"And if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)." (2 Peter 2:7-8)
Lot's righteousness is not prominently displayed in an experiential or observable manner. In the Genesis narrative, he is not described as a practically righteous man in his actions or decisions. If one were to rely solely on the Old Testament account, it would be difficult to conclude that he was indeed a righteous man. His choices, such as settling in Sodom and his hesitance to leave despite its impending destruction, reflect significant moral and spiritual shortcomings. Thus, the emphasis on Lot being "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8 appears to point more clearly to a status granted to him by God.
In fact, the Genesis account portrays Lot as a man whose life was deeply entangled in sin and moral compromise. From offering his daughters to the mob in Genesis 19 to his later episodes of drunkenness and moral failure, Lot's life provides ample evidence of his flawed and sinful nature. His association with the notoriously wicked city of Sodom further underscores his spiritual weakness. These elements make it clear that Lot's righteousness could not be rooted in his personal actions or character. Instead, the best explanation for him being called "righteous" is the doctrine of imputed righteousness, which emphasizes that righteousness is credited to individuals by faith, not by their works. Lot's case highlights the grace of God in declaring sinners righteous despite their glaring imperfections.
The righteousness attributed to Lot is most reasonably understood as an imputed righteousness. This doctrine teaches that righteousness is not based on human works or merit but is a gift from God, credited to an individual through faith. Lot's standing as "righteous" is rooted in his relationship with God, much like that of Abraham, who "believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). The New Testament's affirmation of Lot's righteousness highlights God's grace in declaring sinners righteous by faith.
Moreover, 2 Peter 2:7-8 offers a striking insight into Lot's inner conflict. Though he lived among the morally corrupt and unprincipled people of Sodom, he was deeply grieved by their sin. The word "oppressed" conveys the idea of being worn down or harassed, suggesting the emotional and spiritual burden Lot bore as he witnessed the lawlessness around him. Similarly, the term "tormented" emphasizes the ongoing anguish of his righteous soul, torn between the reality of his surroundings and his awareness of God's moral standard.
This passage underscores the tension that believers often face when living in a fallen world. While Christians are called to remain steadfast in their faith and values, they may experience inner turmoil as they confront the pervasive sin and injustice in society. Lot's story serves as both a warning and a reminder of God's faithfulness in delivering His people, even in the midst of moral decay. His rescue from Sodom foreshadows the ultimate deliverance that all believers have through Christ.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Friday, August 11, 2017
59 Confirmed Or Historically Probable Facts In The Gospel Of John
1. Archaeology confirms the use of stone water jars in New Testament times [John 2:6].
2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention [2:8].
3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well [4:6].
4. Josephus [Wars of the Jews 2.232] confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time [4:9].
5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. [There's a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.] [4:46, 49, 51].
6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem [5:1].
7. Archaeology confirms the proper location of Bethesda [5:2]. [Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it's unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure "is in Jerusalem," implying that he's writing before 70].
8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention [5:31]; a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus' divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.
9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel [6:15].
10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee [6:18].
11. Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up [6:53].
12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention [6:66].
13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a "good man" and the other that he "deceives people," would not be the two choices John would have made up [7:12]; a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.
14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention [7:20].
15. The use of "Samaritan" to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans [8:48].
16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention [8:31, 59].
17. Archaeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam [9:7].
18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees [9:13-39], at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.
19. The healed man calling Jesus a "prophet" rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history [9:17].
20. During a winter feast, Jesus walked in Solomon's Colonnade, which was the only side of the temple area shielded from the cold winter east wind [10:22-23]; this area is mentioned several times by Josephus.
21. Fifteen stadia [less than two miles] is precisely the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem [11:18].
22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention [11:19].
23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-century Jewish burials [11:44]; it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.
24. The precise description of the composition of the Sanhedrin [11:47]: it was composed primarily of chief priests [largely Sadducees] and Pharisees during Jesus' ministry.
25. Caiaphas was indeed the high priest that year [11:49]; we learn from Josephus that Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 18-37.
26. The obscure and tiny village of Ephraim [11:54] near Jerusalem is mentioned by Josephus.
27. Ceremonial cleansing was common in preparation for the Passover [11:55].
28. Anointing of a guest's feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed fro special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary's wiping of Jesus' feet with her hair is an unlikely invention [in easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance].
