Jonathan McLatchie Archives - Page 2 of 5

Tag Archive for: Jonathan McLatchie

He is Risen! Examining the Evidence for the Resurrection with Dr. Jonathan McLatchie

How did an itinerant preacher, born into poverty and raised in an obscure village, a man who never wrote a book or had a formal education, who was betrayed by his friends and ultimately crucified on a rugged cross, rise to become THE central figure in human history? Jesus of Nazareth has left an undeniable mark on the world and all of western society, surpassing the influence of any other person who has ever existed. But is it possible that the story of Jesus and His resurrection was invented by the authors of the New Testament?

He is risen! In anticipation of Easter Sunday, Frank invites the skilled Christian apologist and evolutionary biologist, Dr. Jonathan McLatchie, to make the case for the resurrection through the exploration of New Testament scholarship. McLatchie, who’s done a number of debates in defense of the Christian faith, will share his insights on the evidence for the resurrection, the reliability of the New Testament, and point out the significance of some of the details found in the Gospels and the book of Acts. During their conversation, Frank and Jonathan will answer questions like:

Do New Testament scholars believe that Jesus actually existed?
Are there extra-biblical sources that corroborate the early persecution of Christians?
Do non-Christian New Testament scholars view the NT as historically reliable?
Is it likely that the Apostles and eyewitnesses were either deceived themselves OR lying about the resurrection?
What is specialized information and how does it help support the truth of the book of Acts?

McLatchie will also walk us through his two-step approach of defending the resurrection by using what’s called the maximum data case. Later in the episode, Dr. McLatchie will talk about his online ministry that aims to mentor Christians and ex-Christians who are struggling with doubt by offering live interaction with experts in various fields of Christian scholarship. Be sure to visit TalkAboutDoubts.com to learn more about this ministry and consider enrolling in the brand-new LIVE! online course called ‘Reasons for Faith‘ launching on 4/27, where Jonathan will join Dr. Stephen Meyer and a team of other leading apologists during livestreamed lectures to expound upon the best historical, scientific, philosophical, and archaeological evidence for the Christian faith!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

Jonathan’s website: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/

Jonathan’s ministry: Talk About Doubts

Join Jonathan and Dr. Stephen Meyer LIVE! in ‘Reasons for Faith‘

Download Transcript

March 29, 2024/by Frank Turek

The Need for Cognitive Closure in Dealing with Doubts

Theology and Christian Apologetics

Over the years in my work as a public apologist, I have spoken with many dozens of ex-Christians who have renounced their faith and become atheists, as well as numerous individuals who still consider themselves believers but nonetheless are struggling seriously with intellectual doubts concerning the veracity of the Christian faith. In addition, I have watched literally hundreds of YouTube videos wherein a testimony is given of one’s journey out of the Christian faith towards atheism. Through listening to countless people in this situation, I have come to realize how difficult it is for believers to express to members of their church or Christian community that they are struggling with doubts (presumably because to express that one struggles with doubt carries a negative stigma in many churches today).

Struggling with Doubt?

God has therefore placed a burden on my heart for Christians who wrestle with doubts, and I have for several years offered a free service for Christians who wrestle with intellectual doubts. There is a form on my website people can fill out and I endeavor to set up a meeting (normally online) with them to discuss their doubts in confidence.

One of the things I try to do when counseling someone who is walking through doubt is to help them to develop a protocol for managing doubt in an intellectually responsible way and to make them aware of intellectual pitfalls that can ensnare the unwary. In this and future articles, I want to unpack some of those common pitfalls.

Needing Closure?

There is a phenomenon in psychology, which can be an impediment to sound critical thinking. That is, the need for cognitive closure. Wikipedia defines it this way:

Closure or need for closure (NFC) (used interchangeably with need for cognitive closure (NFCC)) are social psychological terms that describe an individual’s desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity. The term “need” denotes a motivated tendency to seek out information.

Different people have varying levels of tolerance for mystery and ambiguity. Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure are more prone to walk away from the Christian faith than individuals with a lower need. For some people, in order to be content within one’s worldview, satisfactory answers must exist to all possible questions and objections that might be raised against it.

It is important, however, that we do not become too fixated on the objections to Christianity that we miss the forest for the trees, losing sight of the avalanche of positive confirmatory evidence that cumulatively demonstrates that Christianity is true. Because we have such robust reasons to think Christianity is true, we can justifiably say,

“I don’t know why God permits so much suffering in the world. But I have enough reasons to believe in the God of the Bible and that He is good that I am willing to trust that there is some morally sufficient explanation for why there is so much suffering, even if I do not yet know what that explanation is.”

Does the problem of evil, by itself, discredit Christianity?

Indeed, the argument from evil, especially natural evil, has been wielded as a cumulative counter-case that competes with the case offered in confirmation of Christianity. An important point to bear in mind when dealing with this subject, however, is that successive pieces of evidence are dependent rather than independent. To see this, suppose that we were to make a long list of specific cases of human and animal suffering for which we do not see any obvious purpose. Let us call them E1, E2, …, En. If we were to take one of them (say, E1) and ask how it affects the probabilities of theism (T) and atheism (~T), then we might say P(E1|~T)/P(E1|T) = k, where k >>1. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that k = 100. That is to say, the probability of E1 is 100 times greater given the falsehood of theism than given its being true. In order to make the cumulative case, we need to bring in additional pieces of evidence. But do they have the same epistemic force as the first one did? This is not at all clear. After all, if God were to have, however unexpectedly, some morally sufficient reason for permitting E1, then it is quite reasonable to expect that God might well have a similar reason for permitting E2, and so forth. The pieces of evidence are all fundamentally similar, all being instances of the suffering of conscious beings. But if God has a morally sufficient reason for one, that same justification may well also explain a host of other similar cases. Now contrast this to the cumulative case for the truth of theism and indeed Christianity. Not only is it extensive, but it is also varied in kind. It is therefore much more difficult to conceive of there being a single alternative explanation for a widely varied evidence that would all be expected if the hypothesis in question were true. It is for this reason that I submit that counter-evidence such as the problem of evil be considered not in isolation but within the broader context of the overall evidence taken as a whole.

