Who are the "two witnesses" (prophets) of Revelation chapter eleven? I believe firmly that they are Elijah of the old testament, and the "beloved disciple," the apostle John of the new testament.
That Elijah is judged to be one of the two is almost universally accepted by those who accept the view that the "two witnesses" are individuals, as opposed to those who would make them mere symbols of things or groups. The latter view, I believe, is totally absurd. Yet, it was a common view among the Hardshell Baptists with whom I was a minister in my youth.
In this series I will be proving my thesis, demonstrating that the "two witnesses" are Elijah and John. In doing this I will first cite from the verses in the Apocalypse that are most important to examine in this discussion. I begin in chapter 10, because the verses that end chapter 10 are important for understanding the verses that begin chapter 11. Of course, in the original writing of the apostle John, there were no chapters and verses. And, sometimes chapter and verse divisions were not made in the best way. Clearly, the last verse of chapter 10 should have been put into chapter 11, so that we would read those two verses as follows:
"And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying (to me), Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein."
In these verses I have highlighted the pronouns because it is important to see how the words are addressed to John and concern John's commissioning for the work described. John is to "prophesy again" and he is to "rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein." Now, let us give the whole text to be examined. (I have again highlighted the pronouns)
"And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them." (Rev. 10: 8-11 through 11: 1-12 kjv)
Being a "Futurist" in regard to my interpretation of "The Apocalypse" (or Book of Revelation), I see this prophecy as being yet unfulfilled, connecting it with the time of the Lord's return and to that period of time known as "The Great Tribulation." By most definitions,
"Futurism derives from the consistent application of literal hermeneutics, the Golden Rule of Interpretation, across the entire body of Scripture, including the book of Revelation. Contrary to the claims of many of its critics, it is not an a priori view which is imposed on the text. As evidenced by the testimony of the early Church, futurism is the most natural result of a plain reading of the text and the way that most unbiased readers would understand the book on their first reading.
Futurism gets its label from its refusal to see unfulfilled passages as having been fulfilled by approximately similar events in the past. Hence, it holds that many of the events in the book of Revelation await future fulfillment." (from article at biblestudytools.com - see here - emphasis mine)
Thus, the appearing of the "two witnesses" has not yet occurred. The events described in these verses (Rev. chapters 10 & 11) have not yet happened. They will happen in conjunction with the coming again of Christ, in the day of the Lord's return, in the time of what is called "The Great Tribulation."
The Great Tribulation
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." (Matt. 24:21 kjv)
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7:14 kjv)
"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." (Rev. 3: 10 kjv)
"Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it." (Jer. 30: 7 kjv)
In regard to Rev. 7: 14, Vincent says:
Out of great tribulation (ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης). Lit., out of the tribulation, the great (tribulation). Rev., properly, gives the force of the article, "the great."
"The Great Tribulation" takes in seven years of time, divided into two halves of 42 months each or 1260 days each. In our opening text, there is one mention of these halves. Many connect this seven year period with the "seventieth week" of Daniel's prophecy of the "seventy weeks." (See Dan. 9: 24-27) It is in this time period that the "two witnesses" make their appearance on earth and prophesy from the city of Jerusalem. Their time of prophesying and judging is to be 1260 days as stated in the text. They will be hated by the wicked world and the world will love the Antichrist for ridding them of those two tormentors.
Concerning the prophecy of "the hour of temptation" (kjv) that is "to come upon all the word" in order "to try them which dwell upon the earth," I wish to say a few things.
"Temptation" is probably not the best word to translate the Greek word πειρασμός peirasmos. "Trial" is probably much better. According to Strong the Greek word means "an experiment, attempt, trial, proving."
The word "hour" is also probably not a good translation for it often denotes a sixty minute period of time and this is not the meaning in this text, although it does sometimes mean that in the scriptures. The word comes from the Greek word ὥρα hōra and more properly means a time or season, and is often so translated. It is from this Greek word that we get our English word "hour." So, by "the hour of trial" we should think of "the time of trial," and the seven years of "the great tribulation" correspond to it. It is in the great tribulation and during this time of worldwide trial that the two witnesses, Elijah and John, appear on the earth and begin their Apocalyptic ministry.
