Misuse of Bacon

I cannot find the relevant sources at this time, but I have seen both Buzzard and Faircloth quote Bacon in such a way that implies that he was in full of agreement with them. Yes, it is true Bacon saw Messianic eschatology in Psalm 102 in the LXX, but what does he conclude? Why does he think the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 102 in the LXX? Is it to suggest that Hebrews 1:10-12 has new creation in mind? Take a look for yourself:

“Finally in the LXX and Vulg. rendering of עִנָּ֖ה by apekrithe, respondit, we have the explanation of how, in Christian circles at least, the accepted Messianic passage could be made to prove the doctrine that the Messiah is none other than the preexistent Wisdom of Prov 8, 22-31, “through whom” according to our author, v. 2, God “made the worlds”. Indeed we shall not be going too far if with Bruce we say: “It is possible that the writer (of Hebrews) regarded this text (Ps 102, 25-27) as messianic because in his view creation was the work of the preexistent Christ. But it is equally possible that he ascribed creative agency to Christ out of regard to this and other similar texts believed to be messianic on other grounds”. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 3, 1902, p. 284-285.

Bacon contends that the author of Hebrews quoted Psalm 102 in the LXX because some “Christian circles” believed Christ to be the preexistent Wisdom.  In other words, the author of Hebrews ‘proof texted’ Psalm 102 in the LXX to prove Christ’s preexistence.

(NOTE: Thanks to Mike for the article)

 

Jude 5

(Jude 5, ESV) Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

According to Philip Comfort’s New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, the reading that has the best evidence for its being the earliest, and so original, is the reading “Jesus.” Manuscripts and authors that support this reading are A (Alexandrinus, 5th Century), B (Vaticanus, 4th Century), 33 (“Queen of Cursives”, 9th Century), 1739 (10th Century), 1881, Coptic versions, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, and Bede.

Given that “Jesus” is the best attested reading for Jude 5, and so is most likely the original based on the manuscriptal evidence, what are the theological implications thereof? Clearly Jesus had to have been living then. His origin must precede his begetting in Bethlehem. He must have, in some personal sense, been living and alive when the Jews were captive in Egypt. Could the following Scripture be what Jude was referring to?

(Exodus 14:19, NWT) Then the angel of the [true] God who was going ahead of the camp of Israel departed and went to their rear, and the pillar of cloud departed from their van and stood in the rear of them.

It may be possible that Jude reflects an early Christian tradition that believed Jesus was the “angel of God” and so it was in this sense that Jesus was present when the Jews were saved out of the land of Egypt.This, of course, demands and implies a literal, personal pre-human existence.

Any thoughts?

 

Issued a Challenge

Sam Shamoun has issued me a challenge to debate him through Keith Truth on YouTube. Evidently, if I accept the challenge, it will be about the preposition dia as it is used in relation to creation and Jesus’ agency, and as a corollary Christ would have created everything else.(See the comments on Diglot’s post on Colossians.) I guess it would be on Jesus’ role in creation. Shamoun is more than ready to debate me. In fact,

[Shamoun is] ready to expose these lies to show others why your JW theology is a perversion of Biblical truth.

I never introduced myself to him as a Jehovah’s Witness, but I guess since I have “Jehovah” in my blog’s title it was a reasonable assumption on his part. That being said, in his view, my Christology is still a “post-Biblical heretical” one. Go figure!

What do you guys think? Would it even be something entertaining/interesting?

 

God, Gods, and Angels in DSS

John J Collins has an essay entitled “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which surveys various literature of the Qumran community’s view on God, Gods, and angels.

Before delving into his survey of the scrolls he makes an interesting observation:

“Monotheism strictly defined – the view that only one God exists, as opposed to henotheism or monolatry, the view that only one God should be worshiped – may owe more to the systematic reasoning  of Greek philosophy than to ‘the Mosaic distinction.’”