29. Waving of palm branches was a common Jewish practice for celebrating military victories and welcoming national rulers [12:13].
30. Foot washing is first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention [it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do] [13:4]; Peter's insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality [there's certainly no purpose for inventing this request].
31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question [13:24]; there's no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.
32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention [14:28], especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ [as the critics claim he did].
33. Use of the vine as a metaphor makes good sense in Jerusalem [15:1]; vineyards were in the vicinity of the temple, and, according to Josephus, the temple gates had a golden vine carved on them.
34. Use of the childbirth metaphor [16:21] is thoroughly Jewish; is has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls [1QH 11:9-10].
35. The standard Jewish posture for prayers was looking "toward heaven" [17:1].
36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father [17:7-8] would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.
37. No specific reference to fulfilled Scripture is given regarding the predicted betrayal by Judas; a fiction writer or later Christian redactor probably would have identified the Old Testament Scripture to which Jesus was referring [17:12].
38. The name of the high priest's servant [Malachus], who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention [18:10].
39. Proper identification of Caiaphas's father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6-15 [18:13]-the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact the former high priests maintained great influence.
40. John's claim that the high priest knew him [18:15] seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.
41. Anna's questions regarding Jesus' teachings and disciples make good historical sense; Annas would be concerned about potential civil unrest and the undermining of Jewish religious authority [18:19].
42. Identification of a relative of Malchus [the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off] is a detail that John would not have made up [18:26]; it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.
43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate's reluctance to deal with Jesus [18:28ff.]: Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job [the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar," 19:12]; the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met [To Gaius 38.301-302].
44. A surface similar to the Stone Pavement has been identified near the Antonia Fortress [19:13] with markings that may indicate soldiers played games there [as in the gambling for his clothes in 19:24].
45. The Jews exclaiming, "We have no king but Caesar!" [19:15] would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70. [This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have not king but Osama Bin Laden!"]
46. The crucifixion of Jesus [19:17-30] is attested to by non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.
47. Crucifixion victims normally carried their own crossbeams [19:17].
48. Josephus confirms that crucifixion was an execution technique employed by the Romans [Wars of the Jews 1.97; 2.305; 7.203]; moreover, a nail-spiked anklebone of a crucified man was found in Jerusalem in 1968.
49. The execution site was likely outside ancient Jerusalem, as John says [19:17]; this would ensure that the sacred Jewish city would not be profaned by the presence of a dead body [Deut. 21:23].
50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water [19:34]. Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid father in the sac around the heart called the pericardium. John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.
51. Joseph of Arimathea [19:38], a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention.
52. Josephus [Antiquities 17.199] confirms that spices [19:39] were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.
53. Mary Magdalene [20:1], a formerly demon-possessed woman [Luke 8:2], would not be invented as the empty tomb's first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story.
54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener [20:15] is not a detail that a later writer would have made up [especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus].
55. "Rabboni" [20:16], the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.
56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" [20:17] does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.
57. One hundred fifty-three fish [21:11] is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.
58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was [21:12] is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.
59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions [21:18]; so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention. [1]
Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 263-268
2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention [2:8].
3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well [4:6].
4. Josephus [Wars of the Jews 2.232] confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time [4:9].
5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. [There's a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.] [4:46, 49, 51].
6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem [5:1].
7. Archaeology confirms the proper location of Bethesda [5:2]. [Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it's unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure "is in Jerusalem," implying that he's writing before 70].
8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention [5:31]; a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus' divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.
9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel [6:15].
10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee [6:18].
11. Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up [6:53].
12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention [6:66].
13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a "good man" and the other that he "deceives people," would not be the two choices John would have made up [7:12]; a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.
14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention [7:20].
15. The use of "Samaritan" to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans [8:48].
16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention [8:31, 59].
17. Archaeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam [9:7].
18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees [9:13-39], at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.
19. The healed man calling Jesus a "prophet" rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history [9:17].
20. During a winter feast, Jesus walked in Solomon's Colonnade, which was the only side of the temple area shielded from the cold winter east wind [10:22-23]; this area is mentioned several times by Josephus.
21. Fifteen stadia [less than two miles] is precisely the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem [11:18].
22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention [11:19].
