Category: New Testament

Book Review: Textual Criticism of the Bible, Revised Edition

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bibliology, Book Reviews, Greek Studies, Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Old Testament, Textual Criticism

Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, revised ed., Lexham Methods Series, edited by Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), Paperback, 236 pages.

The authors of the present volume are professional scholars in Old Testament (Wendy Widder) and New Testament (Amy Anderson) respectively.[1] Widder, a contributing editor for Logos Mobile Education, holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of the Free State (South Africa), an M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and the M.Div. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. Her published works include a technical linguistic work for the BZAW series (De Gruyter), commentaries on Daniel (ZECOT, SGBC), and was the original author of the first edition of the present work (2014).[2]

Amy Anderson joins the revision of this project as co-author. She is Professor of New Testament and Ancient Greek at North Central University (Minneapolis, MN), and holds a Ph.D. in New Testament Textual Criticism (University of Birmingham) and an M.A. in New Testament from Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, CA). Additionally, Anderson has published technical works on New Testament textual criticism for Brill (Texts and Studies) and serves on the steering committee of the Editio Critica Maior for the SBL steering unit of the International Greek New Testament project (IGNT).[3]

Thesis of the Book

In keeping with the stated goal of the Lexham Methods Series to provide an overview of the “broad movements” within the fields of biblical criticism, Anderson and Widder introduce textual criticism of the Bible for the emerging scholar and biblical interpreter in order to better equip them to understand the basic question for many English readers of the Bible is translation: why are there differences in among the English versions?[4] Anderson and Widder offer an updated guided tour of textual criticism to equip the emerging scholar to “take on” the text critical issues that are behind some of the more technical reasons which account for these differences among Bible translations of the ancient original language manuscript copies.[5]

Summary of the Book

In the “Introduction” the authors isolate the practical importance of how understanding the field of textual criticism contributes to providing sensible answers for certain variations among contemporary Bible translations.[6] As a “ground clearing” chapter, it distinguishes changes brought about by the theories and practice of translation from the task of resolving “variations in the readings of [the] ancient manuscripts” of the Bible in pursuit of the ancient form of the text, i.e., the Ausgangstext.

In chapter two Anderson and Widder provide a general introduction to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Despite different textual evidence for each Testament, the general principles of the discipline apply overall and the authors illustrate what is common to both fields.[7] As no two ancient hand-copied manuscripts of the Bible agree in every detail, the authors demonstrate the various types of scribal errors detected when comparing the extant copies of the manuscripts (accidental omissions, additions, misspellings, and intentional changes).[8] These examples illustrate the goal of textual criticism is to “establish the original reading of the biblical text” of the autographs, which for the transmission history of the Old Testament it is “more complicated” due various unknowns of scribal and editorial activity over a vastly longer period of time than the New.[9] The authors explain the importance in knowing the difference between external evidence and internal evidence, and how the former focuses on “what kinds of manuscripts is a given variant found” and the latter considers what is probable habits of the transcriber(s) of the manuscript and the author of the book (intrinsic).[10]

Chapter three offers a short history of the unique difficulties found in the transmission of the Old Testament. With no manuscripts available predating the canonical copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls (250 BC–AD 135), the authors begin their history with awareness of variants in the Hebrew text by early Christians. Representative of this early period are Origen’s textual notes in the fifth column of his Hexapla.[11] The textual history of the Old Testament is largely interwoven with Christian history (Greek and Latin translations, and other ancient polyglot texts) and the medieval scribal tradents of the Masoretic manuscript tradition. The Hebrew text in the modern period is represented in the two types of critical editions, diplomatic (e.g., BHK, BHS, HUB) and eclectic editions (e.g., HBCE). The textual resources available today (Masoretic Text, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and translations) demonstrate the importance of carefully assessing each variants in light of the probabilities of the scribal habits of each tradition and the which reflects an older state of the Hebrew text.[12]

Chapter four introduces the history of the Greek New Testament text.[13] This history reveals not only a proliferation of the early translation, citation, and copying of these texts, but also that a number of copying communities can be detected in the “patterns of variation” found in groups or family of manuscripts (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean).[14] With the rise of Christianity, Byzantium (Constantinople) became a center for transmission, giving rise to the period of standardization culminating in the advent of the printing press in which a Greek New Testament would be printed (700s–1600s). This gave rise to what is called the Byzantine text-type. Today, scholarship has largely moved away from the Textus Receptus (or, Majority Text) in favor of eclectic critical approach to establish the Greek New Testament text, which weighs the strength and weakness of variants and manuscripts (seen in UBS, NA). Today, there are over fifty-five hundred manuscripts (papyri, majuscules, and minuscules) from which textual critics must work with in establishing the original wording of the text (the Ausgangstext), as they seek “to identify the reading that best explains how the other readings arose.”[15]

In chapter five, the authors bring their discussion to a close as they comment on the connection between textual criticism and English translations, and how many of the variations between them rely on the text the translation committee agrees to work from.[16] The scholarship of textual criticism directly impacts the practical life of church life, especially one’s doctrine of Scripture, inerrancy and infallibility, and its authority. While debated extremes exist, the inspiration of the text can be maintained as it relates to the original manuscripts. The transmission of the text of Scripture is a history of God’s providential use of imperfect human scribes to reliably preserve the text of the Bible for all generations.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Anderson and Widder have produced a very effective pedagogical-centered volume introducing the field of textual criticism to the emerging scholar of the Bible. The authors were neither overly academic nor did their discussions lack the specialty knowledge essential to this field of methodology. The strongest contribution is the practical hands-on approach illustrating how to evaluate textual variants, how to use the critical apparatus and critical sigla, and how to interact with the different resources (manuscripts, translations, lexicography, etc.) available to the emerging textual critic.[17] These helpful text-critical walkthroughs will guide the students well moving from theory to practice.

Overall, it is very difficult to find weaknesses in the current volume, but when they observed that biblical scholarship seeks to establish the “final form” of the authoritative text instead of the “original wording” of the autographs, little space is provided to address this important text-critical topic.[18] Outside the mention of the philosophical debate over the Urtext, the matter is only briefly commented on.[19] With the lack of older witnesses, important questions are sidelined, such as, “is seeking the original wording of the autograph no longer feasible in Old Testament studies? What are the implications of this issue?” I humbly suggest that Anderson and Widder would have served their readers better by exploring this question.

Endnotes

[1] Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, rev. ed., Lexham Methods Series, ed.  Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

[2] For more information regarding Dr. Widder see her blog: https://wendywidder.com.

[3] For more information regarding Dr. Anderson see her teacher’s page at North Central University: https://www.northcentral.edu/academics/amy-anderson-2.

[4] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, ix–x, 2–3.

[5] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 7–8.

[6] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 1–9.

[8] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 16–40.

[7] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 11–48.

[9] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 40–41. For this reason, Anderson and Widder note that the Old Testament critic “has to decide exactly which state of the OT composition or transmission is the goal” (41).

[10] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 42–46.

[11] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 49–114.

[12] For example, the hands-on section of the text critical process illustrates that sometimes translations are preferred over original language manuscripts as they reflect “what Hebrew the translators had in front of them” (Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 95).

[13] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 115–77.

[14] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 116.

[15] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 158.

[16] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 179–87.

[17] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 90–109, 149–74.

[18] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 41–42. This concern may be theological motivated but more clarity would have appreciated (cf. Ferguson, “Textual Criticism of the Bible,” Presbyterion 46 [2020]: 158–59).

[19] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 93. If this was intended to supplement the “final authoritative form” discussion raised earlier, it seems completely disconnected (54–57).

Bibliography

Anderson, Amy, and Wendy Widder. Textual Criticism of the Bible. Revised ed. Lexham Methods Series 1. Edited by Douglas Mangum, et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018.

Ferguson, Anthony. “Textual Criticism of the Bible, by Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder. Revised edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. Pp. xv + 236. ISBN 978-1-57799-663-7.” Presbyterion 46.1 (2020): 157–59.

Restoration Movement Theology: T. W. Brents on the “Foreknowledge of God”

On By Jovan PayesIn 2005, College Papers, Foreknowledge, Freed-Hardeman University, New Testament, Old Testament, Research Papers, Restoration Movement Theology, T.W. Brents, Theology

There is a certain measure of absurdity that occurs when a finite being seeks to understand the infinite God. The inquiry is no simple matter. God’s infinite nature transcends the finite and linear nature of human beings. Such a pursuit touches every major philosophical, theological, religious, and epistemic field of knowledge. The study of God and his attributes is a complex endeavor and is often accomplished by examining individual aspects of the nature or essence of God, or by considering the way in which God interacts with his creation. One classic question centers on God’s omniscience, and what it means for God to know the future of particular persons and events (i.e., foreknowledge).

The question of divine foreknowledge tethers together God’s omniscience and human free will. For example, why would God create the universe if God was aware more people would be lost eternally rather than saved? As one person asked in an online discussion, “Why go through on something knowing in advance that it is a bad investment?” The question presumes there is a logical inconsistency between an all-loving God and the reality of suffering and chaos in the world.

Some contemporary theologians have argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited and can only account for what can be actually known. This theory has various labels, but is commonly called, “Open Theism.” Among 19th-century Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement personas, Thomas Wesley Brents (1823–1905) argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited to what can be actually known. Brents’s viewpoint is set forth in his sermon, “Foreknowledge of God,” set forth in his classic anthology of sermons, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (1874). Brents was a well-respected nineteenth-century North American “pioneer” preacher of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. In short, Brents argued that unlimited foreknowledge lacks biblical consistency.

I dispute this conclusion. There are many presuppositions that underpin the argument of Brents’s sermon, “Foreknowledge of God.” This paper offers a refutation of his thesis that God does not have unlimited foreknowledge. I argue that God knows all that is possible to be known and that this foreknowledge does not interfere with human free will.