Collins notes that ‘strict Monotheism’ is not “Mosaic” in nature but dependent on “the reasoning of Greek philosophy.” He notes that Antisthenes “declared that there are many gods by convention but only one god in nature.” It would appear, then, that to deny that other Gods exist, that is, apart from the One God, is to base one’s understanding on “Greek philosophy” and not on “the Mosaic distinction.” (Pg. 10)

He further notes,

“Even in the most sophisticated philosophical exponent of Judaism then, divinity was an analogous concept, and while the uniqueness of the creator was affirmed, it remained possible to speak of other divine beings in a qualified sense.” (Pg. 11)

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is an “elaborate document dealing with heavenly host[s]…as a cultic or liturgical assembly.” This document “consists of compositions designed for each of thirteen Sabbaths. Each song calls on the angels to give praise to God.” (Pg. 11-12) Of these angels it is said that God “has established for himself priests of the inner sanctum, the holiest of the holy ones.” (4Q400 I 19) These “holy ones” are called “gods,” angels, spirits, and princes. Similar appellations and descriptions are found in both the Old and New Testament.

Principal Angels

Collins identified the figure described as “one like a son of man” to be the archangel Michael. He doesn’t comment much more on his identification but footnotes his commentary on Daniel. Michael is here said to be the prince of Israel, while Deuteronomy 32 stated that Israel was Jehovah’s jurisdiction:

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (Deut 32:8, 4QDeut)

The variant here is between “sons of God” (DSS & LXX reading) and the Masoretic Text’s “sons of Israel.” Collins prefers the former reading. (see, also, the English Standard Version)

Collins here suggests that Daniel marks a real development in Israel’s theology. Whereas in the older books of the Hebrew Bible Israel was always Jehovah’s special possession, here in Daniel it is the archangel Michael’s. I don’t see a reason, though, why Jehovah couldn’t have appointed one of his principal angels over Israel and so have that one rule as his representative/agent? Rather than suggest a radical development, I think it is fairly consistent with what we elsewhere find in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Principal Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Collins quotes Vermes’ translation of 1QS 3:15-17 (Rule of Community):

“From the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be. Before ever they existed He established their whole design, and when, as ordained for them, they come into being, it is in accord with His glorious design that they accomplish their task without change. The laws of all things are in His hand and He provides for all needs.”

While this is a clear affirmation of monotheism, this same scroll goes on to say that there exist “two angelic beings, called ‘the Prince of Light’ or ‘Angel of Truth’ on the one hand, and ‘the Angel of Darkness’ on the other.” The powers of these angels are limited by the Creator but they are supernatural powers, that is, G/gods apart from the Creator; secondary G/gods.

The War Scroll also speaks of a struggle between the “Sons of Light” and the “Sons of Darkness.” The leaders of these two forces are God and “Belial,” the Prince of Darkness. In this eschatological struggle, God does not act alone but is accompanied by “Mighty men and a host of angels.” (1QM 12:8) This same scroll continues saying, “Thou didst appoint from of old the Prince of Light to assist us…and all the spirits of truth in his dominion. And thou wast the one who made Belial to corrupt.” (1QM 13:9b-12)

Interestingly, the “Prince of Light” is identified as a principal angel in 1QM 17:6-7,

“He has magnified the authority of Michael through eternal light… so as to raise amongst the angels the authority of Michael and the dominion of Israel amongst all flesh.”

Here we note that one particular angel can be called by different appellations: Michael, Angel of Truth, Prince of Light, etc.

Collins also surveys the Melchizedek scroll from Qumran. In this scroll Melchizedek is an angel, that is, a heavenly being. Psalm 82 is applied to Melchizedek where he is called “God” and “stands in the assembly of El, in the midst of gods he judges.” The angel Melchizedek is clearly called “God,” but is still subordinate to “El,” that is, a higher deity than he, but who still judges “in the midst of gods.”

1. “El” appears to be the Most High
2. “Melchizedek” appears to be a second, though, subordinate God
3. “Gods” appears to be a counsel of angels.