What about Evidence Doesn’t Seem to Fit?

Scientific theories often have evidence both supporting and conflicting with it. But anomalous data should not automatically overhaul a well-supported theory, even if a satisfactory explanation of the anomalous data has not yet been proposed. Likewise, I would argue, the strength and varied nature of the positive evidence for Christianity should cause us to expect that explanations of the anomalous data, for which we do not yet have a satisfactory account within the framework of the Christian worldview, in fact exists — even though we do not yet know what that explanation is.

The English rhetorician, logician, economist, academic, and theologian Richard Whately (1787-1863) put it this way:

“Similar to this case is that which may be called the Fallacy of objections; i.e. showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it. This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least.

That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.” [i]

Indeed, there is no shame for a Christian in having unanswered questions. The question is not “are there questions about Christianity for which there are no satisfactory answers?” Rather, the question is, “are there more numerous and more substantive objections to believing the gospel or to disbelieving the gospel?” Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions. Rejecting Christianity because there are unanswered questions in favor of an alternative worldview that raises even more numerous and more substantive unanswered questions does not resolve the problem.

Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions.

That’s a Good Question!

I recently received an email from someone who was struggling with doubt over the question of why God creates people whom He knows for sure will choose to reject Him and will therefore end up estranged from God’s favorable presence in the hereafter. This is a very good question, and I do not believe anyone really knows the answer since we lack complete information about the relationship between divine sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, and human free will, etc. If Christianity is true, however, we would not be expected to have answers to most questions like this. So, the fact that we do not, in fact, have answers to such questions does not, I would argue, really count as a serious blow against Christianity.

Note that saying we wouldn’t be expected to have answers is quite different from saying that the questions are unanswerable. That is why many Christians get drawn into a speculative response (i.e. “perhaps it is because…”). There is nothing wrong with such responses per se. But precisely because we do not know, we should not get too invested in such speculations. Nor should we treat their failure as signifying something grave.

“Help My Kid is Deconstructing!” [CE Podcast]

Difficult questions about God’s sovereignty and salvation program must always be accompanied by a consideration of the plausibility that there is some answer to those questions that has not been disclosed to us, is beyond our finite ability to comprehend, or simply has not occurred to us. In other words, is it a problem that overhauls the vast confirmatory evidence for Christianity and thereby warrants rejection of the Christian faith, or is it a question with which we can live contentedly in the absence of an answer? An unanswered question is not the same thing as an epistemic warrant for rejection of Christianity.

The atheist so frequently assumes the high ground when it comes to epistemic humility. When pressed on where the Universe or life came from the atheist typically responds “I don’t know.” They are content with not knowing. Why, then, should the same luxury not be extended to the Christian when it comes to why God has done things this or that way? We need to be willing to accept an element of mystery when it comes to divine action. Unlike God, we do not have the box top, as it were, of the jig saw, which reveals how all of the pieces are meant to fit together.

Therefore, we just ought to trust God that he knows what He is doing. As the Proverb states, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Footnotes:

[i] Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.

The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis. The contemporary discussion of the case for the resurrection has largely focused around 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, a text believed by many scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that Paul had received from the Jerusalem apostles and which he passed on to the believers in Corinth.[i] Paul’s words in verse 11 (“Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed”) also suggest that the message Paul presented to the Corinthians is the same as that proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles. A popular criticism of this line of argument is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both. [ii]Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? If we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone.

It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul.

There is an additional reason why Luke’s being a travelling companion of Paul is significant in our investigation of the resurrection, and that is that Luke claims to have been present with Paul during Paul’s visit to the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 when “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years), during which time he would undoubtedly have had ample access to the many living witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, since Caesarea is only approximately 120 kilometres from Jerusalem (where many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection resided). Luke’s acquaintance with the Jerusalem apostles thus puts him in a position to know what was being proclaimed concerning the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. Luke’s demonstrated care and meticulousness as an historian also provides some reason (though, as we shall see, not our only reason) to think that Luke is sincerely representing what he believes the apostles experienced.

Was Luke a Travelling Companion of Paul?

There are too many lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul to discuss in any detail in the present paper. However, I will list a few examples. First, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi. This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi. [iii]

Second, the reliability of the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical secular sources, and its author demonstrates a knowledge of the world that is best explained by him being a travelling companion of Paul. Perhaps the most convincing category of this sort of evidence are those cases when the book of Acts is accidentally confirmed – that is, a natural question raised by Acts is illuminated in an incidental way by an extrabiblical secular account. To take one example, consider Acts 23:1-5, when Paul, having been apprehended and brought before the Jewish council, was struck on the mouth at the behest of Ananias the high priest. Paul responds by pointing out the hypocrisy of Ananias. To this, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is somewhat odd: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul did not realize who the high priest was? This Ananias was the son of Nebedinus (Antiquities 20.5.3), who occupied the office of high priest when Quadratus (Felix’s predecessor) was president of Syria. Josephus reports that he was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus in order to give an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar (Antiquities 20.6.2). As a result of the intercession on their behalf by Agrippa, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. However, Ananias was not restored to his former office of high priest. Ananias was succeeded by Jonathan, as is indicated by the fact that Josephus refers to one called Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during the government of Felix, which would imply that Ananias’ high priesthood was interrupted (Antiquities 20.8.5). Jonathan himself was assassinated inside the temple (Antiquities 20.8.5).