Statement of the Problem

Unlimited foreknowledge is asserted on the basis of three basic arguments. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God knows everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is essentially outside of time and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

In “Foreknowledge,” however, Brents posed what is a fair question:

may we not, then, with becoming reverence, inquire whether or not God eternally foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass?[1]

In The Gospel Plan of Salvation, “Foreknowledge” is part of the opening series of sermons Brents delivers against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, election and reprobation, hereditary depravity, and the doctrine of Universalism (i.e., all souls will be saved).[2] Brents principally attacked the fundamental basis for the two systems of belief; namely:

the assumption that God, from all eternity, foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass; therefore, He foreknew just who and how many would be saved, and who, if any, would be lost.[2]

For Brents, “such foreknowledge amounted to an immutable decree” in which “man had no power to avert” this foreknown destiny. Brents argues that such a position violates human agency.[3] He then sets forth a series of arguments that follow a somewhat sequential order, building upon one another.

He concedes that this study can only appropriately operate if it is recognized that finite humanity has mental limitations and can only understand God as God has revealed himself.[4] Brents cautiously affirms:

We may know God’s will, and the extent of His knowledge where He has revealed them to us, but beyond this we dare not go. When God speaks, it is the province of man to hear and believe, whether he can or can not [sic] see to the end.[5]

Then he moves to argue against God having unlimited foreknowledge on account that there are passages that appear to demonstrate that God was unaware of certain things, such as the depravity of the pre-flood population of Earth (Gen 6:5). Brents forwards his argumentation by means of the analogy of omnipotence, pondering that “if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”; consequently, infinite knowledge does not require that he knows everything.[6]

Brents acknowledges that this may be accounted for on the grounds of accommodation, and provides his definition of accommodation and its limits. Accommodation must embody the same thought from whatever source it is being transferred from and should the thought be different then it is a form of deception, conveying “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[7]

The next line of reasoning is Brents’ “all” argument, where he observes that while Scriptures teach that God and Jesus know “all things,” the word “all” may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[8] In his conclusion, Brents maintains that God only knows for sure that which He has decreed to be an absolute certainty, and is unaware of those things he has decreed to be contingent realities.[9]

First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know.

Preliminary to evaluating the biblical data, a brief definition of what is meant here is that God knows everything there is to know. That God knows everything there is to know is to say that God is omniscient. Omniscience comes from two words, omnis, “all,” and scire, which means, “know”; consequently, it means knowledge of everything – a perfect knowledge.[10] God has perfect knowledge of the past, the present, and the future from the human point of view; furthermore, if God has perfect knowledge of the future, then this suggests that God has foreknowledge. This aspect of God’s omniscience specifically focuses on God knowing the future acts as if they were already done.[11] Interestingly, Casper W. Hodge observes that God’s omniscience is frequently connected with His omnipresence” (2 Chron 16:9, Pro 15:3, Psa 139).[12] These concepts will be further embellished as Brents’s specific lines of contention are addressed.

Old Testament evidence suggests that God is omniscient. Notice an example from the Exodus where God revealed the future of Abraham’s offspring in Egyptian bondage (Gen 15:13–15). When Moses is called, God is prepared to deliver them from this servitude (Exod 3:8–9), but Moses is warned that Pharaoh will harden his heart and not let the Israelites go easily (Exod 7:14) until the last plague is sent upon Egypt (Exod 11:1).[13] God was fully aware of the future events, and this assurance that God knew what would happen was a vital part of the confidence of Moses, as were the miraculous abilities and supernatural experiences he had gone through (Exod 3:4–6, 4:1–17).

New Testament evidence likewise provides strength to the picture that God is omniscient. An example from this group of canonical material is found in 2 Peter. One scholar reflects upon this material in light of omniscience and free will and points out: “Divine revelation as it is expressed in 2 Peter does not present a God who is learning, relenting, at times taken by surprise or retracting his eternal counsel.”[14] 2 Peter 3:14–18, as suggested by Neyrey, reflects the “themes and issues raised” from the beginning of the letter.[15] Edmond Hiebert likewise notes this connection based upon dió (“therefore”) in 3:14 and suggests two points: “these exhortations are based on what has been written” so far; and the author insists, “that the link between faith and conduct must be maintained” in light of the coming judgment.[16] This observation is vital in light of the heretical religio-philosophical school of thought under attack in 2 Peter 2:1–3:13. Thomas R. Schreiner, observes:

Peter’s argument is not pragmatic […] he did not invent the idea of a future judgment to foster ethical living now. On the contrary, the day of the Lord, consisting of both judgment and salvation, was bedrock reality for him. On the basis of this reality, believers are exhorted to godliness.[17]

This moral argument is given weight and authority throughout 3:14–18 in three ways: the inspired revealer of God’s knowledge reminds his audience of the coming judgment which is sure  (3:14–15a).[18] God knows the future outcome of these false teachers and those who live immorally; therefore, “what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (3:11).

Brents’ attack is really quite simple: God is omniscient, but he only knows what can be known and what respects the free moral agency of humanity. This would necessitate that there are some things that God cannot know – which are the future actions of mortals. As an example of this, he cites Genesis 6:5–6 where the Bible says:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.

Brents asks why state that God “saw” the world bankrupt of morality if it was not new from God’s perspective?[19] “Why did God grieve over a result which was as plain to Him before He created man as when He saw the overt acts of wickedness performed?” Again he asks, “Could there be anything unknown to him whose understanding is infinite?”[20] Brents believe there is, and here is his argument; which is somewhat analogous to the attribute of omnipotence; observe, 

if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”[21]

“God is as infinite in power as He is in understanding. No one, we suppose, will deny that He is omnipotent as well as omniscient, yet there are some things He can not do; e.g., God can not lie [….]” because they are inconsistent with his other attributes and the free agency of man.[22] Therefore, Brents’s reasons,

He did not know, before making man, just how wicked he would be, simply because such foreknowledge would have been incompatible with the free agency and responsibility of man. To be a responsible man must be free.”[23]

Any knowledge of future events, says Brents is equivocal to an immutable decree that cannot be averted, thus there is no freedom to “falsify” God’s foreknowledge –hence where is the freedom.[24]

In response to Brents, several things may be said. First, it is believed that too high a premium has been made upon a small sampling of Scripture that employs accommodative language, depicting God as repentant for making humanity. Brents argues that the accommodative language argument is fallacious, however, for two reasons: accommodations must embody the same thought. The other reason is that if the same thought is not employed then some form of deception is being undertaken, conveying, “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[25] Brents takes it one step further and suggests that God could have said that He knew from the beginning that man would fall and that he was not surprised by man’s spiral into immorality. The problem with this is that it does not square with the rest of the biblical evidence, a sample of which has been demonstrated above. Furthermore, as Hodge observes:

It is true that the Scripture makes use of anthropomorphic forms of expression as regards the way in which God obtains knowledge (Gen 11:5; 18:21); nevertheless the constant representation of the Scripture is that God knows everything. This perfect knowledge of God, moreover, is not merely a knowledge which is practically unlimited for all religious purposes, but is omniscience in the strictest sense of the term.[26]

Furthermore, as will be developed later God is outside of time God does not live a linear life where life “exists of moments following one another,” C.S. Lewis observes.[27] There is a genuine anthropomorphic accommodation (i.e. “God is described in human terms”) when God reacts sadly to the fall of man, as instantaneously as humans would, demonstrating both concern and contempt for sin.[28]

Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom.

Brents is very clear that if God knows everything including the future events of humans, then that goes against free agency. He argues that if God knows a thing then it is as sure as an immutable decree. The problem Brents has with this analogy is that while the force of both foreknowledge and an immutable decree may be similar in that the future cannot be changed, the latter has participation in selecting one’s future destiny; whereas, with the former, it is simply a matter of knowing, not a matter of imposing a certain destiny. Hence the argument Brents articulate is quite problematic, for one of his major premises is crippled. Though we would not agree with everything said by Arthur Pink, he makes a good observation relative to this point:

It should, however, be pointed out that neither God’s knowledge nor His cognition of the future, considered simply in themselves, are causative. Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God.[29]

In keeping with the critique of Brents, Pink’s observation likewise contributes to the credibility of the notion that knowledge is not causative. Simply because a person may know how an engine works, does not imply that this person is responsible for all engines everywhere to function. It simply means that this person knows what will occur under the present circumstances. Therefore, taking this limited illustration to a divine scale, God knows all the circumstances and what will happen under those circumstances, but does not decree that they occur in the sense of direct cause for it to occur. Humans are still left with their free agency intact.

Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Brents’s argument is the implied presupposition that God acts in a linear existence as man does. Part of this has to do with Brents’ view of the biblical statements, for example, consider the case of Abraham offering Isaac (Gen 22:12). The text says that when Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, God through an angel said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld you son, your only son, from Me.” Brents responds to this passage as follows:

What can this mean? “Now I know that thou fearest God.” Did He always know it? Nay, how did He then know it? “Seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” Does not this language imply that God saw in Abraham a degree of faithfulness unseen before?[30]

Indeed, from the surface it appears to be the case, and honestly, there is a sense that God did experience something new about Abraham, for Woods writes that the phrase “Now I know” suggests the idea that God now knew “by experience.”[31] This would imply that there is a difference between God foreknowing a thing, and then actually experiencing it; which furthermore demonstrates that knowing and the action are mutually exclusive. Yet Brents asks, in light of Hebrews 11:7, where this was design to “try” Abraham,  “How then could God try Abraham if He knew Abraham would past the test”? Brents then argues that in order to be a true accommodation, Abraham should have been to whom this statement was addressed: “Now you know” what kind of faithful service you can render to God, for “an accommodation of language to thought would require a change like this”[32] But as noticed above, God is outside of time.