Collins concludes his essay with the following remarks,

“[T]he supremacy of the Most High is never in doubt. But this is not a God who dwells alone. He is surrounded by [G/gods] and Elohim, holy ones and angels. Some of these angels are exalted above their fellows. Yet we do not find any figure in the Scrolls who exercises judgement on a throne of glory like the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Encho, still leass any one exalted above the angels as Christ is in the New Testament. Even a text that is thoroughly peopled with Elohim and [G/gods], like the War Scroll, can still insist that no angel is like to God in might.” (Pg. 27)

______________________________________________________________________________

Perhaps we should rethink “monotheism” and allow the existence of many G/gods or deities. Not that any of these deities rival Jehovah, for their divinity is limited by him, but simply by acknowledging their existence.

 

Theo-blogs around the Web

Check out Diglot’s post on Jesus’ pre-existence entitled, Corinthians, Jesus, and Creation. See also the discussion on his Colossians post with Sam Shamoun. I’ll be curious to see where that leads. Not sure what sort of Christology Diglot affirms though? Seems at times it’s ideal and at others it is literal…

James McGrath has blogged on why he is not persuaded the name above every name is Jesus.

See also Felker on Apologetics315 discussing issues involving Witnesses.

 

Two Hopes and 1 John 5:1

StandFirm, Sandra C, Bob Jackson:

(1 John 5:1, NWT) Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God, and everyone who loves the one that caused to be born loves him who has been born from that one.

Do you guys believe that?

 

Dunn on Jesus as “life-giving spirit”

“What is surprising here, however, is the parallel or antithesis which Paul chooses to Gen. 2.7′s “living soul.” In the context we might have expected soma pneumatikon, “spiritual body,” for that is the theme in verse 44, picked up also in verse 46. Or we could have expected pneuma zon, “living spirit,” for that would have made a better parallel/antithesis with verse 45a. But Paul writes instead, pneuma zoopoioun, “life-giving spirit.”

What did Paul mean by using this phrase? As already noted, the role of “making alive” in biblical usage is almost exclusively that of God or of his Spirit. Accordingly, Paul could hardly expect the well informed reader to think of anything other than the life-giving power of God himself. Here, in other words, the thought is not so much of last Adam as the pattern of existence, as though all spiritual bodies of which Christ was the “firstfruits” (15.23) would be similarly “life-giving.” The thought is more of the last Adam as the progenitor of a new kind of humanity — resurrected humankind. It is the uniqueness of the risen Christ’s role as “life-giver” which is in view.

Should we then use the facility given us by English usage to translate “life-giving Spirit,” rather than “life-giving spirit”? That is, did Paul intend his readers to think of the Holy Spirit? That indeed would be the reading which the term itself (zoopoioun pneuma) invited. For the Spirit of God is the obvious manifestation of the life-giving power of God. And although zoopoieo as such is not used of the Spirit in Jewish scriptures, an association between “(God’s) Spirit” and “life” was bound up with the word itself, since Hebrew ruach, like Greek pneuma, denotes also “breath,” the breath of life. The association goes back to Gen. 2.7 itself: “God breathed into the adam’s nostrils the breath of life.” But it is clearer in other passages: notably Job 33.4— “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life”; Ps. 104.29-30— “When you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created”; and the wonderful vision in Ezekiel 37, where the prophet prophesies to the ruach to breathe upon the slain (representing Israel) “that they may live” (37.9-10). Not least we should note that in Rom. 8.11 and 2 Cor. 3.6 Paul himself speaks of the life-giving (zoopoieo) function of the Spirit and in Rom.8.2 speaks of the Spirit as “the Spirit of life.”