No Pre-Trib Rapture
I have numerous writings in this blog and elsewhere fully disproving the idea of a rapture occurring before the great tribulation or time of world trial. Rev. 3: 10 clearly does not uphold the pre-trib view. The text promises that the faithful will be "kept out of" it, and the language cannot mean "kept from it" as if they are never "in" it. In Meyer's NT Commentary he writes (emphasis mine):
In the words κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας, κ.τ.λ., the church at Philadelphia is not promised that it shall be preserved from the hour of trial, i.e., that it shall not meet with sufferings full of trial, but in accordance with the presentation of the Apoc., that the troubles before the coming of the Lord will befall all believers, who of course are sealed, lest by the temptation in the troubles they may fall; and in accordance with the corresponding expression τηρ. ἐκ, in distinction from ΤΗΡ. ἈΠΌ, the church at Philadelphia, since it has already maintained victorious patience, is also to be delivered by his confirming grace from the universal distress impending before the coming of the Lord.
Vincent in his word studies says:
From the hour (ἐκ). The preposition implies, not a keeping from temptation, but a keeping in temptation, as the result of which they shall be delivered out of its power. Compare John 17:15.
The Greek preposition "ek" literally means "out of," or "out from among." But, how can one saved or kept "out" of what he was never "in"? The same argument holds true with the passage about "the great tribulation." The text says "these are they which came out of great tribulation." But, how can one come "out of" that which he is not "in"? Those who come out of the great tribulation are Christians. Ergo, they must be in it.
In the remaining postings in this series we will
1) Show that Elijah is clearly one of the two witnesses
2) Show that John the apostle is clearly the other of the two witnesses
3) Show that neither Moses nor Enoch are of the two
4) Discuss the career of the two witnesses
5) Discuss the Apocalypse
Jul 19, 2017
Jul 9, 2017
Elders Leaving The Hardshells
Since I started blogging on Hardshellism (2008) several "Primitive Baptist" elders have left the Hardshells. One of them, Elder Kevin Fralick, edits one of my other blogs, The Old Baptist Test, a blog dedicated to refuting the heresies of the Hardshells and defending the real old Baptist teachings. Since then others have also left the Hardshells. Many of them have written and stated that our writings had been of great help to them. Two such elders have recently left and I posted two write ups about it. Elder Jeremy Sarber, who was pastoring full time for a "Primitive Baptist" church here in North Carolina, left and I wrote about it under the title Hardshells Lose Another. Also, just in the past few weeks, Elder Stephen Emmons of Texas also left and I wrote about it under the title Hardshells Lose Another Again. God bless these dear brothers! Pray for them as they try to serve the Lord.
Jun 25, 2017
Be Ignorant Then!
"What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." (I Cor. 14:36-38)
The interpretation of these verses, especially the last, are not uniformly understood and interpreted by bible students and commentators. It has been my view for many years that when Paul says - "but if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant" - that he was being sarcastic and that he was rebuking and showing impatience with a stubborn obstinate attitude.
There is some debate whether God, or his spokesmen, ever used sarcasm. I have always believed that he did and thought that this was one example of it. I have also viewed it as revealing the frustration of a teacher against the bad attitude of a student, against a mind that refuses to be taught. Let us notice what some others have said about Paul's words.
Wrote expositor Ray Stedman in his commentary (emphasis mine):
"That is clearly satire. He is recognizing that there was a tendency among some in Corinth to think that they had unique revelation, special gifts that no one else had. Paul treats this in a rather sarcastic way with this kind of language, "Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones who received it?" It almost sounds like what dear old Job said to his three comforters, "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you," (Job 12:2 RSV). People have a tendency sometimes to assume this."
Most commentators agree with Stedman that verses 36 and 37 are satire or sarcasm. They do not agree, however, on whether verse 38 is also sarcasm. Translations vary in regard to verse 38, as we will see.
Stedman also wrote:
"...truly spiritual people always recognize the authority of the Scripture. This is very important in these days when people are claiming to be led of the Spirit, and when you point out from a passage of Scripture that what they are saying is contrary to it, they still insist on their feeling or their experience or their understanding as superior to that of the Word of God. Paul says that is not true. The Spirit of God never operates contrary to the written Word. Never! Anyone who is truly Spirit-minded and Spirit-filled will recognize the authority of the Word of God. The third thing he says to them is in Verse 38:
If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:38 RSV)
"Literally, "If any one be ignorant, let him be ignored." In other words, do not pay attention to him; do not needlessly exalt him or her or even get engaged in a lengthy debate about it. If they will not listen to the authority of the Word, then do not give them a platform from which to speak; just ignore them."
Stedman gives two possible translations for verse 38. One is "if any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized." The other is "if any one be ignorant, let him be ignored." For the latter part of the verse (KJV "let him be ignorant") we have these other possible translations:
NASB "he is not recognized"
NKJV "let him be ignorant"
NRSV "is not to be recognized"
TEV "pay no attention to him"
NJB "that person is not recognized himself"
Vincent's Word Studies
Let him be ignorant (ἀγνοείτω)
Let him remain ignorant. The text is doubtful. Some read ἀγνοεῖται he is not known; i.e., he is one whom God knows not.