Returning to the aspect of God living in a non-linear – outside of time – environment, C. S. Lewis provides helpful information. He writes:

How could He [God] at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples “Who touched me?” You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: “While He was a baby” – “How could He at the same time?” In other words I was assuming that Christ’s life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time […][33]

But Brents argues that since Christ had a limited foreknowledge of future events (time of his return Mark 13:32), then it means that God in heaven may have a limited foreknowledge of future events. He makes this leap of argumentation:

It is one thing to know all things, and quite another to foreknow all things –one thing to know a thing, and quite another thing to know a thing before it is a thing, or when it has no existence.[34]

Then he says that the term “all” in all things may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[35] Brents moves to say that since all has this meaning, as demonstrated in his examples (all the people were baptized by John, though many rejected him; John’s audience only knew that which John was writing about; love does not believe lies though it believes all things), “then we shall continue to believe that our Heavenly Father had power to limit the exercise of His foreknowledge to an extent compatible with the free-agency and accountability of man and the scheme of salvation devised for him, until we are shown a more excellent way.”[36]

The problem here is simple. Brents assumes that Christ on earth shares the same omniscience as God in Heaven, but this is not so. Particularly is this true when Christ affirms that God knows certain future events that the Son did not; for example, the establishment of the kingdom (Acts 1:6–8). More specifically though, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among mortals, He emptied himself of certain qualities that he shared while being with the Father in Heaven. Philippians 2:5–8 reads as follows:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

All that Brents may argue from Mark 13:32 is that Jesus had limited foreknowledge, which is consistent with his departure from heaven to take upon human appearance. Furthermore, Brents’ discussion and argumentation cannot extend to God in heaven, since the Father and the Holy Spirit never divested themselves as Christ did. Consequently, Brents’ argument against the foreknowledge of God does not stand.

Conclusion

At first glance it appears that Brents offers a strong case as he moves from position to position, setting forth his claim that the classical concept of God’s foreknowledge is flawed, and that God’s knowledge is only about things that can be known, and that such things must occur in order for him to know. However, in the process of his argumentation, it appears that Brents is flawed in several particulars. Although Brents argues that unlimited foreknowledge is unbiblical, it is maintained in this paper that unlimited foreknowledge is biblical.

The basis for this assertion lies in three lines of reasoning. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is. With these things in mind, we close this discussion.

Endnotes

  1. T. W. Brents, “Foreknowledge of God,” The Gospel Plan of Salvation, 17th ed. (1874; Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987), 75. All italics are original to the text of the sermon unless otherwise noted as “emphasis added” (i.e., emph. added).
  2. Brents, Gospel Plan, “Predestination” (7–12), “Election and Reprobation” (13–40), “Calvinistic Proofs Examined” (41–73), “The Foreknowledge of God” (74–87), and “Hereditary Depravity” (88–116).
  3. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
  4. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74–75.
  5. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 75.
  6. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  7. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  8. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
  9. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
  10. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 85–87.
  11. Charles Hartshorne, “Omniscience,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 546.
  12. Charles Hartshorne, “Foreknowledge, Divine,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 284.
  13. Casper W. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” ISBE 2:1128.
  14. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
  15. J. Daryl Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate,” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 86.
  16. Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter,” 247.
  17. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a,” BSac 141 (1984): 331.
  18. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville: Broadman, 2003), 393; see also, Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983), 334, and Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1986), 449.
  19. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 334.
  20. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  21. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  22. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  23. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76–77.
  24. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  25. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
  26. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
  27. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
  28. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (1952; repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960), 146.
  29. Wayne Jackson, “Anthropomorphism,” Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications, 2002), 8; Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972), 17.
  30. Arthur Pink, The Attributes of God (1930; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 20.
  31. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
  32. Woods, Genesis-Exodus, 56.
  33. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
  34. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 147.
  35. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 83.
  36. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
  37. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.

Works Cited

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983.

Brents, T.W. “The Foreknowledge of God.” Pages 74–87 in The Gospel Plan of Salvation. 17th ed. 1874. Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987.

Charles, J. Daryl. “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate.” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 85–93.

Hartshorne, Charles. “Foreknowledge, Divine.” Page 284 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

_____. “Omniscience.” Pages 546–47 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a.” BSac 141 (1984): 330–40.

Hodge, Caspar Wistar. “Foreknow, Foreknowledge.” Pages 1128–31 in vol. 2 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946.

Jackson, Wayne. Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy. Stockton, CA: Courier, 2002.

Johnson, Luke T. The Writings of the New Testament:  An Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986.

Lanier, Sr., Roy H. The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries. Denver, CO: Lanier Publishing, 1974.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. Revised edition. 1952. Repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude:  A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37C. Edited by William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. 1930. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. NAC 37. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 2003.

Woods, Clyde M. Genesis-Exodus. People’s Old Testament Notes. Vol. 1. Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972.

He is Preparing a Place (Revelation 20–21)

On By Jovan PayesIn Eschatology, Freed-Hardeman University, New Testament, Publications, Resurrection, Revelation, Theology

[This is a pre-publication version of my chapter submission for the 88th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Bible Lectureship (2024), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the lectureship book: Triumph of the Lamb: The Battle with Evil in Revelation  (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered here.]

When the famous New Testament scholar, A. T. Robertson (1863–1934), taught a course on interpreting Revelation, it’s been said that he walked into class with double armfuls of books which he thunderously dropped on the table and said, “Here are the various approaches to interpreting Revelation. Take your pick.”[1] Revelation 20–21 is a veritable asteroid field of perplexing questions. To minimize as much speculation as possible it will be important to consider the uniqueness of the book’s genre and its allusions to the Old Testament. God not only inspired the words but also chose the literary genre to communicate these words (2 Tim. 3:16–17; Russell 52–56). 

Additionally, it is essential to understand literary movements from the situation facing the first-century church (2:1–3:22), to the challenge of belief (13:1–14:) to the imagery of God’s judgment on his enemies (19:11–21).[2] We will the be ready to appreciate God’s judgment on Satan and his followers (20:1–10), the future fate of the Beast worshippers (20:11–15), and the final vindication of the redeemed in the heavens (21:1–27).

EXEGESIS

Genre, Allusions, and Literary Movement

First, some brief comments are needed with regard to genre. There seems to be no single genre that perfectly represents the complexity of Revelation. Suggested by its opening, it is necessary to accept the interplay between prophetic expectations, apocalyptic imagery, and its epistolary immediacy to the seven churches of Asia Minor (1:4–8; Carson and Moo 713–16). Prophetic literature appears to be the common genre assumption to the book due to its intertextual echoes of the Hebrew prophets (1:1; cf. Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah), but its drama is framed by visionary language (apocalyptic) not historical realism (Ryken 165–66). 

Apocalyptic language is a special type of visionary literature which graphically portrays the future vindication of God’s people. They typically suffer at the hands of God’s enemies, and are called to hope as God destroys the present order and establishes his kingdom (1:1; Placher, Mouw, Peters 347). Although the language is highly visual, it is not ahistorical. Finally, Revelation’s opening and closing demonstrates it functioned as an occasional circular epistle among a specific group of churches (1:4–9; 2:1–3:22; 22:18–20). John’s Apocalypse addressed real historical problems facing the first-century Christians of the western Asia Minor.

Second, a significant feature of Revelation is its dense use of intertextual allusions to Old Testament texts and motifs. The imagery and story can stand on its own, but the allusions are highly informative for understanding its message. The book has more allusions to the Old Testament “than all other books of the NT put together” (Beale and Campbell 17). Some may be categorized as “clear allusions” based on their near identical language. For example, Isaiah’s “new heavens and new earth” is clearly taken to introduce the “new Jerusalem” (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Others may be categorized as “probable allusions” based on how uniquely traceable the idea and language is to the Old Testament. In Revelation 20:5–6, the martyrs are said to have experienced the “first resurrection” (c.f. 20:11–14). Resurrection is certainly found in the New Testament, but its motif is typically connected to Daniel 12:2–echoed by Jesus (John 5:29). The Holy Spirit guided John to establish these links to form the thought-world of Revelation to see their fulfillment, typology, or extend their meaning (Luter 463–65).[3]

Third, “structure guides the audience’s understanding of the text” (Lee 173). There are three noteworthy movements to pay attention to. The first of these movements is the “present situation” facing the first-century church exhibited in the letters “to the seven churches that are in Asia” (1:4; 2:1–3:22). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.] The churches were facing pressures of first century Greco-Roman political-religious life and these are directly bound to the language of the book (Mounce 84). The second movement is found at the structural center of the book (13:1–14:20). This section creates a “moment of decision” for the reader. Will one give allegiance to Satan and his Beast, or will one worship the Lamb? John makes it abundantly clear, one’s choice will be consequential. 

The final movement portrays Jesus (“the Word of God,” 19:13) riding triumphantly as the “Divine Warrior” on a white horse riding victoriously against Satan, his beast and false prophet condemning them to “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:11–21).[4] This movement seals the fate of Satan. The ending of the “old world” of persecution, deception, and unrighteousness are quickly replaced by the “new order” of God’s righteous kingdom. 

Revelation 20–21

The question of the nature of the eschatological millennium in Revelation is one of the most challenging interpretive debates throughout church history (McGinn 527–38).[5] This “end times” question is important, but not so much that it must distract from understanding the apocalyptic imagery of divine vindication, the fate of Satan and his followers, and the hope of a glorious “new” Jerusalem. Understanding the literary goal of the present chapters is our primary concern, afterwhich an approach will be offered to address the millennium question. 

Following the initial failure of Satan (19:11–21), John takes his readers through four visional experiences marked by the phrase, “Then I saw…” (20:1, 4, 11; 20:1). The first vision is of the millennial incarceration of the dragon (20:1–3), the second being the millennial reign of the martyrs with Christ interrupted by the failed final coup of Satan (20:4–10), and in the third vision John sees the final fate of the living and the dead who were not written in the book of life (20:11–14). The fourth vision takes in the visual grandeur of the new holy city of Jerusalem, in the new heavens and new earth, and its extraordinary features (21:1–22:5).

