Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

[Margaret]

There is now a new section on the ga.com website, "Faith After the Assembly," http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Reflections/FaithAfter.htm. Its purpose is to provide help for the struggle with faith that is experienced by many who have left the Assembly. There are a few articles that refute the current misinformation promulgated by The Da Vinci Code and Dr. Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus. One is "Misanalyzing Text Criticism" http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html. There is also a fascinating article on the psychological motivation for atheism, among others.

[marden]

I have started reading thru the "Why did God let it happen" section in the "Faith After the Assembly link"

I really like the story of Job. I can look back and see that through the trials and testing God was teaching me to trust him more. Below is a paragraph mentioned there in the link Margaret provided.

" Job did not come through triumphantly. He was angry at God, he whined, he was full of self pity. He did not look like an "overcomer." But the important thing was that he did not lose his faith in God. The simple fact that Job's faith survived was pivotal to the cosmic controversy between God and Satan. Afterward, God poured out blessings on Job. But what remains for posterity as the most important aspect of Job's life was his faith that endured the terrible testing.

God's part is to hold on to us through the trial and the struggle, and to work it all together for good, as He has promised."

[Oscar]

Folks,

The Internet Monk has a good article about the recent fans of Gnostic documents, among whom he includes our friend Bart Ehrman.  He expresses his opinion as follows:

9. Bart Ehrman, Dominac Crossan, Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar crowd are selling a lot of books to the general public because they are good marketers and know what the audience is craving. Scholars, on the other hand, consider these people to be like the third semester freshman guys in the chem lab who just announced they made a fusion time travel device out of plastic pipe, cold cuts, a dead rat and six gallons of Corona.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101

The title is "The Stupids Do New Testament 101"

Thomas Maddux

[summer007]

Margaret, I saw your blog nice job. Its good to see your picture.  Thanks for all your efforts on GA. I have a question is your Reformed Theology the same as Replacement Theology? (which I've heard is anti-semitic) Anyone with this knowledge can reply. Thank-You. Summer

[Margaret]

Hello Summer--

I've never heard reformed theology called "replacement theology." What we believe is that the kingdom of God spans both the OT, NT and the present. Israel as a nation was God's "picture book," so to speak, to show the world what the kingdom is like. Not all Israelites were true believers, as we know from Elijah's experience when God showed him that among all the Israelites at that time there were only 7,000 that remained faithful. Paul says, "Not all Israel is Israel indeed," referring to the same concept. Israel fulfilled its purpose as a picture of the Kingdom, as a demonstration of our need for a saviour, as a vehicle through which the righteous law of God was revealed, and as the bloodline through which Christ would come. The church was established by the Holy Spirit and is a pre-fillment, I guess you could say, of the Kingdom of God as Christ reigns over the church and in our hearts by faith. At His second coming His Kingdom will come in its fullness and everything will be subject to it.

I don't think it's correct to say the Church replaced Israel; rather, the Church is the reality, of which the nation Israel was a picture, and believing Israelites were and still are a part. Paul believed that before the second coming of Christ there will be a work of God among the Jews to bring many to faith, and all believing Jews from the OT until now will be part of the Kingdom when it comes in its fullness.

[summer007]

Thanks Margaret I see Reformed Theolgy is more like Calvinism. I just was'nt sure if there was a connection between the two. I did look on-line and there's plenty there. I appreciate your in-put. Summer

[outdeep]

I came across the following article, What's A Thousand Years Between Friends? that explains the amillenial view of Christ's return held by most in the reformed tradition.  It briefly mentioneds "replacement theology" that apprently is a term of derision used by those who do not agree with this view.

Whether you agree with it or not, I think it is a good primer for that view.  I first heard of amillenialism from Harold Camping on family radio and laughed at it - only because Mr. Camping was so inept at explaining it in a compelling way.

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/theological-essays/amilllecture%20revised.pdf
(Note:  Adobe Acrobat is required).

-Dave

[Oscar]

Dave,

Thanks for the link to an interesting article.  His argument is essentially that the application of the analogy of faith removes Revelation 20:1-10 from consideration as describing events on the earth.  As I said, interesting.

This sort of thing is the result of making the analogy of faith the primary interpretive principle of biblical exegesis.  In other words, once you have decided what the Bible clearly teaches, any passage that seems to contradict this must be re-interpreted in order to fit what you already believe is clearly taught.