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary
38. ἀγνοείτω] implying both the hopelessness of reclaiming such an one, and the little concern which his opposition gave the Apostle. The other reading, ἀγνοεῖται, gives a passable sense—‘he is ignored,’ scil. by God: cf. ch. 1 Corinthians 8:2-3; 1 Corinthians 13:12; Galatians 4:9.
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
1 Corinthians 14:38. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant:—‘If he will persist in his ignorance and obstinacy, let him remain so.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(38) But if any man be ignorant.—There are here two readings in the Greek, for each of which there is strong evidence. The passage may run, either, as in the English, if any man does not know this, let him not know it: then the words would mean that a person who could not recognise such an evident and simple truth must be of a perverse mind—his opposition would give the Apostle no further concern. The other reading is, if any man knows not this, he is himself not known: this would signify that any man who knows not this truth is not known of God (as in 1 Corinthians 8:2-3; 1 Corinthians 13:12).
I believe that the evidence for the KJV reading is superior. Besides the manuscript evidence (Byzantine, for example), the syntax and flow of Paul's thought weighs in its favor. In the following citations from the article "Abandonment to Ignorance" by J.R. Thomson, a commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:38 (see here), the author keys in on what Paul's words denote and connote. Said Thomson:
"There is something of indignation and something of sarcasm in his reference to those who resisted his opinions and decisions. And there is wisdom as well as an admirable display of just impatience in his language: "If any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Already Paul was sarcastic in verse 36 when he says - What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" So it seems he is continuing his sarcasm in verse 38.
Wrote Thomson:
OPINIONATEDNESS AND IGNORANCE OFTEN GO TOGETHER. A little experience convinces us that those who cling the most tenaciously to their own opinions, their own habits, are not always men of the soundest judgment. To resist evidence and authority is no sign of soundness of mind and power of intellect. Some are obstinate because they are blind to all testimony and evidence but that which is acceptable to their own prejudices.
This is most often true of those who are in cults. They will not listen to reason or scripture that contradicts their notions, but stubbornly refuse to listen or seriously consider any counter evidence against their aberrant ideas.
Wrote Thomson:
THERE ARE THOSE WHOM NO EVIDENCE CAN CONVINCE AND NO AUTHORITY OVERAWE. If all men were candid and dispassionate, and habituated to follow the clear white light of reason, human life and human society would be very different from what they actually are. Our Lord Jesus was forbearing and patient with those who opposed themselves to him; but even he confessed that there were those who loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. Young and sanguine ministers of religion often begin their work with an inward persuasion that they have only to place the truth fairly and fully before men, in order to their conviction and conversion. But experience teaches them that it is not so; that there is a moral obduracy which is proof against all efforts.
God help us not to be so "pig headed" that we will not listen to others. Let us not be "hard shells" in our thinking!
Wrote Thomson:
IT MAY BE WISE TO ABANDON TO THEIR LOVED IGNORANCE THOSE WHO WILL NOT BE ENLIGHTENED. An affectionate and benevolent mind will be very slow to adopt such a course. And it cannot be adopted without the hope and prayer that, when ordinary and human methods have failed, it may please God to employ some methods unknown to finite wisdom, to secure the wished for result. Even the Creator himself seems to act upon the principle here exemplified, at all events for a season and a purpose: "Ephraim is joined unto idols: let him alone."
What an awful state we are in when, in our willing ignorance, we are abandoned to our errors!
Thomson continued:
THERE IS BETTER EMPLOYMENT FOR THE TIME OF CHRISTIAN LABOURERS THAN THE ENDEAVOURS TO ENLIGHTEN THE INVINCIBLY IGNORANT. There are the young, the ardent inquirers for truth, the candid and open minded, the earnest and prayerful, all anxious for more light, for lessons of truth, counsels of wisdom, encouragement, and admonition. In such directions there is abundant scope for effort, with the confidence that labour will not be in vain. Why spend years in tilling the rock or sowing the iceberg, when virgin soil awaits the plough and promises to reward the toil of the spiritual husbandman?
THERE IS A PROBATION AND A JUDGMENT APPOINTED BY GOD, TO WHICH SUCH CHARACTERS MUST NEEDS BE LEFT.
I know first hand the sadness of having to "give up" in my efforts to correct the stubborn cultist and the Christian who is wedded to his own ideas and who will not listen to correction.