The implication, then, is that Paul intended to represent the risen Christ as in some sense taking over the role of or even somehow becoming identified with the life-giving Spirit of God. The idea is hardly farfetched. There are other ways of speaking of God’s active presence and self-manifestation, like glory and wisdom, which Paul elsewhere identifies with Christ.  And we have already observed the impact of the resurrection in bringing about radical revision in earliest Christian understanding of how God interacted with his world. But the Spirit was one of the most prominent ways of envisaging that interaction. So it is hardly surprising that Paul’s bringing of these self-manifestations of God into focus in Christ should include an identification of the Spirit also with Christ.” (James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], pp. 260-262.)

 

Re-review of Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew

I’ve decided to re-review Dr. Pennington’s book, “Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew,” not least because I felt the previous one was largely inadequate. I’ve also had some time to ponder over Pennington’s thesis, and after contacting the author, I feel I have a better grasp of it and am more convinced of its accuracy.

Thesis

Dr. Pennington’s main thesis is that Matthew’s idiolectic usage of heaven and earth serves as a theme that is used to enhance other theological emphases in his Gospel. Pennington argues that Matthew has developed this theme consisting of the following four aspects:

1. An intentional distinction in meaning between the singular and plural forms of ouranos
2. The frequent use of the heaven and earth word pair as a theme
3. Regular reference to the Father in heaven/heavenly Father
4. Recurrent use of the uniquely Matthean expression, “kingdom of the heaven(s)”

Sketching the Thesis

Pennington first deals with bare data. Ouranos occurs a total of 82 times in Matthew’s Gospel, which is 30% of the total occurrences in the New Testament (hereafter, NT) and which is also more recurrent than any other NT work. This alone should raise one’s curiosity as to why that is so. But before an explanation can be offered, Pennington need to ‘clear the ground and build a new.’

Not a Reverential Circumlocution

Many scholars and commentators have given reasons for why ouranos appears so often in Matthew. The main reason cited, even as the scholarly consensus, is because Matthew is supposedly the most Jewish Gospel of our canonical Gospels. That is to say, that Matthew, as a pious Jew, strived to avoid saying “God” for religious or superstitious reasons. This argument has been advanced and accepted as truth since the late 19^th century German scholar Gustaf Dalman, whom evidently popularized and originated this explanation. Pennington argues that Dalman was wrong for several reasons, not least because there is internal evidence within Matthew that proves the scholarly consensus wrong. Pennington points out that Matthew in no real way was trying to avoid saying or using theos (“G/god”), for he uses it 51 times in his Gospel. It makes little sense that Matthew would use theos 51 times if he were trying to avoid using it in the first place! Pennington suggests a better reason for the many occurrences of heaven in Matthew’s Gospel: it is a highly integrated idiolectic use serving as an underlying theme in Matthew’s Gospel.

Survey of Heaven in Old Testament and Second Temple Literature

Context. In order to understand any particular historical writing it is important to provide a literary and religious context for a particular usage of a word, phrase, idea, and/or concept. The Hebrew and Aramaic words for heaven occur a total of 458 times in the Masoretic Text (hereafter, MT). Heaven occurs in most of the Old Testament (hereafter, OT) books except for a few: Numbers, Obadiah, Micah, Ruther, Song of Songs, and Esther. The semantics of the Hebrew and Aramaic word for heaven is as follows:

1. Heaven as the space of the created order
2. Heaven as the dwelling place of God
3. And Heaven as an ambiguous term that can mean either #1 or #2 or both

Daniel, Pennington suggests, is of special interest since it uses “heaven” quite frequently, especially in a concentrated fashion in chapters 2-7. Moreover, since the book of Daniel was highly influential for the ideas, concepts, and imagery in Second Temple literature, it is worth considering.

Second Temple Literature, Pennington finds, pretty much follows the semantic range of “heaven” as found in the OT, that is, after surveying the pseudepigraphal and apocalyptic materials, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, rabbinic literature, and the Targums.

Survey of Heaven in Matthew

Pennington gives us 3 broad categories of how heaven is used in the New Testament (hereafter, NT):

1. Ouranos in reference to portions of the visible creation distinguished from earth, such as the firmament or sky above
2. Ouranos combined with ge (earth) as a merism to refer to the whole world, “heaven and earth”
3. Ouranos in reference to the invisible realm where God and angels dwell.