This can be quite useful in many cases.  A good example is where I Corinthians 15 refers to people being "baptized for the dead".  No one really understands exactly what this refers to.  We do, however, know that they were not being baptized in order to save their departed relatives, based on the clear teaching on salvation and baptism in other passages. 

Revelation 20:1-10 presents Amillenialists with a sticky problem. If it means what it seems to mean when one reads it, their position is refuted.  So, they believe it must mean something else.

This article removes it to heaven.   The Reformed authors of my textbook on Hermeneutics dealt with it by saying that it refers to "a future golden age".  (It doesn't seem particularly golden to me.     )  I once asked a Reformed theology professor this question: "If this passage does not mean what it seems to, how do I access the meaning of the passage?"  The professor looked me in the face and gave me an honest answer. "I don't know."

When an expositor raises the analogy of the faith to the primary principle of interpretation, he falls into circular reasoning.  "I believe the Bible clearly teaches this, therefore it cannot teach that." What is "clear" or "unclear" involves a subjective judgement. The problem with a passage like Revelation 20:1-10 is that it seems pretty clear to a lot of other folks.  So the Amillenialist's version of the analogy of the faith might be incorrect to start with.

This is why books on prophecy will continue to be written for a long time to come.  Eschatology is the most interpretive area of biblical studies, and must deal with a tremendous amount of data.

There is no doubt that the apostolic church took the passage quite literally.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[outdeep]

Tom,

There is no doubt that the apostolic church took the passage quite literally.

The one thing I have a question about is the quote above.  One thing I did learn from Dr. Ehrman (though I have heard this from other sources) is the idea that Revelation is of apocalyptic genre - a form of literature that we don't have today.  This kind of literature is known for wild and vivid symbolism as well as a strong sense of good vs. evil where good ultimately prevails.  The symbols referred to things that the reader would understand but it was not understood in the same way a historical narrative would be understood.

If we were to read that New York was devastated with an atomic bomb and the source was the Orange County Register, we would be very concerned.  If we found the source was a Stephen King novel, we might get a different meaning from it, but we wouldn’t panic.  So also, would a first century Christian reading Revelation take it to be simply a strong encouragement using vivid symbols and strong pictures or would he see it as a roadmap to the future?

This is why I have wondered if our practice of taking the symbols of Revelation and trying to fit them into a historical timeline of literal future events is doing injustice to this type of literature.  I certainly don’t have enough ammunition to argue this point, but it is a question I do entertain.

If nothing else, we Christians certainly believe that Revelation is encouraging the believer to remain faithful in times of persecution and intense distortion of the truth as Christ will ultimately prevail.

-Dave

[Oscar]

Dave,

This:

There is no doubt that the apostolic church took the passage quite literally.

Does not mean the same thing as this:

This is why I have wondered if our practice of taking the symbols of Revelation and trying to fit them into a historical timeline of literal future events is doing injustice to this type of literature.  I certainly don’t have enough ammunition to argue this point, but it is a question I do entertain.

It is quite true that we are unclear as to exactly what the people the Book of Revelation was addressed to understood by the symbols.  However, one must first show that a particular element is a symbol before one needs to interpret it. 

Believing in a millenial reign does not mean one must believe that Anwar Sadat was the "king of the South" as GG taught.  Nor does it mean that one must read the Book of Revelation with newspaper in hand. 

Chiliasm was the prevailing view in the earliest years of the church.  Those who knew the apostles seem to have believed it.  It faded from view as the church strayed farther and farther from the practices of the apostles.

"...the early Fathers lived in expectation of our Lord's speedy return. . . . They distinguish between a first resurrection of the saints and a second or general resurrection. These they supposed would be separated by a period of a thousand years, during which Christ should reign over the saints in Jerusalem. . . . While the church was alternately persecuted and contemptuously tolerated by the Roman Empire, the belief in Christ's speedy return and his millennial reign was widely entertained. . . . When the Church was recognized and patronized by the state, the new order of things seemed so desirable that the close of the dispensation ceased to be expected or desired." - Crispen, History of Doctrine, p.231-232[1]

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

This is why I have wondered if our practice of taking the symbols of Revelation and trying to fit them into a historical timeline of literal future events is doing injustice to this type of literature. 
-Dave

It seems to me Dave that the book itself is quite clear on this point, namely, how we should "take" (understand) it.