The Fate of the Satan’s Rebellion (Rev. 20:1–10) 

The first vision of the millennial incarceration of the dragon begins with the descent of another angelic figure from the host of heaven who carries the previously mentioned “key” to the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1) and a great chain. The imagery of the key is used three other times to represent control or access. The exalted Christ is said to possess the “keys of Death and Hades” (1:18) and “the key of David” (3:7). An angel of God who blew the fifth trumpet who was “given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit” and opened it (9:1–2). Throughout Revelation various angels appear to carry out various elements of God’s executive plans (Rev. 1:1; 5:11; 7:2; 8:3; 10:1; 12:7; 14:15, 17–18; 18:1, 21; 19:17). This angel chains Satan to the bottomless pit for “a thousand years” (20:2).

The idea of a “bottomless pit” reoccurs only a handful of times in Revelation but is a common trope of ancient cosmology of the underworld. References are found in the sheol references in the Old Testament (i.e., the grave, realm of the dead), non-canonical apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, and Greek myths of Hades and Titan myths. Such language appears in the New Testament regarding rebellious angels–complete with binding them in chains (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). Jesus declares the gates of the hadean realm would not prevail against his messianic mission (Matt. 16:18–19). Satan/the Devil, surprisingly, is cast in the pit temporarily for a thousand years to prevent further deception of the nations (20:3).

Satan (adversary, accuser; 2:9) and Devil (slanderer; 2:10) appear early in Revelation and are explicitly identified as “the great dragon… that ancient serpent…the deceiver of the whole world” cast down from heaven to earth with his angels (12:9). John’s recipients already knew that Satan had placed real political and religious pressure on their churches (Smyrna 2:9–10, Pergamum 2:13, Thyatira 2:24, Philadelphia 3:9), but John reveals that his deceptive and corruptive influence is everywhere. In Revelation, Satan operates through “nesting egg” avatars. The blasphemous beast from the sea (Nero redivivus?) who marveled the world over to worship him with his claim of a resurrection (13:1–4), gave rise to the miracle-working faux-lamb beast who initiated the cultic and political allegiance to totalitarianism by worship of the image of the first beast (the Caesar cult?; 13:11–18), who then gave rise to the false prophet and his miracle working demonic spirits to manipulate the kings of the earth to war against God (16:12–16). These have all been defeated. All that remains is Satan in exile, bound to the bottomless pit.

The martyrs of Christ, then, are resurrected to reign for a thousand years (20:4–6) but are interrupted when Satan initiates a failed coup resulting in his final demise in the lake of fire (20:7–10). This second vision begins with the preparation of a judgment scene reminiscent of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians in which he affirms that “the saints will judge the world… [and] angels” (6:2–3a). There are thrones reserved for those empowered to judge, but it is not clear who they are (Rev. 20:4). The proximity of this group to the resurrected martyrs lends strength to believe that the resurrected faithful of God will be involved in the cosmic judgment (20:4–5). This seems even more likely as the “rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended” as they did not experience “the first resurrection” (20:5). The resurrected martyrs will be judges, priests, and reign with God in this millennia (20:6). This outcome of victory is consistent with the letters to Thyatira and Laodicea (1:5b–6; 2:26–27; 3:21), and with the baptismal language of being raised and seated with Christ (Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:15; for the resurrection see end of section).

The release of Satan points to two related facts: God is in full control and Satan is always inferior in power (20:7; cf. Job 1:6–2:10). Yet, these inevitabilities never seem to bother him! At the close of the millennial reign Satan will re-emerge with the purpose “to deceive the nations.” This time he must recruit afresh. He plans to go to battle against God’s people like Gog the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, from the land of Magog (Ezek. 38–39). Gog and Magog are a shorthand for the ambition to “seize spoil and carry off plunder” from the vulnerable land of God’s people (Ezek. 38:10–11). God condemned Gog’s fate to be a burial in “the Valley of the Travelers, east of the sea” as a sign of his utter failure (Ezek. 39:11–16). So too, Satan/the Devil will attempt a coup but as he surrounds “the beloved city” fire from heaven consumes his forces, but he will be “thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur… tormented day and night forever and ever” (20:9–10). Satan, his avatars, nor his chicaneries ever appear again.

The Doomed Fate of the Beast Worshippers (Rev. 20:11–15) 

In the third vision, John sees the final fate of those who were not written in the book of life (20:11–14). The “book of life” is first introduced in the letter to the church in Sardis as a directory of those who walk with the exalted Christ and conquer over spiritual trials (3:5). Yet, God has always had such a book, exclusion from it was a sign of impending judgment (Exod. 32:33). In Revelation, it refers to those who have succumbed to the manipulation of the beast, worshiped it, rebelled against God, and lived unclean lives of moral and spiritual corruption (13:8; 17:8; 21:27). Their fate is to experience “the second death,” which is to be thrown into the lake of fire “forever and ever” with the beast, the false prophet, and Satan/the Devil (19:20; 20:10, 14–15; 21:8).

This lake of fire is the final and permanent act of divine judgment. Previously an angel declared, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark  on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (14:9–10). While some Christians reject the idea of eternal conscious torment for the lost and rebellious, this language could not be understood otherwise. The passive verb (tormented, basanídzō), the temporal language, and the heavenly witnesses suggests an eternal conscious experience. Granted, the portrayal is framed in the apocalyptic vision, but as stated above this does suggest that such a judgment will not happen.

The order of events leading to judgment is noteworthy. A bodily resurrection precedes standing before the throne of judgment, as they were exhumed from the sea and hadean realm (20:12–13). As the cosmos was laid bare, there was no terrain or hiding spots from God’s eye, as “earth and sky fled away” from him (20:11). This post-millennial resurrection (“come to life”) of exclusively beast worshippers was accomplished by God’s power (20:5). It is thought provoking to consider that a bodily resurrection of the wicked precedes being cast into the lake of fire to experience an eternal punishment for evil done in the body. Perhaps Jesus’ words are not exaggerations for effect when he said, “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [gehenna]” (Matt 10:28; 18:8–9). It is startling to see that not only the wicked and lost, but even the “containers” of disembodied spirits (Death and Hades), are thrown in the lake of fire. Revelation affirms, then, that hell is God’s ultimate answer of holy justice to the corrosive problem of moral and spiritual evil. Nothing associated with evil survives the second death.

The “New” Fate of the Lamb Worshippers (Rev. 21:1–27)

The fourth vision takes in the visual grandeur of the founding and features of the new holy city of Jerusalem, in the new heavens and new earth (21:1–27). The transition is as quick as the blink of an eye. This transition is an anticipated feature of apocalyptic literature. The old world in which God’s people suffer has fallen and God will replace it with his “new” kingdom imbued with peace and righteousness (21:1). The “holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” had been anticipated since the letter to the church in Philadelphia (3:12; 21:2). The garden in Genesis and the tabernacle reveal, for example, God’s desire to dwell with his people provided they walk in holiness with him (Gen. 2:1–3:24; Exod. 25:8; 29:45–46; Lev. 16:16). In the new Jerusalem, “the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev. 21:3). God will share his intimate presence with his people by comforting, protecting, and ensuring the “former things have passed away” (21:4).

“New” appears in Revelation eight times. Four appear between verses 1–5. John sees the “new heavens and a new earth” (21:1), the “new Jerusalem” (21:2; 3:12), and hears God affirm “I am making all things new” (21:5). This “new” creation originates out of heaven and comes down to the plain of existence which has lost all of its features due to the immanent presence of God (20:11; 21:1).[6] Clearly, the old “heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) has “passed away” along with its sea (Rev. 21:1). Nothing of the old order remains except for those who have faithfully worshiped the lamb (21:7–8, 27). It is “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” who declares, “It is done!” (21:6; Gen. 2:1–3). The new creation is not tenuously “very good” (Gen. 1:31; 3:1), every one evil will be in judgment (Rev. 21:8; 14:9–10).

In Revelation 16:17–17:18, there is also a declaration that God’s work is “done” (16:17). This is followed by an angel showing John the judgment of “the great prostitute” who reigns over many waters and the kings of the earth (17:1, 18). In this section, an angel from earlier reappears to lead John to see that the only city left is the “new Jerusalem,” equated as the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (21:9). The dueling women of Revelation (the prostitute and the bride) materialize the divergent outcomes of the dueling women of Proverbs 1–9 (Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly). John saw the combined beauty of its materials used, its impressive protective boundaries, the explicit knowledge of its citizens’ names inscribed, and the work of the apostolic office serving as its foundation (21:11–14). The materials of the new holy city are made from the various streams of the scheme of redemption woven into a tapestry of the gospel that can only be related visually by the glittering brilliance of precious jewels and stones (21:15–21). The city is pure and beautiful, and is the refreshing end of our pilgrimage (22:1–5; Heb. 4:9–10; 11:10).

Several elements seem to have surprised John about the new Jerusalem all of which are the result of the immanent presence of God (21:22–26). The Jerusalem temple where the Spirit of God dwelt has been replaced by the actual presence of “the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). Creation itself will lack the sun and never have night again, as God and the Lamb are its source of light (21:23). Light is the natural extension of the character of God (John 1:4–5). In this “new heavens and new earth,” as in its Isaiah counterparts (65:17; 66:22), humanity and creation will experience peaceful living and will generate glory for the express purpose of God’s praise (21:24–27; Beale and Campbell 492). 

ILLUSTRATIONS

First-Century Persecution

Revelation points to a first-century church experiencing persecution. The New Testament provides evidence that like their master, the early Christians experienced rejection and religious persecution. Jesus’ death on the cross was the result of a calculated rejection by the Jewish religious establishment. The Lord told his disciples, “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours” (John 15:20). The apostles certainly experienced persecution for their claims that Jesus fulfilled the anticipation of the messiah, and were often used as political trophies to appease the rank and file anti-Christian Jew (Acts 12:1–3). This was mostly infighting among Jews that rejected Christ and Jews that accepted Christ. Historically, Emperor Claudius (r. 41–54) expelled Jews from the city of Rome over their ongoing instigations over a certain Chrestus (i.e., Christos, Christ; Suetonius, Claudius 25; Acts 18:1–2).