As has already been noted, Matthew uses ouranos a number of 82 times in his Gospel, or 82 of 273 occurrences in the NT. However, what sets Matthew apart from the OT’s usage of heaven and from Second Temple usage of heaven, is that (1) Matthew prefers the plural form of “heaven,” (2) uses it in frequent use with earth (“heaven and earth”), (3) uses it in phrases such as “Father in heaven” or “heavenly Father,” and (4) in the repeated expression “kingdom of the heavens.”

Why the use of Plural and Singular Forms of Heaven?

The first examples of employing both plural and singular forms of heaven are found in the Septuagint. Reasons for this enigma have been offered by scholars. Some have stated that ancients had concepts of multiple heavens and so the rise of singular and plural forms of heaven. However, against this view, Pennington argues that the only vague examples of this possibility are better explained as perceived differences of height in the created realm. (Page, 102)

The second reason scholars offer for the strange usage of plural and singular forms of heaven in the Septuagint has to do with ouranos’ usage as a Semitism. That is, since the Hebrew and Aramaic word for “heaven” is plural, then logically a plural Greek equivalent is in order. While, at a glance, this explanation may be possible, at least in some instances, it fails to take into account the full range of evidence. For instance, if the plural form of heaven is a result from its use as a Semitism, why then are there singular forms? An appeal to Semitisms is not enough. The better reason for singular and plural forms of heaven in the LXX, Pennington suggests, is for poetic and syntactical reasons. More than this, in the Wisdom of Solomon there is a clear and intentional pattern of singular-versus-plural usage that serves a theological purpose. (Plurals are used with reference to the divine realm and singulars with reference to the created one)

Singular and Plural in Matthew

Of Matthew’s 82 usages of “heaven,” 27 are singular and 55 are plural. Keep in mind that the plural form of heaven only occurs 90 times in the NT, 55 of which are found in Matthew. This should be striking to any student of the NT. Unfortunately, many scholars and commentators alike have not paid much attention to the plural and singular usages of heaven in Matthew.

The scholarly consensus usually argues that the plurals are due to Semitisms, that is, since the Hebrew and/or Aramaic are plural then it is not big deal that Matthew uses plurals as well. However, if an appeal to Semitisms is the best explanation for Matthew’s plurals, what is the explanation for his singulars? This explanation does not explain the 27 singulars found in Matthew. This explanation, then, is not satisfactory.

Pennington argues that the reason for Matthew’s use of plural and singular forms of heaven is due not to Semitisms, but to a carefully thought out heaven and earth theme. Matthew generally uses ouranos in the singular to refer to the visible (earthly) world and in “heaven and earth” pairs, and he uses plurals to refer to the invisible (divine) realm. This explanation accounts for most of the 82 occurrences of heaven in Matthew. However, there are some anomalies.

1. Matthew 22:30—Here we have “angels in heaven,” when we would expect the plural “heavens” given that we are talking about the divine (angels). Pennington offers 2 possible reasons why this anomaly occurs:
   1. Ouranos is singular here because it is used in a contrastive sense comparing two different states, namely, heaven with the resurrection age. This fits into the ‘heaven and earth’ category.
   2. Alternatively, Pennington here argues, very interestingly, that Jesus uses 2 sets of languages: when speaking to his followers he speaks with insider language, that is, more intimately. He uses “Father in heaven” and plural forms of heaven when speaking to those ‘on his side.’ However, when he speaks to opponents he speaks about “God” and not about the “Father.” He speaks of the singular heaven and not the plural “heavens.” Inside language, then, explains the anomaly.
   3. Matthew 23:22—“and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God…” Here again we expect the plural “heavens” since it is talking about the divine. Here it appears that Jesus is employing the ‘insider-outsider’ language, given that he is likely referring to the Pharisees. “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees.” This explains the anomaly.