Now let us notice these good comments on Paul's words.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
38. if any man be ignorant—wilfully; not wishing to recognize these ordinances and my apostolic authority in enjoining them. let him be ignorant—I leave him to his ignorance: it will be at his own peril; I feel it a waste of words to speak anything further to convince him. An argument likely to have weight with the Corinthians, who admired "knowledge" so much.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 38. - Let him be ignorant. The formula seems to fall under the idiom which refuses to say anything more about a subject ("If I perish, I perish;" "What I have written, I have written;" "He that is filthy, let him be filthy still," etc.). The readings vary considerably ("He is ignored;" "He has been ignored;" "He shall be ignored;" "Let him be ignored"). These other readings would be a statement of retribution in kind - of God "sprinkling penal blindnesses on forbidden lusts." But the reading of our translation is on the whole the best supported, and means that to invincible bigotry and ignorant obstinacy St. Paul will have no more to say (Matthew 15:14; 1 Timothy 6:3-5).
In modern English, we might look at Paul's words to the stubborn as "okay, just be that way then!" Just as God is said, in regard to some stubborn souls, that he "gives them up" (Romans 1), so at times we are also forced to give up on some people and to leave them to themselves. It is a sad fact, but true nonetheless.
The interpretation of these verses, especially the last, are not uniformly understood and interpreted by bible students and commentators. It has been my view for many years that when Paul says - "but if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant" - that he was being sarcastic and that he was rebuking and showing impatience with a stubborn obstinate attitude.
There is some debate whether God, or his spokesmen, ever used sarcasm. I have always believed that he did and thought that this was one example of it. I have also viewed it as revealing the frustration of a teacher against the bad attitude of a student, against a mind that refuses to be taught. Let us notice what some others have said about Paul's words.
Wrote expositor Ray Stedman in his commentary (emphasis mine):
"That is clearly satire. He is recognizing that there was a tendency among some in Corinth to think that they had unique revelation, special gifts that no one else had. Paul treats this in a rather sarcastic way with this kind of language, "Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones who received it?" It almost sounds like what dear old Job said to his three comforters, "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you," (Job 12:2 RSV). People have a tendency sometimes to assume this."
Most commentators agree with Stedman that verses 36 and 37 are satire or sarcasm. They do not agree, however, on whether verse 38 is also sarcasm. Translations vary in regard to verse 38, as we will see.
Stedman also wrote:
"...truly spiritual people always recognize the authority of the Scripture. This is very important in these days when people are claiming to be led of the Spirit, and when you point out from a passage of Scripture that what they are saying is contrary to it, they still insist on their feeling or their experience or their understanding as superior to that of the Word of God. Paul says that is not true. The Spirit of God never operates contrary to the written Word. Never! Anyone who is truly Spirit-minded and Spirit-filled will recognize the authority of the Word of God. The third thing he says to them is in Verse 38:
If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:38 RSV)
"Literally, "If any one be ignorant, let him be ignored." In other words, do not pay attention to him; do not needlessly exalt him or her or even get engaged in a lengthy debate about it. If they will not listen to the authority of the Word, then do not give them a platform from which to speak; just ignore them."
Stedman gives two possible translations for verse 38. One is "if any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized." The other is "if any one be ignorant, let him be ignored." For the latter part of the verse (KJV "let him be ignorant") we have these other possible translations:
NASB "he is not recognized"
NKJV "let him be ignorant"
NRSV "is not to be recognized"
TEV "pay no attention to him"
NJB "that person is not recognized himself"
Vincent's Word Studies
Let him be ignorant (ἀγνοείτω)
Let him remain ignorant. The text is doubtful. Some read ἀγνοεῖται he is not known; i.e., he is one whom God knows not.
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary
38. ἀγνοείτω] implying both the hopelessness of reclaiming such an one, and the little concern which his opposition gave the Apostle. The other reading, ἀγνοεῖται, gives a passable sense—‘he is ignored,’ scil. by God: cf. ch. 1 Corinthians 8:2-3; 1 Corinthians 13:12; Galatians 4:9.
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
1 Corinthians 14:38. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant:—‘If he will persist in his ignorance and obstinacy, let him remain so.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(38) But if any man be ignorant.—There are here two readings in the Greek, for each of which there is strong evidence. The passage may run, either, as in the English, if any man does not know this, let him not know it: then the words would mean that a person who could not recognise such an evident and simple truth must be of a perverse mind—his opposition would give the Apostle no further concern. The other reading is, if any man knows not this, he is himself not known: this would signify that any man who knows not this truth is not known of God (as in 1 Corinthians 8:2-3; 1 Corinthians 13:12).