Following Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest was not occupied until Ismael, the son of Fabi, was appointed by King Agrippa (Antiquities 20.8.8). The events that are recorded in Acts 23 took place precisely in this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood lay vacant. It seems, then, that Ananias acted, by his own authority, in the assumed capacity of the high priest. This, then, illuminates Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” Luke doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. The sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Another category of evidence, first discovered by William Paley [iv]and more recently developed by Lydia McGrew, [v]is the phenomenon of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the letters of Paul – that is, interlockings between the sources that are best explained by the truth of the narrative in Acts. Consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which was written around 52-53 A.D from Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). We know Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus because Paul sends greetings from Aquilla and Priscilla in 1 Corinthians 16:19, whom Paul had met in Corinth (Acts 18:1), and who travelled with Paul as far as Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul also makes an allusion to his intention to “stay in Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Cor 16:8). Corinth, the capital city of Achaia, on the other hand, was across the Aegean sea from Ephesus. Now, consider the following two texts from 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 we read: “That is why I sent you Timothy…” And in 1 Corinthians 16:10, we read, “When Timothy comes…” From those two incidental texts, it is evident that Timothy had already been dispatched by the time of Paul’s writing, but nonetheless that Paul expected his letter to arrive before Timothy got to Corinth. Given that Ephesus is directly across the Aegean Sea from Achaia (where Corinth is), presumably Paul would have sent his letter directly by boat from Ephesus to Corinth. We therefore can infer that Timothy must have taken some indirect route to Corinth, through Troas and Macedonia. When we turn over to Acts 19:21-22, which concerns Paul’s stay in Ephesus, we read that Timothy (accompanied by Erastus) did in fact take such an indirect overland route to Corinth from Ephesus. This artless dovetailing is best explained by the historical reliability of Acts on this detail. Even if, as I have suggested above, Luke was not present with Paul at this time, this sort of evidence indicates that Luke had reliable access to information concerning Paul’s travels, which suggests he was personally acquainted with Paul.

Of particular interest for our purposes here, a cluster of confirming evidences bear on Luke’s presence with Paul at the Jerusalem church in Acts 21. [vi] If it can be reliably shown that Luke accompanied Paul on his shipwrecked voyage from Caesarea Maritima to Rome in Acts 27, it follows that Luke was almost certainly present with Paul in Jerusalem (where he was arrested) in Acts 21. The report of that voyage notes that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast and which is strongest at this exact time near Passover. [vii] Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What’s impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a northeaster should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that “In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).” [viii]

Given Luke’s presence with Paul in Jerusalem in Acts 21 (and thus his demonstrated interaction with the Jerusalem apostles), we can conclude that Luke was in a position to know what was being claimed by the Jerusalem apostles in regard to the nature of the encounters with the risen Jesus. The next question we must address in our investigation is whether Luke faithfully records what those Jerusalem apostles were teaching concerning the resurrection.

Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?

I have previously noted that Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and care as an historian already provide some reason to think that Luke has given an accurate report of what the Jerusalem apostles claimed concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Are there any other reasons? One relevant evidence here is the fact that Luke, like the other three gospels, reports that women were the chief discoverers of the empty tomb. Given that the testimony of women was not highly esteemed in the patriarchal society that was ancient Palestine, this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that Luke is reporting what he really believed happened than on the falsehood of that hypothesis. Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex,” (Antiquities 4.8.15). It therefore may be taken as evidence confirmatory of the hypothesis that Luke is telling us what he really believed happened. N.T. Wright concludes, “As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.” [ix]

Caution, however, is warranted here, since there is a tendency among apologists to overstate the evidential significance of this fact. One can reasonably posit alternative explanations for why the gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb by women. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that “women were particularly well represented in early Christian communities”, and it is therefore somewhat plausible that they invented the oral traditions involving the discovery of the empty tomb. [x]Furthermore, Ehrman notes, “Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.” [xi] Furthermore, women could provide legal testimony under Jewish law if no male witnesses were available. In fact, Josephus appeals to women as his only witnesses of what took place inside Masada or at the battle at Gamala (Jewish War 7.389 and 4.81), though that may likewise be taken as an indication of Josephus reporting truthfully. Another important consideration is the fact that we are told of the woman whom Jesus spoke with at the well of Samaria that “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did,’” (Jn 4:39).

Thus, the fact that the gospels have women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb does not prove the tomb was empty and care should be taken not to overstate the case. Nevertheless, the reports of the women being the chief discoverers of the empty tomb is antecedently more likely on the assumption that what the gospels report is based in historical fact than on the assumption the authors made it up. Thus, while the testimony of the women may not be sufficient to demonstrate the veracity of the empty tomb reports, it does offer evidence to that effect.

An important point here, often overlooked, is that the accounts in the four gospels of the women discovering the empty tomb are in fact independent. Luke 24:10 says, “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles…” It is often suggested that John 20:1, which reports only Mary Magdalene’s discovery of the empty tomb, conflicts with Luke’s account. However, in John 20:2, we read, “So she [Mary] ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” [emphasis added]. Mary’s word-choice, in particular the use of οὐκ οἴδαμεν (“we do not know”) indicates, quite incidentally, that there were in fact other women, and John’s report of these words reveals that he also is aware of this fact even though it is not mentioned explicitly. Thus, Luke’s and John’s account of the women discovering the empty tomb appear to be independent of each other.