Nevertheless, as Christianity expanded throughout the Greco-Roman world other forms of problems emerged. Social and religious tensions emerged as former pagans no longer participated in the placating of the gods, which made the Christian stand out (1 Pet. 4:1–19). Texts like 1 Peter reveal there were consequential reactions by the local community Christians found themselves in for not participating in traditional cultic practices, there did not seem to be a top-down Roman policy of persecution. Instead, persecution at that level was sporadic and episodic. Two notable figures were Nero in A.D. 64 and Domitian in A.D. 96. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote of Nero’s actions to blame the Christians for the great fire of Rome. Tacitus wrote, he “fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians” (Annals 15.44). Domitian, on the other hand, persecuted Christians as a side-effect from their rejection of the imperial cult which affirmed that “Caesar is Lord” (McFayden 46). Such situations play into the Roman paradigm which Revelation subverts.

APPLICATIONS

The Resurrection of the Body

Scripture forces the Christian to see the bodily resurrection as an essential component of the “end times.” The language of resurrection in Revelation 20:4b–5 is particularly uncomplicated. The resurrection of the dead (beheaded) martyrs simply occurs when they “came to life” (20:4b). In Daniel, the general resurrection is framed as when many who “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (12:2; cf. John 5:29). In Ezekiel, a grotesque vision of dry bones reassembling underscores not only affirms God’s creative power to make these bones live again, but also to resurrect the Judahite state dead in captivity (37:1–14). 

In the history of the church, the procurator Festus summarizes the Christian claim that, “a certain Jesus, who was dead… Paul asserted to be alive” (Acts 25:19; Acts 17:32). In the early fifties, Paul likely provides the earliest Christian explanation of the bodily resurrection of Christ and its future implications for the believer (1 Cor. 15:1–8). Christ’s resurrection made him the “firstfruits” from the dead, providing hope the Christian will likewise “bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:20, 49). It is impressive that the language of bodily resurrection spans the prophetic, the epistolary, and the historical genres of Scripture. 

Understanding the Millennium

Revelation 20:1–10 is one short but it has become the center for many systems of belief about the end times. Revelation 20:1–10 tends to “wags the dog” of interpretation for the Apocalypse if you begin the interpretation process with an unchecked eschatological (end times) assumption(s). For this reason Frank Pack (1916–1998) observed, “The question of the millennium… has made this the most difficult portion of the Book of Revelation to understand” (45). These visions of John are “not intended to map out a linear future timeline of history but to inspire people who are suffering for their faith to persevere, whatever the time” (Tidball 244). Nevertheless, the three broad approaches have locked horns throughout church history. 

The three most common are premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism (cf. McGrath 442–43; Tidball 244–45; Pack 45–48). While the most popular, premillennialism anticipates Christ’s return before the millennium inaugurated by the rapture and tribulation. It relies on a literal treatment and unnatural proof texting of scattered prophetic literature and encourages speculation of the end times contrary to Jesus’ words (Matt. 24:36, 42). Postmillennialism rose to prominence in the nineteenth century as an optimistic alternative, seeing the evangelistic mission of the church vital to the coming of Christ but it has fallen out of favor in the aftermath of the world wars. Finally, amillennialism does not hold that there is any period of history that should be marked as “the millennium,” but instead typically sees it as symbolic of the entire Christian age. This is likely the better reading of the language of Revelation than the previous two.

APPLICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Why are the words and the literary genre important for God’s inspired purpose in writing Revelation?
  2. Does the rich apocalyptic language suggest that there is no historical foundation behind the image? Where does Revelation point to its historical setting?
  3. What story do you find in contemporary media (books, movies, etc.) that is compelling in the way it outlines good and evil? Which one would you use to illustrate evil vs. good to someone you know?
  4. What is a fair speculation as to why God temporarily bound Satan and allowed him to try for one more attack on God’s people?
  5. Eternal conscious torment of the wicked and lost is a hard topic to talk about. How does justice play a role in understanding this topic?
  6. The new city of Jerusalem in the new heavens and new earth is said to be free of evil and corruption. Why do you think free moral beings will be able to live in a place like that and not sin?
  7. The resurrection of the body is part of Revelation’s picture of the new heavenly existence. How does Paul’s explanation help think about the resurrection of our bodies and the end times?

ENDNOTES

  1. Boyd Luter, “Interpreting the Book of Revelation,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David A. Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 474.
  2. This approach to Revelation is based on the literary chiastic structure developed in Michelle V. Lee, “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation,” Novum Testamentum 40.2 (1998): 164–94.
  3. A short list of other allusions: Genesis 1:1 as the basis for “new” heavens and earth (Rev. 21:1); Isaiah throne room motif of the thrice-holy God (Isa. 6:1–7; Rev. 4–5; 20:4, 11); in Daniel, God victoriously vindicates his saints against the beasts (7:1–28; Rev. 20:7–10); the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21:6) alludes to similar ideas in Isaiah (44:6; 48:12); Ezekiel 37–39 as important imagery for the Gog and Magog siege of Jerusalem (Rev. 20:7–9).
  4. David E. Aune marks this passage with strong Christological implications for the exalted Christ portrayed as the Divine Warrior who is designated with the following four “names” (317–18): (1) “Faithful and True” (19:11), (2) “he has a name written that no one knows but himself” (19:12), (3) “the Word of God” (19:14), and (4) “King of kings and Lord of lords” (19:16).
  5. Students of the outline of Revelation will observe that 20:1–22:5 is the proper closing of this unit, as John is shown the central placement of “the river of the water of life” in the new Jerusalem sourced from the throne of God with whom they will have an unmediated communion.
  6. John’s language here does not perfectly align with Peter’s (2 Pet. 3:8–10), but the difference can be accounted for by their different audience and purposes, but more particularly by the ways they compartmentalize different aspects of the end of the present age.

WORKS CITED

Aune, David E. “Stories of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 292–319 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

Beale, G. K., and David H. Campbell. Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Logos electronic edition.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Lee, Michelle Vidle. “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation.” Novum Testamentum 40.2 (1998): 164–94.

Luter, Boyd. “Interpreting the Book of Revelation.” Pages 457–80 in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: B&H, 2001.

McFayden, Donald. “The Occasion of the Domitian Persecution.” American Journal of Theology 24 (1920): 46–66.

McGinn, Bernard. “Revelation.” Pages 523–41 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. 1987. Reprint, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. NICNT. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Pack, Frank. Revelation, Part 2. Austin: Sweet, 1965.

Placher, William C., Richard J. Mouw, and Ted Peters. “Where Are We Going? Eschatology.” Pages 329–65 in Essentials of Christian Theology. Edited by William C. Placher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Russell, Walt. Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000.

Ryken, Leland. How to Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Tidball, Derek. The Voices of the New Testament: Invitation to a Biblical Roundtable. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.

The Gospels: Seven Reasons to Trust Their Reliability

On By Jovan PayesIn 2022, Ancient Biography, Ancient History, Biola University, Christian Apologetics, College Papers, Early Christianity, Gospel Studies, Graduate Work, Greco-Roman World, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Research Papers, Talbot School of Theology, Theology

In the summer of 1996, I picked up a little green Gideon New Testament and began reading the gospels. At the time I was searching to see if perhaps Jesus would be the help I needed in my personal quest to leave the street gang life, overcome my dependency on illicit drug use, and establish a relationship with God. The experience had a radical impact on my hope of what was possible in my life, that I could be other than what I was, and how I could be reborn into the kingdom of God. A few days after Christmas day, I committed my life to following Jesus. In that nascent period of my emerging faith, I relied on the gospels to “tell me the story of Jesus.”

Since that time, I have immersed myself in the study of the gospels for faith and for hope, for truth, and for the renewing power of the historic Jesus who is the Christ of my faith. However, in that same period, it became clear to me that a number of sources (academic and popular) questioned the historical reliability of the Gospels (and the Bible). In this present paper, I affirm their reliability in a cumulative case, based on seven good arguments that make it more probable than not that the Gospels are historically reliable.[1]

The case will be divided into three categorical units.[2] I begin with four “ground-clearing” arguments to resolve important front-end misgivings regarding the reliability of the gospels. Second, I argue how four compositional conventions demonstrate a remarkably stable environment for writing ancient biographies of a recent figure within living memory. Then, I show how three historical features of the Gospels affirm their reliability. Finally, I offer a summation of what this abbreviated cumulative case affirms regarding the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Cumulative Argument for Reliability

There are two aspects of the present cumulative case for the reliability of the Gospels to consider before moving forward: the method and the goal. The method of a cumulative case is to use a series of individual arguments that are “less than sufficient” to bear the whole burden of a case by themselves, but together argue a compelling case that is reasonable. Former cold case detective, J. Warner Wallace, says it helps others to “see the forest for the trees.”[3] If the overlapping nature of the arguments makes for a reasonable argument, then the goal is to demonstrate that the cumulative case is more probable than the alternatives.

As an illustration, consider the colloquial commonsense argument: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has a bill like a duck, then it is a duck.” These three arguments form a cumulative case that the “bird” is a duck. With this admittedly limited illustration, I point to the commonsense nature of overlapping lines of reasons and evidence, of varying weight, together to offer a big-picture argument.

Presently, then, the seven arguments below overlap to argue positively that it is reasonable and more probable (not just plausible) than not the Gospels are in general historically reliable as an ancient historical biography of a recent religious teacher (Jesus) within the living memory of his disciples. This is a threshold argument. Do the gospels crossover to the category of historically reliable? This is significant since the Gospels are our best available source for any historical picture of Jesus of Nazareth.[4]

Ground Clearing Arguments

The following arguments are treated as “ground-clearing” lines of evidence as they address “front-end” matters of reliability.[5] What extant sources are available for knowledge of Jesus? Has the text of the Gospels been preserved and reliably transmitted? Even if the textual tradition is adequate, are the translations reliable? How early are these Gospels and who wrote them? These are important questions that must be given consideration due to so many misgivings about them in popular circles.[6]

Ancient Sources for Jesus

In the first place, what sources exist to know that Jesus existed and what he said and did? Apart from the Gospels, there is a cache of early ancient non-Christian, often hostile, testimony about Jesus available from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, later Christian, and heretical and apocryphal literature within the first one hundred years.[7] The composite picture of what is known of Jesus from these sources remarkably corroborates with what is found in the four Gospel accounts: Jesus was a Jewish itinerant, miracle-working rabbi in the Roman province of Judea, who many believed was the Messiah; but he was executed under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar; his disciples believed he resurrected spreading this belief throughout the Rome. The Gospels remain the best sources for Jesus, but corroboration of their portrayal of Jesus with ancient non-Christian sources is a necessary starting place.