Heaven and Earth Pairs in Matthew

There exist 3 instances of what Pennington considers “copulative pairs,” namely, Matthew 5:18; 11:25 and 24:35. Other categories of these pairs are what Pennington brands as “implicit pairs.” Of these he lists Matthew 11:23, 16:18-19, 10:32-33, and 21:25-26. The third and final category of these pairs is the “thematic pair.” To list but a few, some of these are found in 5:13-16, 6:10, 6:19-20 and 18:18-19.

In a personal correspondence with Dr. Pennington I pointed out another potential “implicit pair” which he evidently overlooked. I suggested that Mathew 11:11 is another “implicit pair” of Matthew’s heaven and earth theme. Dr. Pennington agreed with me that this pair is a further contribution to his thesis.

Meaning of Heaven and Earth Pairs

Now that we know there are 3 categories of these “pairs,” what do they mean? Two meanings can be given:

1. Merismatic uses: “heaven and earth” can be used in combination to mean ‘all creation.’ Matthew’s uses of “heaven and earth” in this way are found 3 times: Matthew 5:18; 11:25; 24:35.
2. Antithetic uses: “heaven and earth” can be used in combination in a contrastive sense. Consider, Matthew 6:19-20; 18:18; 23:9.

God as “Father in Heaven” and as “Heavenly Father”

Matthew uses the plural form of heaven always in reference with God as “Father.” This is usually done, in context, to contrast God with humanity, that is, human fathers. It serves as a negative portrayal of human fathers. Also, interestingly, Jesus always refers to God as the Father of the disciples. That is, God is their Father and God is his Father. Very personal and intimate terms. This language helps distinguish God’s people from those whom aren’t. That is, from those whom have God as their Father and those who don’t. This is another example of Jesus’ “insider” language.

Kingdom of the Heavens

Matthew is distinctively known for his use of the ‘kingdom of heaven.’ Why the ‘heaven’ in the phrase? Pennington argues that this is to contrast human kingdoms from God’s. This is yet another example where there is a heaven and earth theme underlying the phrase. The earthly realm is being contrasted with the heavenly realm. Not necessarily in terms of spatial location, but in a qualitative sense. In other words, God’s way of doing things versus the human way of doing things is what is in view here. (cf the Lord’s Prayer)

Conclusion

The reason for Matthew’s frequent use of “heaven,” whether in plural form or in the singular, is to add emphasis to his theological arguments. He wants to contrast God’s way of doing things with humankind’s. He wants to show the tension that currently exists between Creator and creature. This is done by means of a very elaborate heaven and earth theme.

 

Eden Story in Romans

Some quick and brief observations on Romans:

(Romans 1:18-23, NWT) For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.

These verses are a clear allusion to Adam and so to the Garden of Eden. Paul elsewhere develops this motif in Romans in a more explicit fashion,

(Romans 5:12-21, NWT) That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come. But it is not with the gift as it was with the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift with the undeserved kindness by the one man Jesus Christ abounded much more to many. Also, it is not with the free gift as it was with the way things worked through the one [man] that sinned. For the judgment resulted from one trespass in condemnation, but the gift resulted from many trespasses in a declaration of righteousness.  For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ.  So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous. Now the Law came in beside in order that trespassing might abound. But where sin abounded, undeserved kindness abounded still more. To what end? That, just as sin ruled as king with death, likewise also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5 is explicit in contrasting Adam with Christ. But when we talk about Adam and his sin, it is inevitable that we must also, in some capacity, think ‘Garden of Eden,’ too. The Eden story is really at the heart of Paul’s contrast. It is, I believe, with this Adamic motif that Paul envisions “creation” in Romans 8. Consider,

(Romans 8:18-23, NWT) Consequently I reckon that the sufferings of the present season do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. For the eager expectation of the creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom.

Given the Adamic theme in the earlier chapters of Romans, it is not at all unconceivable that Paul here has the Eden story in view (but in reverse). The paradisiacal associations are quite apparent, for e.g., the liberation of creation from bondage.