I believe that the evidence for the KJV reading is superior. Besides the manuscript evidence (Byzantine, for example), the syntax and flow of Paul's thought weighs in its favor. In the following citations from the article "Abandonment to Ignorance" by J.R. Thomson, a commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:38 (see here), the author keys in on what Paul's words denote and connote. Said Thomson:
"There is something of indignation and something of sarcasm in his reference to those who resisted his opinions and decisions. And there is wisdom as well as an admirable display of just impatience in his language: "If any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Already Paul was sarcastic in verse 36 when he says - What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" So it seems he is continuing his sarcasm in verse 38.
Wrote Thomson:
OPINIONATEDNESS AND IGNORANCE OFTEN GO TOGETHER. A little experience convinces us that those who cling the most tenaciously to their own opinions, their own habits, are not always men of the soundest judgment. To resist evidence and authority is no sign of soundness of mind and power of intellect. Some are obstinate because they are blind to all testimony and evidence but that which is acceptable to their own prejudices.
This is most often true of those who are in cults. They will not listen to reason or scripture that contradicts their notions, but stubbornly refuse to listen or seriously consider any counter evidence against their aberrant ideas.
Wrote Thomson:
THERE ARE THOSE WHOM NO EVIDENCE CAN CONVINCE AND NO AUTHORITY OVERAWE. If all men were candid and dispassionate, and habituated to follow the clear white light of reason, human life and human society would be very different from what they actually are. Our Lord Jesus was forbearing and patient with those who opposed themselves to him; but even he confessed that there were those who loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. Young and sanguine ministers of religion often begin their work with an inward persuasion that they have only to place the truth fairly and fully before men, in order to their conviction and conversion. But experience teaches them that it is not so; that there is a moral obduracy which is proof against all efforts.
God help us not to be so "pig headed" that we will not listen to others. Let us not be "hard shells" in our thinking!
Wrote Thomson:
IT MAY BE WISE TO ABANDON TO THEIR LOVED IGNORANCE THOSE WHO WILL NOT BE ENLIGHTENED. An affectionate and benevolent mind will be very slow to adopt such a course. And it cannot be adopted without the hope and prayer that, when ordinary and human methods have failed, it may please God to employ some methods unknown to finite wisdom, to secure the wished for result. Even the Creator himself seems to act upon the principle here exemplified, at all events for a season and a purpose: "Ephraim is joined unto idols: let him alone."
What an awful state we are in when, in our willing ignorance, we are abandoned to our errors!
Thomson continued:
THERE IS BETTER EMPLOYMENT FOR THE TIME OF CHRISTIAN LABOURERS THAN THE ENDEAVOURS TO ENLIGHTEN THE INVINCIBLY IGNORANT. There are the young, the ardent inquirers for truth, the candid and open minded, the earnest and prayerful, all anxious for more light, for lessons of truth, counsels of wisdom, encouragement, and admonition. In such directions there is abundant scope for effort, with the confidence that labour will not be in vain. Why spend years in tilling the rock or sowing the iceberg, when virgin soil awaits the plough and promises to reward the toil of the spiritual husbandman?
THERE IS A PROBATION AND A JUDGMENT APPOINTED BY GOD, TO WHICH SUCH CHARACTERS MUST NEEDS BE LEFT.
I know first hand the sadness of having to "give up" in my efforts to correct the stubborn cultist and the Christian who is wedded to his own ideas and who will not listen to correction.
Now let us notice these good comments on Paul's words.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
38. if any man be ignorant—wilfully; not wishing to recognize these ordinances and my apostolic authority in enjoining them. let him be ignorant—I leave him to his ignorance: it will be at his own peril; I feel it a waste of words to speak anything further to convince him. An argument likely to have weight with the Corinthians, who admired "knowledge" so much.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 38. - Let him be ignorant. The formula seems to fall under the idiom which refuses to say anything more about a subject ("If I perish, I perish;" "What I have written, I have written;" "He that is filthy, let him be filthy still," etc.). The readings vary considerably ("He is ignored;" "He has been ignored;" "He shall be ignored;" "Let him be ignored"). These other readings would be a statement of retribution in kind - of God "sprinkling penal blindnesses on forbidden lusts." But the reading of our translation is on the whole the best supported, and means that to invincible bigotry and ignorant obstinacy St. Paul will have no more to say (Matthew 15:14; 1 Timothy 6:3-5).
In modern English, we might look at Paul's words to the stubborn as "okay, just be that way then!" Just as God is said, in regard to some stubborn souls, that he "gives them up" (Romans 1), so at times we are also forced to give up on some people and to leave them to themselves. It is a sad fact, but true nonetheless.