23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-century Jewish burials [11:44]; it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.
24. The precise description of the composition of the Sanhedrin [11:47]: it was composed primarily of chief priests [largely Sadducees] and Pharisees during Jesus' ministry.
25. Caiaphas was indeed the high priest that year [11:49]; we learn from Josephus that Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 18-37.
26. The obscure and tiny village of Ephraim [11:54] near Jerusalem is mentioned by Josephus.
27. Ceremonial cleansing was common in preparation for the Passover [11:55].
28. Anointing of a guest's feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed fro special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary's wiping of Jesus' feet with her hair is an unlikely invention [in easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance].
29. Waving of palm branches was a common Jewish practice for celebrating military victories and welcoming national rulers [12:13].
30. Foot washing is first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention [it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do] [13:4]; Peter's insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality [there's certainly no purpose for inventing this request].
31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question [13:24]; there's no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.
32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention [14:28], especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ [as the critics claim he did].
33. Use of the vine as a metaphor makes good sense in Jerusalem [15:1]; vineyards were in the vicinity of the temple, and, according to Josephus, the temple gates had a golden vine carved on them.
34. Use of the childbirth metaphor [16:21] is thoroughly Jewish; is has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls [1QH 11:9-10].
35. The standard Jewish posture for prayers was looking "toward heaven" [17:1].
36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father [17:7-8] would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.
37. No specific reference to fulfilled Scripture is given regarding the predicted betrayal by Judas; a fiction writer or later Christian redactor probably would have identified the Old Testament Scripture to which Jesus was referring [17:12].
38. The name of the high priest's servant [Malachus], who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention [18:10].
39. Proper identification of Caiaphas's father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6-15 [18:13]-the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact the former high priests maintained great influence.
40. John's claim that the high priest knew him [18:15] seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.
41. Anna's questions regarding Jesus' teachings and disciples make good historical sense; Annas would be concerned about potential civil unrest and the undermining of Jewish religious authority [18:19].
42. Identification of a relative of Malchus [the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off] is a detail that John would not have made up [18:26]; it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.
43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate's reluctance to deal with Jesus [18:28ff.]: Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job [the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar," 19:12]; the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met [To Gaius 38.301-302].
44. A surface similar to the Stone Pavement has been identified near the Antonia Fortress [19:13] with markings that may indicate soldiers played games there [as in the gambling for his clothes in 19:24].
45. The Jews exclaiming, "We have no king but Caesar!" [19:15] would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70. [This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have not king but Osama Bin Laden!"]
46. The crucifixion of Jesus [19:17-30] is attested to by non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.
47. Crucifixion victims normally carried their own crossbeams [19:17].
48. Josephus confirms that crucifixion was an execution technique employed by the Romans [Wars of the Jews 1.97; 2.305; 7.203]; moreover, a nail-spiked anklebone of a crucified man was found in Jerusalem in 1968.
49. The execution site was likely outside ancient Jerusalem, as John says [19:17]; this would ensure that the sacred Jewish city would not be profaned by the presence of a dead body [Deut. 21:23].
50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water [19:34]. Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid father in the sac around the heart called the pericardium. John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.
51. Joseph of Arimathea [19:38], a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention.
52. Josephus [Antiquities 17.199] confirms that spices [19:39] were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.
53. Mary Magdalene [20:1], a formerly demon-possessed woman [Luke 8:2], would not be invented as the empty tomb's first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story.
54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener [20:15] is not a detail that a later writer would have made up [especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus].
55. "Rabboni" [20:16], the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.
56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" [20:17] does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.
57. One hundred fifty-three fish [21:11] is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.
58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was [21:12] is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.
59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions [21:18]; so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention. [1]
Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 263-268
Thursday, August 10, 2017
A Topical Scripture Cross Reference Study On Love Of God And Neighbor
- Introduction
-The command to love God and one’s neighbor arises from both the historical context of ancient Israel and the socio-religious landscape of Jesus Christ's time. Rooted in the collective identity and communal responsibilities of the Israelites, this command serves as both a legal and ethical foundation for personal relationships among the community.
-In Jesus’ teachings, this command takes on a transformative significance, challenging established norms and emphasizing a love that transcends societal boundaries. It redefined relationships within both ancient and contemporary contexts. Such a commandment encourages spirituality that is lived out in practical love, promoting a holistic understanding of faith that encompasses action.