Paul clearly echoes the Eden story throughout Romans. I think this supports the notion that the ‘creation that is eagerly expecting liberation’ is obviously the physical world, for it will be changed (Heb 1:12), and not a subset of Christians. In other words, when Paul speaks of “creation” it is with this Adam/Garden of Eden motif in mind.

Any thoughts?

 

Another Response to StandFirm & My 5 Questions

As I was pointing out, however, if it is true that Jesus lives on the earth, then so would Jehovah.

Why would that be?

But if, as you admit, the throne of David is not literal, why must that throne be in the exact same location in the realm as David’s literal throne was? If it doesn’t have to be in Jerusalem, why does it have to be on the earth at all?

The throne of David is not literal in that it is not a chair in the middle of Jerusalem somewhere. But certainly it is not entirely “symbolic.” The “throne of David” calls to mind the rulership of God through kings in the land of Israel. Davidic rulership is not simply a vague kind of rulership. No, it is a very territorial one. While it is true that rulership in itself does not necessarily imply location, it does when we are talking about Davidic rulership, which is the sort of Messianic rulership that Jesus possesses.

Moreover, it appears clear that Jesus won’t be in heaven for eternity and so won’t be ruling from there in the future:

(Acts 3:19-21, ESV)  Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

Jesus is only held within heaven “until the time for restoring all things.” The restoring here most naturally refers to what was spoken of in Acts 1,

(Acts 1:6, ESV) So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel

The kingdom would be ‘restored to Israel,’ that is, on earth. This is the kingdom which the disciples expected to enter. It is a kingdom on earth, one which will be in Israel (initially). Now we can see that the Davidic rulership is locational, and not some vague rulership from and in a different realm. Now, again, consider Daniel 7:27

(NWT) And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an indefinitely lasting kingdom, and all the rulerships will serve and obey even them.’

Of this verse you say,

The verse (Daniel 7:27) in no way says that the kingdom of the holy ones is under heaven.

It is rather clear that the kingdom is “under heaven,” which you explicitly affirm several times in your rebuttal by including earth into the kingdom.

Revelation 22:3 states that God’s throne is in the city. As you stated, and I agree, God stays in heaven and rules from there forever. Thus, these kings go to heaven when they enter the city in 21:24.

From a surface level glance, your logic appears to be sufficient. However, God’s throne is not necessarily always in heaven. Consider,

(1 Chronicles 29:23, NWT) And Solomon began to sit upon Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father and to make a success of it, and all the Israelites were obedient to him. . .

Here Jehovah’s throne is on earth, though Jehovah is obviously in heaven. That God’s throne is in the city doesn’t mean that the city is in heaven. The city is on earth,

(Revelation 20:9, NWT) And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them.

The ones encircling the city were devoured from fire that came down out of heaven, so naturally the city is on earth.

Answer to the 5 questions:

#1 Revelation 20:6 describes those who share in the “first resurrection” who rule as kings and priests. Others who come later are described in verses 11-15. They are not said to rule. These are two groups of people. Are they all Christians? If so, is that not a clear example of two groups of Christians?

Response: From 1 Thessalonians 4:16 we know that “those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” So Christians are raised first. These are of the first resurrection. The second resurrection described in Revelation 20:5 occurs only after the 1000 years “were ended.” These of this second resurrection “were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds.” (Rev 20:12) Apparently, these ones will be either be judged to inherit life or thrown into the lake of fire “according to their deeds.”

And yes, these ones evidently do not rule. But no, these are not two groups of Christians. All Christians rule since they are all of the first resurrection.

#2 Revelation 5:9, 10 talks about those who will “reign” who are bought with the Lamb’s blood. Who are these ones reigning over? Are they also Christians?

Response: Presumably, those of the second resurrection.