Apr 11, 2017
Is Calvinism The Pearl Of Great Price?
Years ago, I asked my dear friend, Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, about his seeming softness on Calvinism. His reply to me has echoed in my ears many times over the years. He said, in so many words, that he just could not understand the enthusiasm of some who promote Calvinism (or "doctrines of grace"). He said some think that in finding Calvinism and grace theology they had found the "pearl of great price." Well, after all these years of thinking about this, I have to say "amen." I hope you know what I mean and do not need to explain it.
Mar 29, 2017
A Couple Things That Irk Me
One of those things is my leaving comments on a few web pages and have the blog author or administrator not post my comments. This is not because I say something that should be banned, but is due to some other reason. One such blog I quit following because of this. Why do brethren do this? This leads me to the second thing that irks me.
Some strict brethren just are too overly careful about not wanting to give the impression that they are the least bit associated with someone not in their particular circle of fellowship. One blog never cites another blog or web page without saying "this does not constitute an endorsement." Brethren, I am so glad I don't have to worry about such things! I am glad to truly be an independent. There are far too many cliques in the body of Christ. People are also far too touchy about things.
Well, that's my gripe for the day.
Some strict brethren just are too overly careful about not wanting to give the impression that they are the least bit associated with someone not in their particular circle of fellowship. One blog never cites another blog or web page without saying "this does not constitute an endorsement." Brethren, I am so glad I don't have to worry about such things! I am glad to truly be an independent. There are far too many cliques in the body of Christ. People are also far too touchy about things.
Well, that's my gripe for the day.
Mar 27, 2017
If God Gets The Credit, Does He Get The Blame Too?
I have been interested in the philosophical and theological question regarding giving God credit or praise for all the good. It is argued that if God gets all the credit, and man none, then God must also get the blame. This difficulty has led some to affirm that God does not get all the credit. Man deserves some credit also, it is argued. If that is not so, then the dilemma is to explain how giving God all the credit doesn't necessitate that we also give him the blame. In looking over some Internet articles on this subject, I submit these comments as an example of the kind of discussion that is prevalent on this important subject.
In "If God Gets the Glory, Does He Also Get the Blame?" by Mac McCann (SEE HERE) it is stated:
"The doctors who survived Ebola thanked God for their recovery. Whom do we blame for those who don’t recover?"
"...that God deserves “all the credit and all the glory for what’s happened” — deserves more scrutiny."
"If we truly believe that God deserves “all the glory” of saving a few individuals, why don’t we also hold God accountable for the thousands of infections and deaths?"
Well, those are good questions! And, though I do not have time to write upon the subject now, I will perhaps have time to do so later.
In another Internet article, "Giving God the Credit" (SEE HERE) it is asked: "How people and society give god credit for all the good but none of the blame for everything that is bad."
"Who would not like a system in which they got all the credit when things go right and none of the blame when things go wrong? Since nobody would think this is fair if applied to an individual, company or government, it seems odd that a being with infinite power to change everything would be given such a break."
Being a believer in predestination, and in the proposition that nothing occurs but what God willingly allows to occur, I immediately think of many scripture passages in addressing these questions and this topic. First notice these words of God to Moses.
"And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" (Exodus 4: 11)
Here God plainly says that he gets the credit for a man having the ability to speak, hear, or see. Also, he does not shy away from taking the blame (if we can call it that) or responsibility for some not having those abilities. In another Internet article "How do you respond to Exodus 4:11?" by Gregory A. Boyd (SEE HERE) the author writes:
"According to some compatibilists, this passage teaches that all infirmities are willed by God. This interpretation is not required, however."
"Throughout his ministry Jesus came against all infirmities and diseases as things that God does not will. Never once did he ascribe these things to his Father’s will. Never once did he encourage people to find comfort in the notion that these things were part of God’s plan."
I must take issue with Boyd on his assertion. Notice this passage. It seems to overthrow his assertion.
"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (John 9:1-3)
Further, here is another instance that should be considered in a discussion of this topic.
"But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong." (Luke 4: 25-29)
As I said, I would love to deal with this in depth but do not have time to do so now. Perhaps in the future.
In "If God Gets the Glory, Does He Also Get the Blame?" by Mac McCann (SEE HERE) it is stated:
"The doctors who survived Ebola thanked God for their recovery. Whom do we blame for those who don’t recover?"
"...that God deserves “all the credit and all the glory for what’s happened” — deserves more scrutiny."