*The historical context of Roman-occupied Judea, with its tensions between various ethnic and religious groups, highlights Jesus' message. By elevating love above legalistic observance, He challenges societal divisions and promotes a radical inclusivity that extends to everyone, including enemies.
*The injunction against hatred, revenge, and grudges emphasizes that love should govern both personal feelings and actions—underscoring the legal nature of these commands. The society was called to live out these laws practically, showing that mutual respect and care for one another were vital for maintaining community and fulfilling God’s covenant.
-"Now, therefore, Israel, what does the Lord, your God, ask of you but to fear the Lord, your God, to follow in all his ways, to love and serve the Lord, your God, with your whole heart and with your whole being." (Deuteronomy 10:12)
*The commands to love God and one's neighbor were given in a context where communal living was essential. Ancient Israel was a tribal society with strong familial relationships. Love for one’s neighbor was not merely an abstract moral principle; it was essential for social harmony and survival within these tight-knit communities.
*In a culture that often faced external threats, maintaining unity and compassion among each other fostered deeper resilience. Love was not just a sentiment; it was a crucial societal glue.
*In the New Testament, Jesus asserts that the fulfillment of the law rests on these two commandments. This is significant because it shifts the emphasis from merely following rituals and laws to embodying love as the essence of the law. This radical understanding implies that love is not only the highest commandment, but also the very spirit of the law.
*The early Christian writings in Romans, Galatians, and James echo this concern, affirming love as the law's fulfillment and a practical expression of faith. The historical context reveals the early church’s struggle against legalism and the need for a radical transformation that could only happen through the love laid out in these commandments.
- The Greatest Commandment:
*The historical context of Roman-occupied Judea, with its tensions between various ethnic and religious groups, highlights Jesus' message. By elevating love above legalistic observance, He challenges societal divisions and promotes a radical inclusivity that extends to everyone, including enemies.
- Love And Legal Obligations In Leviticus:
*The injunction against hatred, revenge, and grudges emphasizes that love should govern both personal feelings and actions—underscoring the legal nature of these commands. The society was called to live out these laws practically, showing that mutual respect and care for one another were vital for maintaining community and fulfilling God’s covenant.
- Commandments Of Love In Deuteronomy:
-"Now, therefore, Israel, what does the Lord, your God, ask of you but to fear the Lord, your God, to follow in all his ways, to love and serve the Lord, your God, with your whole heart and with your whole being." (Deuteronomy 10:12)
*The commands to love God and one's neighbor were given in a context where communal living was essential. Ancient Israel was a tribal society with strong familial relationships. Love for one’s neighbor was not merely an abstract moral principle; it was essential for social harmony and survival within these tight-knit communities.
*In a culture that often faced external threats, maintaining unity and compassion among each other fostered deeper resilience. Love was not just a sentiment; it was a crucial societal glue.
- Joshua's Call To Loyalty And Love:
- Turning Back To God In 1 Kings
- Fulfillment Of The Law In Romans:
*In the New Testament, Jesus asserts that the fulfillment of the law rests on these two commandments. This is significant because it shifts the emphasis from merely following rituals and laws to embodying love as the essence of the law. This radical understanding implies that love is not only the highest commandment, but also the very spirit of the law.
- Love As The Law's Fulfillment In Galatians:
- The Royal Law In James:
*The early Christian writings in Romans, Galatians, and James echo this concern, affirming love as the law's fulfillment and a practical expression of faith. The historical context reveals the early church’s struggle against legalism and the need for a radical transformation that could only happen through the love laid out in these commandments.
- Passing From Death To Life In First John
Monday, August 7, 2017
Who Bruises The Head Of The Serpent In Genesis 3:15?
- Introduction:
-Many Catholics reason that Mary must be the paragon of holiness, whereas Satan is the ultimate source of evil. Genesis 3:15 has oftentimes been connected with the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception, the teaching that she was born without sin. However, the traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage is groundless and stems from a romanticized view of Mary.