Matthew and Mark also appear to be independent of Luke when it comes to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. [xii] Luke indicates in Luke 8:1-3 that some women followed Jesus from Galilee, including Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager. This detail is confirmed by an undesigned coincidence with Matthew 14:1, since it illuminates how the author of Matthew’s gospel might know what Herod had said to his servants, presumably in the privacy of his palace. The names given in Luke’s list are Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, as well as “many others,” (Lk 8:2-3). Mark, describing the women who were “looking on from a distance” at the crucifixion, lists “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” (Mk 14:40). These names overlap only partially with those given in Luke 8. There is no mention in Mark of Joanna or Susanna, and Luke does not mention Mary the mother of James or Salome. It does not appear that Luke added the passage in chapter 8 in order to “put” the women in place earlier in Jesus’ ministry and thus fit his narrative together with Matthew and Mark concerning the women at the cross, because the names are only partially the same. Luke would have presumably included Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and probably left out Susanna if he had fictionalized the verses in chapter 8 on the basis of Mark’s mention of the women at the cross. Luke himself mentions the women who came from Galilee at the cross and burial (23:49, 55) but doesn’t even name any of them there. Both accounts, therefore, confirm apparently independently that there was a group of women who had begun following Jesus in Galilee and who continued to do so and who helped Jesus in concrete ways (“ministering” or “providing”). In Luke 24:6-10, the angels tell the women at the empty tomb, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee” (v. 6). This makes it clear that these women really were personally with Jesus in Galilee and heard what He said there. When Luke names various women who brought the disciples news of the empty tomb and the message of the angel (24:10), he names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (and says there were other women as well). Once again, he doesn’t seem to be trying to reproduce his own list from chapter 8, for Mary the mother of James was not in that list, and Susanna isn’t mentioned in 24:10. Nor is he reproducing Mark’s list of women at the cross nor Mark’s list of women who came to the tomb (Mk 16:1), since Salome isn’t included in Luke’s list, and Joanna (who is unique to Luke) is not included in Mark’s list. Luke seems to be listing women whom he really knows were present for the events on Easter morning. Evidently, he is not sure about Susanna’s presence or just does not bother to mention her, and he knows that Mary the mother of James was there on Easter morning even though she is not listed in his chapter 8. Thus, this is also an undesigned coincidence internal to Luke, a way in which fairly distant parts of Luke’s own narrative fit together in an apparently casual and non-deliberate way: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and various other women were with Jesus in Galilee and heard there Jesus’ own prediction of his crucifixion and resurrection. They subsequently went with him to Jerusalem and were present at the cross, burial, and empty tomb.

Another category of evidence bearing on the case for the resurrection is the phenomenon of reconcilable variations, so-named by the nineteenth century Anglican scholar Thomas Rawson Birks. [xiii] A reconcilable variation refers to when there exist two accounts of the same event, or at least two accounts that appear to cross over the same territory at some point, and at first blush they seem so divergent that it is almost awkward; but then, on further thought, they turn out to be reconcilable in some natural fashion after all. When two accounts appear at first so divergent that one is not sure they can be reconciled, that is significant evidence for their independence. When they turn out, upon closer inspection or upon learning more information, to be reconcilable without forcing after all, one has almost certainly independent accounts that dovetail.

Multiple instances of reconcilable variation pertain to the resurrection accounts. For example, it is popularly observed that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to “the eleven” who were all present together at the time (see vs. 33). This, so the argument goes, does not allow for Thomas’ absence from the group at the time of the appearance (as in John), nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us, “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” One possible reply is that “the eleven” is being used as a figure of speech, much as “the twelve” is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Cor 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no independent evidence that Luke used the term “the eleven” in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus’ ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. In response to this objection, it may be pointed out that, at the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. Indeed, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know what that means exactly, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared, however long that took, and they sit down to eat. They recognize him as he breaks bread, and he disappears. They then immediately go back to Jerusalem, a distance of 60 stadia (Lk 24:13), which looks like it was about 10-12 km – that is, about 6 to 7 miles. This walk would take well over an hour, perhaps as long as two hours. They then chat with the disciples for a while and tell their story (vs. 35). Then Jesus appears and shows himself. They give him some food (vs. 42). Only after this does Jesus begin talking to them about the Scriptures, giving them some sort of sermon about how his death was foretold in the Scriptures (vss. 45ff). How long did that take? Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one tries to put this all on the same evening, it really looks like it would already be dark by that time, making it difficult for them even to witness the ascension into heaven (vs. 51). So even in Luke 24 alone, it does not look like all of this happened in one day. Evidently, Luke is either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1.

It is also popularly alleged that Matthew has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea (not in Galilee). I would argue, however, that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back.

Yet a further line of evidence for Luke’s honest reporting of the apostles’ claims concerning the resurrection comes from the principle of restraint. Not one of the gospels provides any details concerning the appearance of Jesus individually to Peter or to his brother James, despite the fact that Paul mentions both in 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. Luke is certainly aware at least of the appearance individually to Peter because he alludes briefly to it in passing in Luke 24:33-34. Why, then, does he not include an account of this appearance? This can be explained if Peter and James had both made it known that they had had an encounter with the risen Lord following the resurrection, but, for whatever reason, neither had made an account of this private meeting available for publication. Indeed, “if the Gospel writers were trying truthfully to record only what they either knew directly or had reliable sources to tell them about, they would have very little to say about such meetings, exactly as we find. But if they felt free to invent dialogue and scenes in order to fill in where information was otherwise missing, why would they not have done so here? Their restraint points to the conclusion that they are truthful, reliable recorders.” [xiv]

Thus, from the aforementioned lines of evidence, taken cumulatively, we can be confident that not only was Luke in a position to know what was being claimed by the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus, but Luke accurately records what they reported. What, though, best explains the apostles’ claims to have had encounters with the risen Jesus? It is to this question that I now turn.