"If we truly believe that God deserves “all the glory” of saving a few individuals, why don’t we also hold God accountable for the thousands of infections and deaths?"
Well, those are good questions! And, though I do not have time to write upon the subject now, I will perhaps have time to do so later.
In another Internet article, "Giving God the Credit" (SEE HERE) it is asked: "How people and society give god credit for all the good but none of the blame for everything that is bad."
"Who would not like a system in which they got all the credit when things go right and none of the blame when things go wrong? Since nobody would think this is fair if applied to an individual, company or government, it seems odd that a being with infinite power to change everything would be given such a break."
Being a believer in predestination, and in the proposition that nothing occurs but what God willingly allows to occur, I immediately think of many scripture passages in addressing these questions and this topic. First notice these words of God to Moses.
"And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" (Exodus 4: 11)
Here God plainly says that he gets the credit for a man having the ability to speak, hear, or see. Also, he does not shy away from taking the blame (if we can call it that) or responsibility for some not having those abilities. In another Internet article "How do you respond to Exodus 4:11?" by Gregory A. Boyd (SEE HERE) the author writes:
"According to some compatibilists, this passage teaches that all infirmities are willed by God. This interpretation is not required, however."
"Throughout his ministry Jesus came against all infirmities and diseases as things that God does not will. Never once did he ascribe these things to his Father’s will. Never once did he encourage people to find comfort in the notion that these things were part of God’s plan."
I must take issue with Boyd on his assertion. Notice this passage. It seems to overthrow his assertion.
"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (John 9:1-3)
Further, here is another instance that should be considered in a discussion of this topic.
"But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong." (Luke 4: 25-29)
As I said, I would love to deal with this in depth but do not have time to do so now. Perhaps in the future.
Mar 17, 2017
"Vast Array of Verbal Behavior" in Scripture
I agree with Douglas Wilson who wrote (emphasis mine):
"Instead of seeking to learn our paradigms of behavior from the Scriptures, we tend to bring our assumptions, learned elsewhere and from others, and view the Scriptures through those assumptions. This is not a superficial problem; it goes down to the bone. The prophets, the apostles and our Lord Jesus all exhibit a vast array of verbal behavior, including tenderness, love, insults, jokes, anger and more. What standard do we use to sort this material out?" (page 17 of "The Serrated Edge" by Douglas Wilson - SEE HERE)
Many Bible students and teachers often fail to properly interpret certain portions of Scripture because they have not fully discerned its genre, use of idioms and metaphors, and context.
"Instead of seeking to learn our paradigms of behavior from the Scriptures, we tend to bring our assumptions, learned elsewhere and from others, and view the Scriptures through those assumptions. This is not a superficial problem; it goes down to the bone. The prophets, the apostles and our Lord Jesus all exhibit a vast array of verbal behavior, including tenderness, love, insults, jokes, anger and more. What standard do we use to sort this material out?" (page 17 of "The Serrated Edge" by Douglas Wilson - SEE HERE)
Many Bible students and teachers often fail to properly interpret certain portions of Scripture because they have not fully discerned its genre, use of idioms and metaphors, and context.
Mar 11, 2017
Warning! Attending Church May Be Dangerous To Your Health
"ye come together not for the better but for the worse." (I Cor. 11:17)
Can people really be worse off for attending and supporting apostate churches? Paul thought so!
Can people really be worse off for attending and supporting apostate churches? Paul thought so!
Mar 6, 2017
Advanced Composition
One of the hardest classes for me in college was my senior level "Advanced Composition" class. Perhaps it was due to a heavy load of other classes at the time, or to my topic (free will vs. determinism), or to my Roman Catholic professor (who was out of place in a Baptist/Presbyterian college, and who passionately opposed my belief in predestination and determinism), but whatever the reason, it is one of the classes where I learned much about writing professionally.
One of the lessons I learned in that class concerned the fact that most writings are not perfect upon "first draft" (unlike the inspired men who wrote perfectly on first draft). The best of writings, whether of poets, philosophers, or theologians, were not the products of a first draft, but generally the result of several revisions. Even when the writing (thesis, book, paper, etc.) is completed, most authors would admit that what was published or otherwise completed could still be improved, either by additional information, or by better rhetoric, or improved argumentation, etc.
With this in mind I thought I would announce that I plan to spend most of my time in the future to revise many of my works and publish them. In other words, I will be involved in "advanced composition." This will take a tremendous amount of time and will leave little time to post extended works in my blogs. I will only be able to make short posts from time to time.
If you are led to do so, please remember me in your prayers.