- Consider The Words Of The New Catholic Encyclopedia In Regards To Genesis 3:15:
- The New American Bible Revised Edition Has This Footnote On Genesis 3:15:
-"[3:15] They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. Another interpretive translation is ipsa, “she,” and is reflected in Jerome’s Vulgate. “She” was thought to refer to Mary, the mother of the messiah. In Christian art Mary is sometimes depicted with her foot on the head of the serpent."
- Exegetical Problems For The Roman Catholic Interpretation Of Genesis 3:15:
- Who Bruises The Head Of The Serpent?:
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Luke 22:32 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy
- Introduction:
- A Refutation Of Papal Argument From Luke 22:32:
-Luke 22:32 is speaking of the time when the Apostle Peter repents of his errors. This text is about Peter's faults, not about receiving praise, rewards, or being promoted to a position of supremacy. This passage of Scripture is about the unfathomable love, kindness, and mercy of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Roman Catholic apologists are altogether missing the point of Luke 22:32 when they cite it as a papal proof-text. They turn the meaning of this passage on its head.
-To make an argument for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of Luke 22:32 is unwarranted, for the context contains elements that are injurious to modern-day claims of Peter being appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ as its first pope. Most notably, the disciples had a dispute among themselves as to who would be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22:24-27). In fact, Christ said that all twelve apostles were going to be seated on twelve thrones (Luke 22:29-30). There is nothing in the context of Luke 22 even hinting that the Apostle Peter would be singled out for the reason of being a recipient of special honor. All church leaders have been called to "strengthen the brethren." One does not need to be bestowed some gift of infallibility in order to fulfill that duty.
-To make an argument for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of Luke 22:32 is unwarranted, for the context contains elements that are injurious to modern-day claims of Peter being appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ as its first pope. Most notably, the disciples had a dispute among themselves as to who would be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22:24-27). In fact, Christ said that all twelve apostles were going to be seated on twelve thrones (Luke 22:29-30). There is nothing in the context of Luke 22 even hinting that the Apostle Peter would be singled out for the reason of being a recipient of special honor. All church leaders have been called to "strengthen the brethren." One does not need to be bestowed some gift of infallibility in order to fulfill that duty.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
John 21:15-17 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy
- Introduction:
-The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus Christ's words, “feed my sheep,” spoken directly to the Apostle Peter, as a divine mandate granting him exclusive primacy in shepherding the household of God—the church. The Papacy asserts that Christ conferred upon Peter a unique and elevated position of episcopal authority, which is claimed to have been passed down to the Roman bishops of subsequent generations. Roman Catholic apologists frequently cite the text of John 21:15–17 as evidence that the pope has been appointed by Christ to serve in the office of “Chief Shepherd.”
-Peter himself admonished against becoming lords over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:1–5). Christ is identified as the “Chief Shepherd” (John 10:10–16), and Peter referred to Him as the “Shepherd and Bishop of our souls” (1 Peter 2:25). Scripture unequivocally reserves the title of “Chief Shepherd” for Christ alone. Peter was neither addressed by this title nor did he assume such a role. Therefore, this designation cannot be rightfully applied to any individual claiming to represent Christ on earth, including supposed descendants of Peter.
-John 21:15–17 does not center on conferring a special primacy upon Peter. Instead, it recounts Peter's threefold confession of faith, mirroring his threefold denial of Christ (Matthew 26:33–34). Far from exalting Peter, the passage reveals his human frailty and failure. If this text signified Peter’s promotion to a higher status, we would expect evident signs of joy or celebration—a reaction notably absent.
-While the Book of Acts showcases Peter's significant contributions to spreading the gospel, no biblical evidence supports the notion that he was granted supremacy over the church. Referring to the pope as the “Good Shepherd” constitutes outright blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ, as such a title belongs solely to Him. Assigning this honor to a human diminishes the divine majesty of Christ and robs Him of the glory that is rightfully His.
- A Refutation Of The Papal Argument From John 21:15–17:
-Peter himself admonished against becoming lords over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:1–5). Christ is identified as the “Chief Shepherd” (John 10:10–16), and Peter referred to Him as the “Shepherd and Bishop of our souls” (1 Peter 2:25). Scripture unequivocally reserves the title of “Chief Shepherd” for Christ alone. Peter was neither addressed by this title nor did he assume such a role. Therefore, this designation cannot be rightfully applied to any individual claiming to represent Christ on earth, including supposed descendants of Peter.