Reliable Transmission

Additionally, skeptic Richard Carrier, a historian of ancient Rome, lists “textual analysis” as the first stage of historical inquiry.[8] This second ground-clearing argument asserts the Gospels pass the “bibliographical test” as part of the reliable transmission of the Greek New Testament from the ancient text to the modern reader.[9] New Testament textual criticism can evaluate, detect, and correct textual corruptions due to the access of textual critics to over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, early ancient translations, and early church quotations.[10] There are two significant variants in the gospels which involve an entire passage (Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11), but these are the exception. According to Blomberg, we have “upwards of 97% of what the original writers wrote reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt,” and the remaining 3% affects no Christian doctrine.[11] As an ancient, hand-copied group of books, the Gospels have been reliably transmitted.

Reliable English Translations

As a third argument, standard English Bible translations are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of knowing the deeds, sayings, and passion of Jesus in the Gospels. Translation is the work of transferring the meaning and ideas of words from one language into the language of a receptor language. Biblical scholar Philip W. Comfort notes that a translation “must reliably replicate the meaning of the text without sacrificing its readability.”[12] In translation theory, there are formal equivalence (“word for word”) translations (ESV, NASB), and there are dynamic equivalence (“thought for thought”) translations (NLT, CEB).[13] Additionally, there are optimal equivalence translations that seek an ideal blend of formal and dynamic methods (CSB, NIV).[14] No translation is perfect, but they typically succeed in producing a “reliable and readable” English text.

First-Century Documents

Finally, the Gospels are first-century biographical documents. Although the traditional authorship attributed to the Gospels attributed to them by the earliest Christian claim has been disputed and denied by critical scholarship, the dating given for most of the canonical gospels is within the window of “living memory” for the writing of ancient biographies about a historical figure.[15] Keener defines “living memory” as a time when “some people who knew the subject were still alive when the biographer wrote” their biography.[16] This is an ideal time to write a Gospel given the access to “better sources” and communal accountability to “document” events and sayings than a later biographer would have at their disposal. Scholarly consensus places the publication of each Gospel within the range of “living memory” of the first century. This fits within a literary period of the early Roman Empire in which concern for historical biographical accuracy peaked, roughly between the first century B.C. to the third century A.D.[17]

The Argument from Memory

In Christobiography, Craig Keener marshalls a compelling case that the Gospel biographies have many of the features of the ancient biographies. The following section seeks to condense Kenner’s overall argument. I argue for a remarkably stable environment for historical writing, with a focus on living memory and oral sources, which were adapted to write an ancient biography of a recent figure within living memory with a concern for accurate history telling.[18]

To focus the present argument, the historical preface to Luke-Acts will be used to inform and illustrate these conventions:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1–4 English Standard Version)[19]

Luke’s preface elicits the reader to anticipate that a historical narrative is forthcoming and constrained by pre-existing Jesus knowledge. Luke readily demonstrates that a historian’s use of convention to compose history is not incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration.[20] Nevertheless, here the focus is only given to how the Gospels are examples of reliably composed ancient biographical documents using the sources and conventions available to the authors.

Luke illustrates that the early church had a depository of oral tradition available to them extending back to “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2). The presence of oral tradition alone does not suggest stability, as it could be argued that the further away from Jerusalem over the years, the oral tradition lacked authentic “controls on the content” to prevent corruption.[21] Admittedly, this is a very complex question. It requires an appreciation that one’s memory precedes chronologically “memoir” and “oral tradition,” which brings into focus the question: how reliable was the first-generation memory of Jesus on which the Gospels are written? Part of the answer is found in the strength of the communal memory of the first generation of eyewitnesses to preserve and provide accountability to the transmission of oral tradition even if certain details were distorted, or allowable stylistic changes crept in.[22] That is to say, distortions may occur when forgetting certain details (location, timeframe), but in an organically controlled environment, memory will likely not invent new stories.

Craig Keener argues at length that memory studies “offer no reason to discount” that the Gospels, as ancient biography, “preserve substantial information about Jesus.”[23] Debates occur over how much “core” Jesus is preserved in the Gospels from the source of memory and oral tradition. The skepticism of how much ancients could remember, it should be tempered with contemporary “Westerners” use of memory to reconstruct from their own living memory, despite the natural limitations of organic memory.[24] When it comes to what the earliest disciples should have remembered, memory studies point to an expectation that the collective memory and oral tradition of the disciples should have provided a basic historical portrait of Jesus.

The retelling of the same or parallel events with stylized segments of Jesus’ teaching, the person mentioned, or details omitted, are the kinds of elements that would be found within well a preserved oral tradition and communal memory. This is particularly important for the oral teaching of Jesus in which the oral community cared more for substance (the gist) over the verbatim recollection.[25] Thus, Keener argues, there are good historical grounds for accepting the shared events, themes, teachings, and deeds of Jesus and his inner circle.[26]

Historical Arguments

The present historical arguments affirm the reliability of the Gospels. First, archaeological confirmation situates the realism of the biographical narratives. Second, early Christian letters predating the Gospels include early Christian creedal statements, possible quotations, and allusions to the teaching of Jesus.

Archaeological Corroboration

Archaeology is a precarious discipline as it does not always yield all the desired corroborating evidence for a specific event or person. Nevertheless, “evidence-based apologetics” is linked to the proper use and interpretation of archaeological findings.[27] Excavations from various cities connected to Jesus have illuminated the realism found in the Gospel narratives, but by the nature of the case, they do not confirm the supernatural deeds of Jesus.[28] It is immaterial if one’s horizon believes the Gospels exaggerate these aspects of the historical Jesus or allow for them.[29] There was a time when it was believed that archaeology could only date the birth of Christ but provide little that would illustrate Jesus’ life.[30]

Archaeology has since demonstrated places mentioned exist (e.g., Nazareth), illustrating agrarian life (mill stones, viticulture), living conditions (homes), topography, economics (Roman and Judean coins), and other socio-cultural realities.[31] In 1961, an inscription was found at Caesarea Maritimis confirming externally that Pontius Pilate was the Judean prefect during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. The realism of stories of the twelve disciples traveling by boat in the Sea of Galilee was confirmed in 1986 when a first-century fishing boat was found in the Sea of Galilee. In an impressive find, in 1968 the remains of an early first-century crucified man, named Yehohanan, were discovered in a family bone box (ossuary) found in the northern city limits of Jerusalem. This find illuminates Jewish death customs of the period, that Judean crucified victims as criminals received proper burial rites (like Jesus), instead of the claim of some that the crucified were buried in unmarked mass graves.[32]

Pre-Gospel Allusions in Paul and James

A second historical argument is made from pre-Gospel publication creedal statements, quotations, and allusion to Paul and James the Just. Paul is believed to have suffered martyrdom under Nero in Rome (A.D. 64–67).[33] In Galatians 1:11–2:10, the content of Paul’s gospel is authenticated by the earliest disciples of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–8, Paul appeals to a pre-existing creedal statement affirming the death, burial, resurrection, and multiple resurrected appearances of Jesus (Matt 28:1–10; Luke 24:1–49). Additionally, Paul distinguishes his teaching on marital issues from known circulating instruction from Jesus (1 Cor 7:10, 12).[34] In Romans 1:1–6, is found the belief that Jesus is of Davidic lineage (Matt 1:17). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul cites what is likely an oral saying of Jesus that is found nearly verbatim in Luke 10:7.[35]

Additionally, James wrote an early epistle to Hebrew Christians. He was executed by high priest Ananus II during the transition from procurator Festus to Albinus (A.D. 62), alluding to the teaching of his brother Jesus.[36] Blomberg demonstrates that no epistle “contains as many passages that verbally resemble the teaching of Jesus” as James, so much so, that some believe James had access at minimum to Matthew’s sermon on the mount (Matt 5–8).[37] The resemblances seem consistent with the fluid nature of oral tradition.

These references from Paul and James, and many other letters, do not alone prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels, but they do show how the Gospels fall within the continuity of pre-publication beliefs.