What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?

When evaluating any claim, three broad categories of explanation must be considered. Those are, (1) the claimant is deliberately deceiving; (2) the claimant is sincerely mistaken; and (3) the claimant is accurately reporting what happened. Those broad explanatory categories are mutually exhaustive (though one can envision scenarios where they are applicable in combination). The various lines of evidence adduced in the previous section of this paper may be brought to bear not only in confirming Luke as a faithful reporter of what the apostles claimed concerning the resurrection, but also in eliminating the first of those hypotheses stated above. Additional lines of evidence may, however, be adduced to further strengthen our case against the first hypothesis. It is beyond doubt that the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” [xv] The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. Since the apostles’ willingness to suffer persecution and even martyrdom is more probable given the sincerity of their belief than otherwise, this may be taken as evidence disconfirming the first hypothesis, that they were deliberately setting out to deceive.

A further line of evidence against the first hypothesis is no known sect of Judaism was expecting the Messiah to be raised from the dead. [xvi] The Sadducees had no belief in the resurrection of the dead and the Pharisees believed only in a general resurrection at the end of time, but had no concept of one man rising to glory and immortality in the middle of history. There was therefore no obvious apologetic motivation for positing that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The crucifixion of Jesus was seen by many Jews, in light of Deuteronomy 21:23, as indicating Jesus’ failure to be the awaited Messiah, and Jews were hardly given to glorifying failed Messiahs. After the failed rebellion of Simon Bar Kochba against Rome (132-135 A.D.), nobody proclaimed that he had risen from the dead.

Other factors that argue against any hypothesis of conspiracy include the speed at which a conspiracy would have needed to get off the ground, as well as the number and variety of individuals who would have needed, against their own interests, to be involved in such a conspiracy. [xvii] This included the eleven, the apostle Paul, at least five or six women, Cleopas and his companion, James the brother of Jesus, Matthias and Barsabbas called Justus (who are both named in Acts 1:23 as fulfilling the requirements of an apostle, i.e. having been witnesses to the resurrection). Being conservative, therefore, and including only those individuals who are specifically named, there would have needed to be at least 23 individuals involved in the conspiracy. It is extremely improbable that all of those individuals had something to gain by asserting that Jesus had risen from the dead and that none of them would have reneged.

What, then, of the second hypothesis, namely, that the apostles were sincerely mistaken? I have already discussed how the multisensory nature of the claimed resurrection experiences is not something about which one might plausibly be honestly mistaken. There exists yet another line of evidence against that hypothesis. Jesus’ resurrection is said in all of the earliest sources to have taken place on the Sunday morning following His death at Passover. This is indicated in all four gospels as well as Paul, who indicates that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). The evidence from the early church writings as well as the Roman writer Pliny the Younger (10.96.7), the book of Revelation (1:10), the book of Acts (20:7) and Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2) all indicate that early Christian worship took place not on the Sabbath day but on Sunday instead. This almost certainly reflects the apostolic claim that Jesus rose again on the Sunday. But why does Paul indicate that the Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (this is also indicated in Lk 24:7). The point at which Paul, I would suggest, is driving is that Christ represents the first man to be raised to glory and immortality, similar to the first fruits of the harvest that guarantees that the remainder of the harvest will come (c.f. 1 Corinthians 15:20). Indeed, the feast of first fruits was to be celebrated the day following the first Sabbath following the Passover – that is, the Sunday following Passover (Lev 23:11). Although the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over whether the Sabbath in question was the Day of Passover itself or the Sabbath following the Passover, the Sadducees (who took the latter view) were in charge of the temple in the first century and thus that was the view that prevailed in first century Jewish practice. It is quite the coincidence then that the earliest sources consistently indicate that Jesus rose from the dead on the day of first fruits, given its theological import. This sort of coincidence points to design, and thus away from the hypothesis of the apostles being honestly mistaken.

Conclusion

Having argued strongly against the first two explanatory categories, this leaves as the best explanation of the evidence discussed in this paper the one the angels themselves gave the disciples in Luke 24:5-6: “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.”

Footnotes:

[i] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus – A New Historiographical Approach (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 318-343.

[ii] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[iii] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

[iv] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].

[v] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017).

[vi] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880). See also Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 4 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015), 3555-3660.

[vii] R.W. White. “A Meteorological Appraisal of Acts 27:5-26.” The Expository Times 113, no. 12 (September 2002), 403-407.

[viii] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 331.

[ix] Tom Wright, “Appendix B”, in Anthony Flew, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (San Francisco: Harper One), 207.

[x] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), kindle.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 272-282.

[xiii] Thomas Rawson Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852). See also Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 316–321.

[xiv] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), chap. 4, Kindle.

[xv] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.

[xvi] Tom Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress, 2003).

[xvii] Lydia McGrew, “Independence, conspiracy, and the resurrection”, Extra Thoughts, August 24th, 2020. http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/independence-conspiracy-and-resurrection.html

Scientism And Secularism

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today’s culture for people to accept “scientism,” which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.

Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity’s knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians’ internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide “…reasons for the hope that [they] have…” (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I’ll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations.

Key Points:

Strong scientism is the idea that the sciences are the only legitimate sources of knowledge about reality. Other sources of knowledge are not even entertained.
Weak scientism “allows” for other sources of knowledge but holds that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Thus it has forced all other knowledge disciplines to reinterpret their findings according to the science of the day. Ultimately it is strong scientism by a “less-threatening” name.
Because there is no other (ultimate) source of knowledge outside the sciences, there is no moral knowledge, historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, or theological knowledge. This has resulted in the relativism we see in the university and culture today.
Numerous examples of non-scientifically verifiable claims and knowledge do exist.
In fact, the very claim of scientism is one such example, making scientism a self-refuting claim. Thus it is necessarily false and is actually an enemy of science (and knowledge) in the long run.
Science judges philosophy, and philosophy judges science. Depending on which claim must be established before the other can be judged.
Proper order placement of knowledge disciplines has effects on claims about the beginning of the universe, origin of life, existence of mental states, and the existence of objective morality and beauty among many others.
Scientism has stunted the debates surrounding theistic evolution and intelligent design by precluding non-scientific knowledge disciplines from the debates.
There are at least five different models for how science and theology can move forward together in their discovery of what is real and true.

Some Important Quotes:

“In order for science and certain other intellectual disciplines to be possible, we humans must be able to use our reason to go beyond our sense, reach into the world’s deep structure, and grasp, formulate, and verify the theories we form about that deep structure.”

“To the extent that scientism is embraced in our culture, our moral and spiritual claims will be ‘de-cognitivized.’ In other words, our deepest beliefs about life, knowledge, history, and reality will seem to be utterly implausible–not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration.”

“These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one’s claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue.”

“The first problem with weak (and strong) scientism is that it diminishes the intellectual authority of other important fields, especially biblical studies and theology.”

“Advocates of weak scientism are confused about the relative cognitive strength of an assumption and a claim that is based on that assumption. Weak scientism believes that a claim based on an assumption has greater warrant than the strength of the assumption itself. In reality, though, the claim is only as good as the assumption upon which it rests. And because the assumptions are not scientific assumptions, but rather philosophical assumptions, philosophy has a kind of primacy over science. Therefore, weak scientism’s claim that science always take precedence over other disciplines is false.”

“…a culture, which has a set of background assumptions–or, a plausibility structure–sets a framework for what people think, which affects how that they are willing to listen, evaluate, feel, and behave. The framework shapes what people consider plausible or implausible.”

“Often, in order to get people to hear the gospel, we have to address solely a person’s private, felt needs and promise that Jesus will change their lives and help them. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as it is rooted in the deeper claim that Christianity is true, is based on solid evidence, and can be known to be true. But scientism has forced the church to offer the gospel simply because it works rather than because it is true and can be known to be such.”

“Classically, freedom meant the power to do what one ought to do…Contemporary freedom has come to be understood as the right to do whatever one wants to do…By undermining moral knowledge, scientism has provided the context for the contemporary view of freedom and, consequently, it has led to moral chaos.”

“It is not enough just to know Scripture; as Christians, we must also understand the systems of thought, practice, and value in our culture that are worldly, and be able to make this clear to fellow Christians and explain how to refute those ungodly systems using both biblical and nonbiblical evidence (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5).”

“Christians must be taught not only what they believe but why they ought to believe it. This will especially involves exposing and undermining scientism, and dealing with issues relating to science and the Bible.”

“The very concept of ‘faith’ has been redefined and has now replaced reason. Today, faith is choosing to believe something in the absence of evidence or reasons for the choice. Faith used to mean a confidence or trust based on what one knows. Given the current definition, ubiquitous throughout the church, we Christians have unintentionally played right into the hands of advocates of scientism. By thinking of faith in this way, we are tacitly implying that we believe in the tenets of Christianity without any evidence or reasons at all.”

Recommendations

The first recommendation I will give is for any Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions(whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward.
My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level.
My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins.
Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy.

Are There Colossal Contradictions in the Gospels? A Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jonathan McLatchie

Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah? [i]). In a recent series of videos published on Rabbi Singer’s YouTube channel, he responds to remarks made by Professor R.L. Solberg following their recent debate in Nashville, Tennessee on whether Jesus is the promised Hebrew Messiah. In this and subsequent articles, I want to address some of the claims made by Rabbi Singer in this series of videos that I hold to be in error. In this article, I will address the most recent video in this series, which is provocatively titled, “Colossal contradictions in the Gospels!” In this video, Singer advances two supposed instances of contradiction between the gospel accounts, one relating to the timing of Jesus’ passion, and the other relating to the resurrection. Let us address both in turn.

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

In the video, Tovia argues that John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, contrary to the synoptic gospels that have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover. The motivation for this redaction on John’s part supposedly is that John wanted to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, since Jesus is thought by John to be the fulfilment of the imagery associated with the Passover lamb.

Rabbi Singer reads John 19:14 as indicating that it was the day of preparation for Passover. However, this is not a necessary translation of the genitive word for Passover, πάσχα and in fact English translations usually render this expression “day of preparation of the Passover.” In fact, this term (‘day of preparation’) is also used by Mark (15:42), who defines it as the day before the Sabbath. This accords with John 19:31, which says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” Verse 42 also indicates the hurriedness of the burial of Jesus in a tomb that was close at hand, since it was the Jewish day of Preparation. Therefore, John concurs with Mark that Jesus’ death took place the day prior to the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” Though he adds that this Sabbath was a high day, this most probably means that it wasn’t any ordinary Sabbath day, but rather a Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread — that is to say, it was a particularly special feast day.