-John 21:15–17 does not center on conferring a special primacy upon Peter. Instead, it recounts Peter's threefold confession of faith, mirroring his threefold denial of Christ (Matthew 26:33–34). Far from exalting Peter, the passage reveals his human frailty and failure. If this text signified Peter’s promotion to a higher status, we would expect evident signs of joy or celebration—a reaction notably absent.
-While the Book of Acts showcases Peter's significant contributions to spreading the gospel, no biblical evidence supports the notion that he was granted supremacy over the church. Referring to the pope as the “Good Shepherd” constitutes outright blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ, as such a title belongs solely to Him. Assigning this honor to a human diminishes the divine majesty of Christ and robs Him of the glory that is rightfully His.
The Early Church Fathers On The Meaning Of "Upon This Rock" (Matthew 16:18)
- Defining The Issues:
-"18. Thou art Peter] Gk. Petros Aramaic, Kephas. Jesus had given Peter this name at their first interview (John 1:42). Peter had now realised his character, and Jesus solemnly confirmed the honourable title. And upon this rock] Gk. petra. As the Gk. word here is different, most ancient commentators deny that Peter is the rock. The Roman Catholic Launoy reckons that seventeen Fathers regard Peter as the rock; forty-four regard Peter’s confession as the rock; sixteen regard Christ Himself as the rock; while eight are of opinion that the Church is built on all the apostles." (The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow)
-Catholics often argue that the Roman Catholic Church employs a threefold application in its interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 to harmonize patristic writings, claiming these approaches affirm Peter’s primacy, his successors’ authority, and a Christ-centered foundation. While this framework attempts to synthesize diverse perspectives, it relies on an interpretive flexibility that lacks textual or historical consistency. For instance, church fathers who emphasize Christ or Peter’s confession as the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 are frequently recontextualized to fit the Catholic paradigm, even when their writings explicitly reject the idea of Peter's personal primacy or any succession tied to him.
-Moreover, this interpretive system presumes a continuity of interpretation that is not evidenced within early ecclesiastical thought. Instead, the varied understandings of the "rock" among the church fathers indicate that these interpretations arose independently, reflecting theological diversity rather than a cohesive framework. The Roman Catholic argument also inadvertently undermines its own position by conceding that no singular interpretation dominates the tradition. This plurality of views fundamentally weakens the claim that Matthew 16:18-19 unequivocally supports the Roman Catholic Church’s assertions to having been given apostolic authority.
- Basil of Seleucia:
- Cyril of Alexandria:
- Origen:
- Augustine of Hippo:
- Bede:
- Eusebius:
-"Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that the 'world' is actually the Church of God, and that its 'foundation' is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was Christ. For as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173,176)
- Cassiodorus:
Monday, July 17, 2017
Christ's Power And Human Weakness
"but He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.' I will rather boast more gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me." (2 Corinthians 12:9)
God's divine grace manifests itself and covers us more abundantly during times of our struggles and trials. His strength compliments our inherent weakness. His sufficiency fulfills what is lacking in us. The power of Christ sustains us in the midst of our suffering.
In the surrounding context of 2 Corinthians 12:9, the Apostle Paul was telling the church at Corinth how God did not accept his petition to remove his distress. Rather, He sustained him as he grieved about Satan irritating him after he had received personal revelation that he was not allowed to communicate to other men (v. 7).
Thus, we see that the Lord allows us to undergo times of trouble to deepen our reliance on Him and to draw us closer to His presence. These challenging seasons provide opportunities for us to experience His faithfulness and for His power to shine through our limitations. Through perseverance in faith, we grow in intimacy with God and learn to rest in His sufficiency.
We need to trust in God and rely on His grace, not matter our circumstances. We may not feel like God is working at all in our present condition, but His grace remains sufficient for us. We can confidently proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord because He is faithful and trustworthy. He is with us, even during times of hardship (v. 10).
God's divine grace manifests itself and covers us more abundantly during times of our struggles and trials. His strength compliments our inherent weakness. His sufficiency fulfills what is lacking in us. The power of Christ sustains us in the midst of our suffering.
In the surrounding context of 2 Corinthians 12:9, the Apostle Paul was telling the church at Corinth how God did not accept his petition to remove his distress. Rather, He sustained him as he grieved about Satan irritating him after he had received personal revelation that he was not allowed to communicate to other men (v. 7).