A Summation

The “ground clearing” arguments demonstrate that there is good ancient first-century source material that has been adequately preserved and reliably translated into English for those who would like to know about Jesus. Additionally, the oral tradition techniques and composition with available sources to write ancient history are remarkably stable to deliver the four Gospel biographies of Jesus within living memory. Finally, the external historical reliability of the Gospels is seen in the authentic writings of Paul and James, and archaeological corroboration of the realism and setting of the Gospels. I pray this cumulative case leads someone to believe that the Gospels are reliable so that one day they may come to believe in the Jesus of the Gospels.[38]

Endnotes

  1. To be clear, I do not affirm that these are the only arguments that can be made. Nor have I included all historical “ground clearing” issues (e.g., historical methodology, etc.). I have limited the discussion to these seven arguments due to space and convenience.
  2. These are my personal arrangements of the arguments.
  3. Former cold-case detective, J. Warner Wallace, remarks, “cumulative case arguments are typically built on a number of pieces of evidence, each of which may be imperfect or insufficient when considered in isolation. When examined in totality, however, the case becomes strong and reasonable.” He goes on, “opponents of cumulative cases usually attack the imperfections or insufficiencies they observe in the single pieces of evidence within the larger case. But remember, each individual evidence is admittedly less than sufficient, and this has no impact on whether or not the final conclusion, given the overwhelming nature of the cumulative case, is reasonable.” See, “Intense Investigation,” Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith, Logos electronic ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2017), n.p.
  4. Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), 11.
  5. The idea of “ground clearing” arguments is taken from a passing statement in a lecture by Craig L. Blomberg on the reliability of the Gospels. The structure of this paper relies on the selective use of Blomberg’s lectures from a Fall 2022 Biola University graduate course titled, “The Reliability of the Gospels.”
  6. Paul Barnett likewise asserts, “our first and most basic step is to identify, date, and assess the historical value of our sources for Jesus Christ” (Finding the Historical Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], 11).
  7. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 249–280; Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ, 11–64.
  8. Richard C. Carrier, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Kindle ed. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012), location 174: “We have to use the methods of textual criticism and paleography to ascertain whether a document we presently have is authentic and accurately reflects its original—since usually only copies of copies exist today.”
  9. John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law and Christianity (1964; reprint, Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 11–13; Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017), 46–47.
  10. Blomberg points out it is not a fair use of the textual evidence to suggest the earlier back one goes, there will be an increase in variants (Historical Reliability, 335–36). Still, the earliest extant manuscripts are second-century papyrus fragments of Matthew 23:30–39 (P77) and John 18:31–34 and 18:37–38 (P52), and John 18:36–19:7 (P90) attesting to the early circulation of these books (Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990], 31–71). There are witnesses to Syriac and Old Latin translations of the gospels as early as the second century (Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001], 25–35). The gospels are cited or alluded to in first-to-second-century patristic literature such as Ignatius, Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, etc. (cf. Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (reprint, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research, 2009).
  11. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 332–33; For his alarmist rhetoric see, Bart Ehrman, “The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings” in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 45–69.
  12. Philip W. Comfort, Essential Guide to Bible Versions (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2000), 104.
  13. Comfort, Essential Guide, 103–04.
  14. On “optimal equivalence” see “The CSB Translation Philosophy: Optimal Equivalency” (Feb. 14, 2017).
  15. McDowell and McDowell compare the dating ranges of the four Gospels among conservative and liberal scholarship and provide these ranges in Evidence that Demands a Verdict (42–46): Matthew (early 60s–80s; 80–100), Mark (late 50s–late 60s; 70s), Luke (early 60s–80s; 70–110), John (mid-60s–100; 90–100).
  16. Keener, Christobiography, 2.
  17. Keener, Christobiography, 68–103.
  18. Due to the nature of this essay, especially this section, I am arguing the case for reliability without seeking the shortcut of appealing to “Holy Spirit-guided inspiration.” I am fully committed to the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. I believe God used the conventions of the day in the production of his written Word.
  19. Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
  20. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 38, footnote 42: “Luke describes the composition of his Gospel according to the standard process of ancient history-writing–consulting written sources, learning from oral tradition, interviewing eyewitnesses, selecting what is deemed most important for one’s own objectives.” In Keener, Christobiography, 221–39, the two-volume work Luke-Acts is profiled as a mixture of “biohistory” with each book from a sub-category of the historical genre: Luke (ancient biography) and Acts (ancient history).
  21. J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006), 30.
  22. Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing, 33–36.
  23. Keener, Christobiography, 366.
  24. Keener, Christobiography, 373. Keener points out how memories are not “videocameras… not straightforward, objective records of what happened” (374). They include constant reworking, bias, and conflation, and are vulnerable to suggestion.
  25. Keener notes that verbatim recollection was very rare, and given the sample size of the teaching of Jesus, one should expect the kind of substance-focused material found in the Gospels (385–90). Cf. Darrell L. Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire, eds. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 74–99.
  26. Keener, Christobiography, 384.
  27. McDowell and McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 416.
  28. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 326–27.
  29. I. Howard Marshall explores what is meant by “historical” as whether a person named x actually existed or whether a historical reference to someone named x is more fiction than history. Additionally, he pursues his project by seeking to go from “I believe in that there was a historical person called Jesus… what, if anything can be known about this person” (I Believe in the Historical Jesus, rev. ed. [Vancouver: Regent College, 2004], 16). C. K. Barrett assesses the uncomfortableness for the modern historian reading pre-scientific literature like the Gospels largely centers on the supernatural elements that do “not so appear in his own experience.” Still, it would be a “bad historical method to rule out a priori… such events” (Jesus and the Gospel Tradition [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968], 4). See a more recent discussion on “preunderstanding” horizons in Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 38–50.
  30. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Archaeology” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, eds. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 441.
  31. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 326–31. Charlesworth lists over one-hundred-twenty items ranging from the mundane to the illustrious (“Jesus Research,” 443–45).
  32. Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the Ossuaries,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003): 33. The multiply attested “burial tomb tradition” (Mark 15:42–47) has been doubted by various critical scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, who believes crucifixion meant “death-without-burial” and “body-as-carrion” (Who Killed Jesus? [New York: HarperCollins, 1995], 163–68).
  33. For Paul’s death see 1 Clement 5:5–7, 6:1; for context and historical analysis see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (2008; reprint, New York: Routledge, 2015), 93–114.
  34. Blomberg describes this as a “powerful confirmation of the care with which the first Christians distinguished the words of the historical Jesus from later instructions inspired by his Spirit” (Historical Reliability, 287).
  35. Although critics do not list 1 Timothy among Paul’s authentic letters, the arguments are far from definitive and do not make Pauline authorship impossible (Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1972], 1–5; George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles [1992; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 21–52).
  36. For the death of James the Just see Josephus Antiquities 20.197–200; For context and historical analysis see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 115–34.
  37. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 292–93.
  38. This “two decision” model is taken from Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 255–58.

Works Cited

Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ. After Jesus, volume 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.

Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

Bock, Darrell L. “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 74–99. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

Carrier, Richard. Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Kindle edition. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2012.

Charlesworth, James H. “Jesus Research and Archaeology” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, 439–66. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Antisemitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins, 1995.

Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Herm. Edited by Helmut Koester, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and the Ossuaries.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003): 21–46.

Keener, Craig S. Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019.

Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 1992. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Revised edition. Vancouver, BC: Regent College, 2002.

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017.

McDowell, Sean. The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus. 2015. Reprint, New York: Routledge, 2018.

Montgomery, John Warwick. History, Law and Christianity. 1964. Reprint, Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014.

Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2013.

_____. Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2017.

Understanding That I Cannot Live at Peace with Everyone: Living with Not Being Able to Do the Impossible

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Peter, 1-2 Samuel, Book of Acts, Christian Leadership, Galatians, Genesis, Hebrews, Isaiah, James, Jenkins Institute, John, Leadership, Leadership Ethics, Matthew, Ministry, New Testament, Old Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Preacher, Psalms, Published, Romans, Spiritual Formation, The Preaching and Ministry Journal

[Note: This is a pre-pub version of my article submission for The Jenkins Institute’s August 2023 issue of The Preaching & Ministry Journal.]

God created human beings to be social, and to live within community. When “God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him,” notice that the text then equates this action with, “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).[1] The word “man” (’adam) here is not exclusive to the male but is generic for mankind as a created order. Mankind is the only creation made in God’s image and likeness, which is to say, that elements of the human species allow us to approximate what God is like. Humans are not God, but they share a “family resemblance.” A few of these resemblances include being free social, moral, spiritual, and relational creatures.

Christian ministry among God’s people and in the world speaks to these fundamental human issues and experiences. God has always communicated his will to humanity to shape our social, moral, spiritual, and relational toward godliness through Divine action, word, or prophetic revelation (Heb 1:1–2; 4:12–13). Unfortunately, our ungodliness gets in the way. Not only is the human response to the exposing power of God’s word often filled with resistance, but often the people who pursue godly living are resisted, rejected, and in extreme cases have been persecuted (1 Pet 4:1–19). Christian ministry, then, is grounded in the understanding of God’s word, its proclamation of the gospel by which sin is condemned, and the power of God’s gracious sanctification is heralded.

The work of Christian ministry is seated right in the heart of the human experience. It challenges free will choices, condemns certain actions, and commends others, and does so with love and righteousness serving as tandem virtues. Jesus in his farewell words to his disciples, reminded them that the word of God makes enemies. For this reason, he quoted Psalm 35:19, “They hated me without a cause” (John 15:26). This raises the issue of this short essay: while ministry is often filled with wonderful experiences and we witness meaningful spiritual triumphs, it is inevitable that the ministry of the word will create conflict among those we share it. We cannot always live in peace with everyone. How do we as ministers navigate this hard bitter truth? I suggest the following spiritual and emotional tools.

Spiritual Tools

Sitting with the Rejected Jesus

When we find ourselves at the barrel end of the anger and rejection of those we minister to, we need to sit with Jesus. God’s work comes with rejection. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). The prophet Isaiah foresaw the coming of Jesus and depicted him as the rejected servant who will suffer for the healing of Israel (52:13–53:12; Acts 8:35). On the surface, he was “stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (Isa 53:4), but in fact, he was punished by God for Israel’s rebellion against God (Isa 53:5).

Robert Chisholm notes that Isaiah affirms that “this apparent alienation was not final” for God’s servant will be vindicated (53:10–11).[2] The Gospels recount in detail how in his ministry Jesus was rejected for the hard truths against hypocrisy, traditionalism, and lack of love and grace for the downtrodden. I have learned to sit with Jesus when I feel rejected by those to whom I minister the word of God.

The Light Must Shine in the Darkness

The light of God’s word often creates tensions with those whose sins, consciences, or beliefs are cloaked in the darkness of worldliness. There is a great temptation to preach what is agreeable to the majority. When we push beyond what is traditionally expected or on controversial topics, biblical conclusions about sin may be met with hostility. These hostilities may be warranted if the presentation lacked love or adequate biblical foundation. Other times, hostilities arise because a social norm that has become acceptable is called sin. The preaching of repentance is to trade in resistance.