Singer also misreads John 18:28, where the Jewish leaders are concerned about entering Pilate’s dwelling, lest they be defiled and thereby become unable to eat the Passover. According to Singer, this undermines the contention that the Passover Seder had already been consumed. Singer apparently misses that, supposing them to be concerned about the Passover Seder, their worry would make no sense since their defilement would expire at sundown (and they could partake of the meal after washing). Therefore, their worry must concern some meal other than the Seder. And, in fact, the initial Seder, or supper, that commences the Passover celebration is not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover. There is even another ritual meal, the chagigah (“food offering”), that is consumed during the following day. This is supported by Numbers 28:18-23, in which we read,

18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 19 but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD: two bulls from the herd, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a regular burnt offering.

Verse 18 indicates that the food offering was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread (which would be the fifteenth of Nisan), the same day — as the Jews reckon days — that the Seder was consumed. Verse 23 indicates that these were to be offered in addition to the regular morning burnt offering, which implies that the Chagigah was eaten during the day time. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicates multiple times that the Jews used the term “Passover” to refer to the entirety of the feast of unleavened bread:

“As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 14.21
“As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 18.29
“And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover…” Josephus, Wars 2.10

Therefore, John’s account in fact dovetails perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests could not have been about the initial Passover seder, since their defilement would have expired at sundown and, following washing, they would have been able to partake of the seder in the evening. The seder was already over, having been consumed the previous evening, and they must be concerned about some other meal in Passover, most likely the chagigah.

Rabbi Singer claims that John 13 does not concern a Passover seder. However, this again is false. We read in John 13:1-2:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper…

In Greek, the text does not say that the supper was before the feast. Rather, it says that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. D.A. Carson notes rightly that “there is nothing in the words themselves to discourage us from taking the clause as an introduction to the footwashing only, and not to the discourses that follow the meal.” [ii]

Indeed, the most natural reading of the reference to the supper in John 13:2, in light of 13:1, is that the last supper was in fact the Passover meal. Craig Blomberg concurs [iii]:

Verse 1 thus stands as a headline over the entire passion narrative (cf. Ridderbos 1997: 452). Because Passover began with a supper-time meal as its most central ritual (and 1 Cor. 11:20 speaks of the Last Supper explicitly as a deipnon), to hear then that the supper was being served (v. 2) would naturally suggest that the Passover had begun (Ridderbos 1997: 455; cf. Michaels 1983: 230; Kleinknecht 1985: 370–371; Burge 2000: 365–367), not that this was some separate supper prior to the Passover (as for Casey 1996: 20–21). If there is still any doubt, as Cullen Story (1989: 317) explains, ‘The presence of Judas, Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, Judas’ departure from the table (implicit in the Synoptics, explicit in John), the affirmation by Peter of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, and Jesus’ prediction of his denial—all of these circumstances together form solid lines of connection between the meal in John 13 and the Synoptic account of the holy supper.’ Almost certainly, then, John intended his audience to understand that he was beginning to describe events that took place on ‘Maundy Thursday’ night, as part of the Passover meal, just as they would already have learned in the oral kerygma.

Though Singer appeals to John 13:29 where some speculate that Judas has been charged with getting what they need for the feast, this argument doesn’t work either since the feast of unleavened bread continues for another week, which easily could be the meaning of the phrase ‘the feast’ in this context. One might object to this that, if there were indeed Passover night, the shops would not have remained open. However, as D.A. Carson notes [iv],

One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishnah Pesahim 4:5). One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishnah Shabbath 23:1).

Another aspect of John 13:29, curiously omitted by Singer — which actually supports my contention that this meal was in fact the Passover seder — is the disciples’ speculation that Judas had been charged by Jesus to give something to the poor. Carson notes that “it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [v]

In addition to the foregoing considerations, two undesigned coincidences confirm that the last supper in John 13 is the same meal as spoken of in the synoptic gospels. In the parallel account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that these are in fact the same meal, and rooted in historical memory.

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Tovia also gives another alleged discrepancy regarding the resurrection accounts, where he points out that, according to Matthew, the women all met Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10), whereas in John it looks like Mary, in her report to Peter & the disciple whom Jesus loved, has no idea what had happened to Jesus’ body (John 20:1-2). One would predict, supposing those accounts to be both anchored in historical memory, that Mary must have left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the risen Jesus. Indeed, I can hardly see any other viable way of harmonizing those accounts. But this is precisely what is suggested by a close reading of John 20:2: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him.” The use of the plural verb there suggests that she had in fact left the larger group of women and that there had in fact been others with her (which comports with the synoptics). This harmonization is not owed to us by the text, supposing them to be in conflict, but the fact that the only viable harmonization is suggested by a close reading of John suggests that these accounts are in fact based on historical memory, being independent accounts that dovetail.

According to John, Mary Magdalene ran back immediately upon noticing the stone rolled away and surmising or seeing the tomb empty (there may have been one or two other women with her, we don’t know). Notice that Matthew does not say that the angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, but rather that he spoke to the women. Thus, it was the women other than Mary Magdalene who left the tomb together as described in Matthew and, while going to tell the disciples, saw Jesus on the way. Matthew says that plural women left the tomb and that “they” saw Jesus on the way but does not expressly say that Mary Magdalene was with them at that time. Again, he may just not have known that she had left the group already, but he does not explicitly say either way. John knew since he was one of the two disciples (along with Peter) to whom Mary Magdalene reported the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus.