Thus, we see that the Lord allows us to undergo times of trouble to deepen our reliance on Him and to draw us closer to His presence. These challenging seasons provide opportunities for us to experience His faithfulness and for His power to shine through our limitations. Through perseverance in faith, we grow in intimacy with God and learn to rest in His sufficiency.
We need to trust in God and rely on His grace, not matter our circumstances. We may not feel like God is working at all in our present condition, but His grace remains sufficient for us. We can confidently proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord because He is faithful and trustworthy. He is with us, even during times of hardship (v. 10).
Monday, July 10, 2017
Isaiah 22:20-22 And Papal Supremacy
Introduction:
Roman Catholics often defend Papal authority by comparing Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:19. Both passages reference "keys" and involve figures with significant authority, such as Eliakim in the Old Testament and Peter in the New Testament. The similarities in language, such as "opening and shutting" or "binding and loosing," are used to argue that Eliakim prefigures Peter, whom Jesus appointed as the supreme leader of His church.
This article critically evaluates this typological argument, presenting several reasons why the comparison fails.
Roman Catholics often defend Papal authority by comparing Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:19. Both passages reference "keys" and involve figures with significant authority, such as Eliakim in the Old Testament and Peter in the New Testament. The similarities in language, such as "opening and shutting" or "binding and loosing," are used to argue that Eliakim prefigures Peter, whom Jesus appointed as the supreme leader of His church.
This article critically evaluates this typological argument, presenting several reasons why the comparison fails.
Key Points Against the Catholic Interpretation:
1.) The Bible mentions various keys across its books (Judges 3:25; Luke 11:52; Revelation 1:18), none of which are exclusively tied to Peter. Isaiah 22 does not demand a connection to Matthew 16, as the symbolism of keys is used in different contexts to signify distinct forms of authority or responsibility.
2.) Isaiah 22 deals with the dismissal of Shebna due to his pride and the appointment of Eliakim as a steward under King Hezekiah. This was a political role second only to the king. However, Peter’s appointment by Jesus did not involve replacing another figure or serving under a monarch. This contextual disparity makes the typology untenable.
3.) Isaiah 22:25 predicts the eventual fall of Eliakim, stating that he will be "cut down." If this passage were a prophecy about Peter's role as the first pope, it would imply the fall of the papacy, contradicting Roman Catholic teachings about its perpetual and infallible nature.
4.) The name "Eliakim," meaning "God will raise up," aligns more closely with Jesus Christ than Peter. Jesus is the one who inherits David’s throne and possesses the key of David (Revelation 3:7). The singular key in Isaiah pertains to Israel's lineage, while the plural "keys" in Matthew refer to the broader mission of the church.
5.) Eliakim’s position as steward was political and administrative, focused on managing the royal household of David within the historical context of Israel. Peter’s role, on the other hand, was spiritual and evangelical, leading the early church and spreading the Gospel. The nature of their authority was fundamentally different, weakening the argument that Isaiah 22 directly foreshadows Peter’s position.
6.) In Isaiah 22:23-25, Eliakim is metaphorically described as a "peg driven into a firm place," symbolizing stability and reliability. However, the passage concludes with the peg being removed and falling, leading to the collapse of everything attached to it. This imagery signifies that Eliakim's authority, while significant, was neither permanent nor infallible. If the Catholic interpretation equates Eliakim with Peter and Isaiah 22 with the establishment of the papacy, the "falling peg" undermines the concept of Papal infallibility and the perpetual nature of papal authority. Such a typological connection would inherently contradict Catholic teaching, making the interpretation inconsistent with its own doctrinal claims.
7.) While the concept of keys represents authority in both Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, biblical symbolism is not static. It evolves to fit the context of the narrative. In Isaiah, the key symbolizes Eliakim's administrative authority over the kingdom of Judah, tied to the earthly lineage of David. However, in Matthew, the keys symbolize Peter's spiritual authority to guide the Church, representing a broader mission transcending earthly governance. This evolution in the symbolic meaning of keys highlights the need to interpret them within their specific context, rather than drawing direct typological connections. Such variability in symbolism suggests that the authority given to Eliakim and Peter serves different purposes, undermining the argument for a predictive relationship between the two figures.