#3 Colossians 1:20 speaks about “things on earth [and] things in heaven” reconciled to God by means of Jesus. The “things in heaven” cannot be ‘angels who sinned’, for they are reserved only in darkness for judgment. (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6.) Who are the “things in heaven”? Who are the things on the earth?

Response: Like other uses in the Bible, ‘heaven and earth’ used in combination is an idiomatic expression essentially meaning ‘everything.’ And, indeed, within Colossians 1 we have “all things” in view. I’m not sure whether Paul had anything specific in mind. But to suggest that the things in heaven are a separate group of Christians is wholly lacking from the context and the text itself.

4. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 talks about those who are “caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” What is the meaning of being “in the clouds” and “air”?

Response: I think it may be literal. Air never denotes heaven in Paul’s writings. Consider his uses of it:

(1 Corinthians 9:26-27) Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
(1 Corinthians 14:9) So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.

5. At John 13:36 and 14:2, 3 Jesus says that he is “going” somewhere. Jesus says that the disciples will ‘follow him there later’ and that he will “come back and take [them] to be with [him].” This place is called ‘the Father’s house.’ Jesus is on earth at this point. Where is Jesus going? Thus, where will he have disciples?

Response: Jesus is going to the Father’s house, which elsewhere in John is the Jerusalem temple but that here I think is the heavenly one. Both the temple and the kingdom are called “house” in the Hebrew Scriptures. Consider,

(2 Samuel 7:4-11, NWT) And it came about on that night that the word of Jehovah came to Nathan, saying: “Go, and you must say to my servant David, ‘This is what Jehovah has said: “Should you yourself build me a house for me to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house from the day of my bringing the sons of Israel up out of Egypt to this day, but I was continually walking about in a tent and in a tabernacle. During all the time that I have walked about among all the sons of Israel, was there a word that I spoke with one of the tribes of Israel that I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, ‘Why did YOU people not build me a house of cedars?’”’ And now this is what you will say to my servant David, ‘This is what Jehovah of armies has said: “I myself took you from the pasture ground from following the flock to become a leader over my people Israel. And I shall prove to be with you wherever you do go, and I will cut off all your enemies from before you; and I shall certainly make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones that are in the earth. And I shall certainly appoint a place for my people Israel and plant them, and they will indeed reside where they are, and no more will they be disturbed; and the sons of unrighteousness will not afflict them again as they did at the first, even from the day that I put judges in command over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies..

“House” here is in reference to the temple. But “house” can also refer to the kingdom. We have many instances where the kingdom of Israel is referred to as the “house of Israel.”

With all the above said, Jesus evidently went to the heavenly temple or kingdom in heaven to prepare a place for his disciples. His disciples follow Jesus into this temple or kingdom when he ‘comes again’ to earth (John 14:3)

Now, StandFirm, here are my 5 questions:

#1 You defined the kingdom as “a realm of heaven and earth with the capital – the rulers – in heaven.” Based on your definition, for you, the kingdom = heaven and earth. My question is, if the kingdom is both heaven and earth, why do you argue that John the Baptist won’t be in it?

#2 In Matthew 25:34 the ‘other sheep’ Christians inherit the kingdom. Jesus said that one must be born again to see this kingdom. Why are the ‘other sheep Christians’ not born again if it is a requirement to inherit the kingdom, which, the ‘other sheep’ Christians inherit?

#3 According to Genesis13 Abraham and his seed were to receive land. According to Romans 4:13, both Abraham and his seed were to inherit the world/land. It would be less than accurate to say that both inherit the land if Abraham’s seed goes to heaven. How do the seed inherit the land if they are in heaven?

#4 In Revelation 9 the locusts are given authority to harm and torment all men who do not have the seal. According to you, and to those whom agree with you, the great crowd is not sealed. Why are the great crowd then tormented?

#5 In Luke 12:32 Jesus says the Father will give the kingdom to his ‘little flock’ of disciples. In Matthew 25:34 we have Christians inheriting the kingdom. Are these Christians of this ‘little flock’? If not, why do they inherit the kingdom?