Additionally, preaching God’s word trades in light and darkness, righteousness and sin, morality and immorality, and personal sins and relational sins. If we refrain to proclaim the “whole counsel of God” then we will have abdicated our role as servants of God (Acts 20:26–27; Gal 1:10). It is hard to speak God’s word to people you love when you know that you are shining God’s light into their darkness (John 1:5, 11–12), but this is the task we have accepted. Trust the light to do its work.

Compassionate without Compromise

Every preacher brings a culture to their pulpit. Our desire to be faithful to God’s word can sometimes lack compassion. We should take time to evaluate if some of our uneasy relationship with others is because we preach as if there is only one type of preaching: harsh. The oracles of Moses, the prophets, and the sermons and discourses of Jesus and the apostles provide us with diverse examples of proclamation. Jesus certainly condemns sin. Remarkably, he lovingly invites the sinner to the innermost part of his heart (Matt 11:28–30).

On one occasion, Matthew cites Isaiah 42:1–3 to describe Jesus’ healing love for the sick. His compassion is framed as “a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench” (Matt 12:18–21). William Barclay (1907–1978) reflects on this well, “A man’s witness may be shaky and weak; the light of his life may be but a flicker and not a flame; but Jesus did not come to discourage but encourage.”[3] We should always do some soul-searching when reflecting on the friction created by our attempts to proclaim God’s word.

Emotional Tools

Disappointment is a Normal Reaction

Isaiah declared, “who has believed what he has heard from us?” (53:1). Paul himself cited this in Romans 10:16 as he discusses the problem that not everyone will believe, yet the gospel must go out. Ministry is people work. We work with people. People disappoint us, especially those that know us and our love for them. It is hard not to personally take the rejection of what we teach and preach. Jesus reminds us that when our teaching aligns with his, any rejection of the doctrine goes back to our God.

The disappointment in “ministry outcomes” can tap into our identity issues and send us down a shame and depression spiral. Not everyone will like our preaching style. Not everyone will like our personality. Not everyone will accept us either. Sadly, we will be misunderstood as well. We will be judged by word gaffes in the pulpit. Our hard stand on sin will sometimes be confused for bigotry and outdated morality. People we love may be inadvertently hurt by ministering the word of God. We always want clear skies, but we must endure cloudy days. Disappointment is a normal reaction when our good-faith intentions in ministry create personal problems with others. Love them through your disappointments.

Frustration is No Excuse for Bad Behavior

As a young man, I thought I would become an auto mechanic for Mercedes-Benz. One day in auto school, two Russian students were heard banging on a car. The teacher yelled out into the shop, “What are you doing?” In response one of the men said in a thick Russian accent, “Don’t worry, sledgehammer and screwdriver fix everything.” My teacher was not impressed. When our message offends, and it will then remember we are stewards of God’s word. When we are frustrated by how people respond to us, we need to remember it is not an excuse for short-sighted responses that satisfy our emotional fixations of retribution.

“Sledgehammer and screwdriver” will not fix everything. When reading the Gospels, Jesus certainly had his fair share of direct controversies, but he always tempered them based on the kind of person that stood before him. Frustration often seeks a release because we have been let down. It is hard to remember that the person in front of you needs the grace of Jesus, not a petty unkind word that took a second to say but may take a lifetime to overcome. Yet, we are called to be peacemakers between God and man, and with each other (Matt 5:9; Jas 3:17–18). The work of peace-making applies the transforming “heart of Jesus” to times of conflict.[4]

Pray and Meditate through the Psalms

If there ever was a biblical figure that understood conflict in his life with those who oppose God’s will, few rival David. To say David was not perfect is an understatement. He is a multi-dimensional figure. Warrior and worshiper, sinner and a man after God’s own heart, condemned and vindicated, a political rival and a Divinely appointed king. The books of Samuel also reveal him to be musically inclined. He eventually received the moniker, “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sam 23:1). 73 psalms in the Psalter explicitly are “of David.” They are prayer-songs David wrote to praise God, declare faith and trust in God, plea for divine retribution, and recount God’s deliverance. Philip Yancey says that these “150 psalms are as difficult, disordered, and messy as life itself, a fact that can bring unexpected comfort.”[5] These psalms are a powerful tool for emotionally wrestling with ministry conflicts.

A significant form of the psalm is the lament. The lament is essentially a broad category of urgent prayer for God’s redeeming and saving intervention. Despite the sense of being God’s anointed and chosen, it seems rejection follows God’s servant. Sometimes the rejection is fatal and communal (Psa 22), or betrayal (Psa 41). These laments reveal that conflict in the life of God’s servant can cause confusion despite a deep faith. They can help structure our prayer life when wrestling with conflict. Psalm 13, for example, illustrates this process: call to God with our complaint (1–2), petition God to intervene (3a), give God reasons for his intervention (3b–4), and an expression of faith or sense of vindication that God has helped us through our conflicts with others (5–6). It is an interactive type of prayer.[6] As ministers, we need a prayer life to help us cope with conflicts in ministry when we are unable to live peaceably with others.

Conclusion

The spiritual and emotional tools I have surveyed are essential tools for the minister in times of conflict. I have not listed intellectual tools because our instincts to respond to conflict and rejection are often emotional responses. As Jack Cottrell (1933–2022) reflects,

What should a Christian do when harmed by another person…? The almost-universal tendency is to personally strike back, to retaliate, to try to get even, to make the evildoer pay for the harm he has done, i.e., to seek personal revenge.”[7]

Cottrell, Romans (1998)

Paul calls all Christians to resist this tendency for vengeance, “repay no one evil for evil… if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:17–18). My prayer for those in ministry is to develop the emotional and spiritual disciplines above so they can endure the temptations which emerge from ministerial conflict.

Endnotes

[1] All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.

[2] Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets (2002; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 120–21.

[3] William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975), 2:34.

[4] Ken Sande, The Peace Maker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 134–35.

[5] Philip Yancey, The Bible Jesus Read (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 119.

[6] Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 281–84.

[7] Jack Cottrell, Romans (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1998), 2:343.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Revised edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1975.

Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. 2002. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Cottrell, Jack. Romans. 2 vols. College Press NIV Commentary. Edited by Anthony Ash. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1998.

Sande, Ken. The Peace Maker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004.

Yancey, Philip. The Bible Jesus Read. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.

1 Peter 3:10-12: Dimensions of a Godly Life

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Peter, General Letters, New Testament, Peter's Letters, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth1 Comment

The Apostle Peter describes Christians as a positive influence in society. Instead of being contentious and rebellious, Peter says we are to be a “blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing” (1 Pet 3:9 KJV).

Peter says Christians are called to be a blessing. Similarly, God told Abraham that in his “seed” all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen 22:18; cf. Gen 12:3). This “seed” promise is regarded by the inspired Apostle Paul as a reference to Christ (Gal 3:16), and consequently to those who follow the Christian faith (Gal 3:26-29). Thus, Christians and the redemptive message they bring will bless the world (Matt 28:19-20; cf. Rom 10:13-15).

To prove that God’s people are to behave godly, Peter quotes Psalm 34:12-15:

For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. (1 Peter 3:10–12)

An important key in understanding the passage is to recognize Hebrew poetry, which focuses more upon a “rhythm of thought” rather than a framework of rhyme.[1]

The brief comments which follow are reflections on this noble passage.

He that will love life, and see good days

A person who loves life is the same person who will see good days. Among all of God’s creations, humans alone have this intense desire to see life for its peaceful and enjoyable possibilities.

Let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: In order to obtain the good life, immoral conduct which we accomplish through the lips must be stopped. The limerick still rings true which says: “What a tangle web we weave, when once we practice to deceive.” The tongue is dangerous.

Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue [pursue] it

A lover of the good life seeks goodness and peace and will do all that is necessary to obtain these valuable things in life. Evil is never to be pursued.

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers

There is a connection between how a person lives and how a person stands before God. If a person lives right, the verse indicates that the Lord is more inclined to help us in a way that demonstrates his particular care.

But the face of the Lord is against them that do evil

This is a reference to condemnation. It is the Lord’s face that is against evil-doers. An evil-doer is anyone who practices sin, so there may be times even Christians may fall into this situation.

When Peter quotes this passage from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, he is giving us several reasons for living right. (1) the quality of life is better, (2) life is without immorality, (3) life is free from evil, (4) God’s inheritance of blessings is on us for living right, and (5) God will condemn the ungodly.

Sources

  1. Carroll Stuhlmueller, Psalms 1-72 (Wilmington, DE; Glazier, 1985), 28.

Devotional: God Is Slow To Anger (2 Peter 3:9)

On By Janine TuggleIn 2 Peter, Devotional, James, Jonah, New Testament, Old Testament 
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)

Many times we hear people say or think God is an angry God. True, God is angry when people disobey his will. But is he quick to anger? Does he have a short fuse? There may be many people who are said to have a short fuse, but God is not that.

We as people in our society get angry in a different ways. We are quick to judge and make a final judgment of someone. They are guilty before proven innocent, they are too far gone and aren’t worth saving. Lock them up and throw away the key; People want justice or want someone to blame. Let’s remember,

“For the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” (James 1:20)

Let’s take a look at Jonah. Jonah did not want to go to the city of Nineveh as God told him to and preach against their evil ways. He probably thought it was not worth going to preach to these evil people. So he ran off to catch a boat to Tarshish. 

We all know the rest of the story of the big fish swallowing Jonah. While in the fish, Jonah prayed. He had a change of heart and did as God said once the fish vomited him out onto dry land. Jonah went about telling the people,

"Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4b)

The king and all the people believed God and turned from their evil ways so consequently God relented.

Jonah was angry. He was upset, knowing God was a gracious and merciful God. He would rather die than face that he was wrong when he thought the people had no hope. 

Sometimes we would rather stay angry at someone, never wanting to be forgiving, never wanting to admit we are wrong, or realize others can have a change of heart in their ways. God was gracious in order to save 120,000 souls from Nineveh. God is slow to anger knowing we all sin and fall short of doing what is right. He would rather have patience than for us to be lost.

Hymn: The Love of God