Friday, July 7, 2017
Addressing The Roman Catholic Misinterpretation Of Matthew 16:18-19
- Defining The Issues:
- How The Roman Catholic Church Interprets The Rock Of Matthew 16:18-19:
- On The Greek Words Petros And Petra:
- The Rock Of Matthew 16:18-19 Is Not Peter Himself, But His Confession Of Faith:
- Answering The Catholic Aramaic And Greek Word Gender Argument On Matthew 16:18:
-"When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros." (https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy)
-If Jesus had to change the gender from feminine to masculine in order to address Peter, then all that really tells us is that (1) rock is usually feminine and (2) Peter is a male. The Greek word has a gender. It had that gender long before the authors of the New Testament associated the term with the foundation of the church.
-The Greek New Testament does use the Aramaic Cephas in reference to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5; Galatians 2:14). It is also true that if Matthew wanted to tell us that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, he could have used petros twice in the same sentence (i.e. "you are petros and upon this petros I will build my church"). However, two separate terms are used in Matthew 16:18.
-Aramaic was not as advanced a language as the other Semitic languages. It did not have an extremely rich or complex vocabulary. It could not utilize two different words in Matthew 16:18 as does Greek. Thus, the usage of kepha in Aramaic twice is not due to some unique primacy bestowed on the Apostle Peter by Christ, but to limitations in that language.
-The New Testament does apply the feminine petra to the man Jesus Christ (Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8). Further, there are no Aramaic manuscript copies of Matthew, which means any discussion of such involves speculation.
-If Jesus had to change the gender from feminine to masculine in order to address Peter, then all that really tells us is that (1) rock is usually feminine and (2) Peter is a male. The Greek word has a gender. It had that gender long before the authors of the New Testament associated the term with the foundation of the church.
-The Greek New Testament does use the Aramaic Cephas in reference to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5; Galatians 2:14). It is also true that if Matthew wanted to tell us that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, he could have used petros twice in the same sentence (i.e. "you are petros and upon this petros I will build my church"). However, two separate terms are used in Matthew 16:18.
-Aramaic was not as advanced a language as the other Semitic languages. It did not have an extremely rich or complex vocabulary. It could not utilize two different words in Matthew 16:18 as does Greek. Thus, the usage of kepha in Aramaic twice is not due to some unique primacy bestowed on the Apostle Peter by Christ, but to limitations in that language.
-The New Testament does apply the feminine petra to the man Jesus Christ (Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8). Further, there are no Aramaic manuscript copies of Matthew, which means any discussion of such involves speculation.
- The Meaning Of The Keys, Binding, And Loosing:
-In the Book of Acts, converts such as Paul and Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They rejoiced as a result of hearing the proclamation of eternal salvation. Notice how Christ instructed His original disciples to shake the dust off their feet when they encountered cities who rejected them for preaching the gospel message (Matthew 10:14-15; Mark 6:11; Acts 13:51). This is a perfect way of applying the principle of "loosing," or announcing the condemnation of sinners.
-Today, we serve as ambassadors for Christ by performing the ministry of reconciliation through preaching the gospel (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Christians have been authorized to declare the terms of forgiveness as provided by the gospel: holding fast by faith in Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The power of the keys was not possessed by the Apostle Peter alone, and nowhere does the Scripture passage in question even hint at such that interpretation. In fact, that same authority was given to all of the apostles (Matthew 18:18).
-"What is the power of binding and loosing? These disciples immediately recognized the background of its meaning. If you were a Jew, living at the time of Christ, and you had done something that you thought could be a violation of the Mosaic Law, you would have to take your problem to the ruling elders. They would have debated your case; then they would have come to one of two conclusions. They would have either bound or loosed you. If they had bound you, this meant that you had violated the Mosaic Law and that you were obligated to pay the penalty-sacrifice and/or restitution. If they had loosed you, this meant that you had not violated the Mosaic Law. No sacrifice was necessary. These ruling elders were simply declaring what had already been legislated by Moses" (Was the Church Established by Peter?, Robert Gromacki, cited by Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, p. 109-110)
- The Evidence For Peter Being The First Pope Is Entirely Lacking:
- Even If The Apostle Peter Were The Rock Of Matthew 16:18, That Fact Would Still Not Grant The Pope Universal Jurisdiction Over Christendom:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)