One of the lessons I learned in that class concerned the fact that most writings are not perfect upon "first draft" (unlike the inspired men who wrote perfectly on first draft). The best of writings, whether of poets, philosophers, or theologians, were not the products of a first draft, but generally the result of several revisions. Even when the writing (thesis, book, paper, etc.) is completed, most authors would admit that what was published or otherwise completed could still be improved, either by additional information, or by better rhetoric, or improved argumentation, etc.
With this in mind I thought I would announce that I plan to spend most of my time in the future to revise many of my works and publish them. In other words, I will be involved in "advanced composition." This will take a tremendous amount of time and will leave little time to post extended works in my blogs. I will only be able to make short posts from time to time.
If you are led to do so, please remember me in your prayers.
Mar 5, 2017
"Ancient Astronaut Theory" is Neo Paganism
Over the years I have spent much time researching "ancient history" in addition to other areas of historical studies. I have always loved history. I love the social sciences in general. In those years I have increasingly come to see that there is much "fake science," or as the apostle Paul said, "science falsely so called." (I Tim. 6: 20) "Darwinism" is one such "fake science," and is in fact a religion in disguise.
Each day there are numerous archaeological discoveries that overthrow it; And it is becoming harder for those "scientists" who are wedded to Darwinism's theory (as to man's origin and history) to cover up that evidence (as they have since Darwin first published his "origin of the species"). Each day there is more and more evidence that proves that a civilization once existed on this earth that was more technologically advanced than at present. This fact destroys "evolution" with its "ascent of man" and strictly linear view of history.
Of course, the existence of such an advanced civilization, though destroying evolution theory, does not prove that such an advanced civilization was the result of alien interference. Nor does it prove that man was the creation of aliens, rather than of God.
When I was a young Christian I became aware of "New Age" doctrine and teaching. It did not take long to see how its quasi religious/metaphysical teachings were evidence that it was basically polytheistic. It was a way to believe in many gods and goddesses, in spirits of various kinds, "ascended masters," etc., and a way to communicate with them. Well, the same thing can be said about the "ancient astronaut theory" where the "aliens" become the "gods" of the bible and other ancient texts.
Jason Colavito wrote:
"I would like to seriously propose that the “ancient astronaut theory” as presented on Ancient Aliens has become a revised Theosophy, a neo-pagan religion—a type of polytheism where every religion is right because all gods are real...the ancient astronaut theory collapses in on itself, and the old stories become literally true as reports of actual gods! Polytheism!" ("Review of Ancient Aliens S05E07 "Prophets and Prophecy" - SEE HERE)
Well, amen to that!
He wrote also:
"David Childress (an archaeologist who is often seen on the history channel, and is a leading proponent of ancient aliens having visited earth from another world - SG) agrees that the aliens warned ancient people of natural disasters by pretending to be gods."
Both New Age and Ancient Alien ideas are nothing but polytheism arrayed in better attire.
Each day there are numerous archaeological discoveries that overthrow it; And it is becoming harder for those "scientists" who are wedded to Darwinism's theory (as to man's origin and history) to cover up that evidence (as they have since Darwin first published his "origin of the species"). Each day there is more and more evidence that proves that a civilization once existed on this earth that was more technologically advanced than at present. This fact destroys "evolution" with its "ascent of man" and strictly linear view of history.
Of course, the existence of such an advanced civilization, though destroying evolution theory, does not prove that such an advanced civilization was the result of alien interference. Nor does it prove that man was the creation of aliens, rather than of God.
When I was a young Christian I became aware of "New Age" doctrine and teaching. It did not take long to see how its quasi religious/metaphysical teachings were evidence that it was basically polytheistic. It was a way to believe in many gods and goddesses, in spirits of various kinds, "ascended masters," etc., and a way to communicate with them. Well, the same thing can be said about the "ancient astronaut theory" where the "aliens" become the "gods" of the bible and other ancient texts.
Jason Colavito wrote:
"I would like to seriously propose that the “ancient astronaut theory” as presented on Ancient Aliens has become a revised Theosophy, a neo-pagan religion—a type of polytheism where every religion is right because all gods are real...the ancient astronaut theory collapses in on itself, and the old stories become literally true as reports of actual gods! Polytheism!" ("Review of Ancient Aliens S05E07 "Prophets and Prophecy" - SEE HERE)
Well, amen to that!
He wrote also:
"David Childress (an archaeologist who is often seen on the history channel, and is a leading proponent of ancient aliens having visited earth from another world - SG) agrees that the aliens warned ancient people of natural disasters by pretending to be gods."
Both New Age and Ancient Alien ideas are nothing but polytheism arrayed in better attire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)