 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

While it may be difficult to delineate the precise timelines ( I personally think a pattern is discernible ), confusion about the historicity of the narrative seems unwarranted...unless of course the Lord was mistaken.

There is no doubt that the apostolic church took the passage quite literally.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

In my opinon, justifiably...
Verne

[Oscar]

Dave,

I think that those who dismiss Revelation 20:1-10 as "symbolic" need to explain just how they know that it is, indeed, symbolic.

My first awareness of this happened some time in the 1970's.  I had gone into a bookstore called the Religious Book Discount House.  The chain was owned by a fellow named Jay Green, who seems to have been an aggressive proponent of "Reformed" theology.  (Not reformed enough IMHO  )

I picked up a tract that contained an attack on the Schofield Reference Bible.  This study Bible was probably the most important means of propagating Dispensationalism of the 20th Century.  The tract contained all the usual silly
criticisms: Dispensionalists believe in two different salvations; Darby learned Dispensationalism while attending the meetings of a "prophetess" in England; and so on.   (BTW, I do not believe that Schofield had it all correct myself)

The tract stated that the usual understanding of the Revelation 20 passage was "an excessively wooden interpretation."   I have encountered this phrase in other places, I have never quite understood what it means. 

What is a "properly" wooden interpretation?  A plastic interpretation?  A hardwood versus softwood interpretation?  Cloth?  Iron?

Actually, this is an ad homenem attack on the people who believe it simply means what it seems to say.  Ad homenem attacks usually mean the person doing it simply does not know any good arguments against a postion, so he resorts to name calling.

 The article you linked at least makes a positive argument that is plausible.  He does not, however, point out any reason in the passage itself for taking it as a symbol.  Hence, his appeal to the Analogy of Faith.  It simply, in his view, could not be literal.

If you read the passage carefully though, it is evident that the thousand year period is mentioned no less than six times in the first seven verses.  It is contrasted with a "short time", which seems to mean a period much shorter than a thousand years.  It is also said to come to an end.

So, I see no reason to assume a symbol is being used.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Margaret]

Here is a brief article that's been on ga.com for some time--http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/BiblicalExposition/ThousandYearReign.htm

[vernecarty]

Here is a brief article that's been on ga.com for some time--http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/BiblicalExposition/ThousandYearReign.htm

The author's contention that the translation of martyred souls to heaven constitutes a "first resurrection" is in my view extremely problematic, from both a etymological and hermeneutic point of view. I realise that this is absolutely required for the theory to be consisistent but it strikes me as a rather weak argument for the reasons I cited.
If one argues that those described as reigning with Christ are only the martyred dead, one might well ask what became of those faithful believers who died in their sleep?
The premise would further appear to conflict with the teaching of 1 Thessalonians 4 in which departed believers are referred to as being "asleep" (as opposed to resurrected) with no distinction whatsoever being made as to the manner of their departure.
Paul stated explicity in that passage that at Christ's return, the dead in Christ shall rise first...
Verne

[Oscar]

Folks,

In Hendriksen's article he says:

1. "The thousand year reign occurs where the thrones are..."

2. "The thousand year reign also occurs where the disembodied souls of the martyrs are..."

3. "The thousand year reign also occurs where Jesus lives..."

I see several fuzzy ideas in this line of reasoning:

1. Location of the thrones.  The text does not say these are in the same location as other thrones mentioned in other texts.  Hendriksen merely assumes it. Just because all the people mentioned in a book live in Texas, does not mean that everybody lives in Texas.  This is a hidden premise fallacy.

Also, it says the angel "came down from heaven", which seems to mean to the earth.

2. Location of the disembodied souls.  Just where is a disembodied soul located?  Do the limits of physics apply to souls?   The argument Hendricksen presents here assumes a very close analogy of the physical and spiritual realms.  How does he know?

3. Location of Jesus at this time.  This argument commits the fallacy of "begging the question"  The location of Jesus is what is in dispute!  Chiliasm is the belief that Jesus returns to the earth to reign for a thousand years.  So Hendriksen is assuming what he is trying to prove, that Jesus is still in heaven at this point, and then uses it as a premise in his argument.

There is another really big problem with his argument that he does not address..the word year.  The only place that word has any meaning is upon the surface of the earth.  So why use a term used for delineating the annual orbiting of the earth around the sun if the earth and sun are not even involved in the events described?

As I said earlier, eschatology is the most highly interpretive of theological fields of study.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux