James Jordan on Sheol

I really didn't expect this little look at the Apostles' Creed clause to go this far, but I continue to run over excellent comments by noted commentators that further expound and enforce the view that many in today's church have forgotten or denied. This time around, I pull a quote from the new commentary on Daniel by James B. Jordan entitled The Handwriting on the Wall.

In dealing with the resurrection passage in Daniel 12:2:

And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during. (Young's Literal)

Jordan discusses six possibilities for what type of resurrection this verse could be speaking of. For point five he states:

A fifth possibility is that this refers to the emptying of sheol into heaven when Christ ascended there. This is a concept less familiar to us today, and will be explained below. (Pg 617)

He has it right, in saying it is less familiar to us; it appears many have totally forgotten the whole concept. He then continues a little later to explain the position:

Looking first at the fifth possibility, ascension to heaven: Until Jesus went into heaven, nobody went into heaven. Those who died from Adam to Christ went to sheol, which the New Testament calls hades. The righteous went into Abraham's bosom, also called in theology Limbus Patrum, while the wicked went to an uncomfortable place. After Jesus' death He descended to sheol and sorted the dead. When Jesus ascended into heaven, He emptied Abraham's bosom and brought all the righteous dead to heaven with him. The wicked in sheol, however, are not brought up to heaven until the end of time, when they are cast into the lake of fire that is before the throne of God.

So, here we have another example, and another modern one, that has not forgotten the idea of death as portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures.Again, if we assume this to be the proper understanding, then you should hopefully see the importance of Christ first descending into hades, and how removing this step in the salvation process causes an issue and leaves those who died prior to Christ still in bondage to death.
 

---

View the other parts of the topic

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
 

---