We can pick up Mary Magdalene’s story as reported by John. She ran back to get Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away. They came back to the tomb with or slightly ahead of her. By this time the rest of the women have already seen the angels and left. They may even be seeing Jesus on their own route back into the city while Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are on their way back to the tomb. It must be borne in mind that the old city of Jerusalem was a maze. There is no reason at all to expect that these groups would have run into each other. Mary Magdalene (as explained in John) still believes Jesus is dead at this point. She hangs around after Peter and John have looked at the tomb and left in puzzlement. She peers back into the tomb and the angels reveal themselves to her, but she does not understand. She turns around, grieved, and sees Jesus and has the dialogue with him of which we read in John 20. She then goes back to tell the disciples more about all of this. All this time she is not with the other women. When the other women have seen Jesus, they run and tell at least some of the disciples, though they might have to wait for Peter and John to get back from their tomb visit. Of course, we also do not know for sure that all of the disciples were staying together. The other women may actually have gone to see a different set of them in some different location.

Conclusion

In summary, though the alleged discrepancies offered by Rabbi Singer require some investigation to untangle, closer inspection — and more careful reading of the relevant texts — reveals the arguments to be unfounded. The solutions that I have offered to these challenges are not strained or forced harmonizations, but rather are suggested from within the texts themselves. As the nineteenth century Anglican scholar T.R. Birks once noted, “the very test of historical truth…is found in the substantial unity of the various narratives, their partial diversity, and the reconcilable nature of that diversity, when due allowance is made for the purpose of each writer, and the individual character of their separate works.” [vi]

Footnotes

[i] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).

[ii] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 460.

[iii] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 187–188.

[iv] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 475.

[v] Ibid.,

[vi] T.R. Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidencce of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852), 269-271.

Why Apologists Need a Scout Mindset: Lessons to be Learned from Julia Galef

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jonathan McLatchie

Have you ever wondered why some people are able to think about the world clearer, forming more balanced and nuanced views about controversial topics, than others? Have you ever pondered what thinking patterns are most conducive to good reasoning and well supported conclusions, and how one might avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias and self-deception? In her book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t, Julia Galef (host of the podcast “Rationally Speaking” and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality) attempts to answer these questions. [i]In the first half of this essay, I shall summarize Galef’s insights; in the latter half, I shall discuss what lessons we as Christian scholars and apologists can glean from the book.

A Summary of The Scout Mindset

Galef distinguishes between what she dubs “the soldier mindset” and “the scout mindset.” According to Galef, the soldier mindset, also known as motivated reasoning, leads us to loyally defend the stronghold of our belief commitments against intellectual threats, come what may. This involves actively seeking out data that tends to confirm our beliefs, while rationalizing or ignoring contrary data that tends to disconfirm them. On the other hand, the scout mindset attempts to honestly determine how the world really is – as Galef defines it, the scout mindset is “the motivation to see things as they are, not as you wish they were,” (p. ix).

For the one in soldier mindset, argues Galef, reasoning is like defensive combat – “it’s as if we’re soldiers, defending our beliefs against threatening evidence,” (p. 7). For the soldier, to change one’s mind – to admit that one was wrong – is seen as surrender and failure, a sign of weakness. One’s allegiance is to one’s cherished beliefs rather than to the truth, even if those beliefs conflict with the balance of evidence. For the soldier, determining what to believe is done by asking oneself “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?”, depending on one’s motives. For the one in scout mindset, by contrast, reasoning may be likened to mapmaking, and discovering that you are wrong about one or more of your beliefs simply means revising your map. Thus, scouts are more likely to seek out and carefully consider data that tends to undermine one’s own beliefs (thereby making one’s map a more accurate reflection of reality), deeming it more fruitful to pay close attention to those who disagree with their own opinions than to those whose thinking aligns with them.

The prevalence of soldier mindset in society today is aptly demonstrated by a sobering study, cited by Galef, in which participants were tested in regard to their “scientific intelligence” with a set of questions.[ii] Questions were divided into four categories – basic facts; methods; quantitative reasoning; and cognitive reflection. Remarkably, when conservative republican and liberal democrat participants were also asked whether they affirmed the statement that there is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels,” there was a positive correlation between “scientific intelligence” and divergent opinion. That is to say, the higher one’s scientific intelligence, the more likely a liberal democrat was to affirm the statement and the more likely a conservative republic was to disagree with it. This is not the only study to reveal the tendency for more educated people to diverge in opinion on controversial topics. Another study surveyed people’s views on ideologically charged topics, including stem cell research, the Big Bang, human evolution, and climate change.[iii] Their finding was that “Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues,” though they found “little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods.” Galef summarizes the implications of those studies: “This is a crucially important result, because being smart and being knowledgeable on a particular topic are two more things that give us a false sense of security in our own reasoning. A high IQ and an advanced degree might give you an advantage in ideologically neutral domains like solving math problems or figuring out where to invest your money. But they won’t protect you from bias on ideologically charged questions,” (p. 48).

Though there is an element of scout and soldier in all of us, Galef argues, “some people, in some contexts, are better scouts than most,” being “more genuinely desirous of the truth, even if it’s not what they were hoping for, and less willing to accept bad arguments that happen to be convenient. They’re more motivated to go out, test their theories, and discover their mistakes. They’re more conscious of the possibility that their map of reality could be wrong, and more open to changing their mind,” (pp. 14-15). On the flip side of the coin, often “[w]e use motivated reasoning not because we don’t know any better, but because we’re trying to protect things that are vitally important to us – our ability to feel good about our lives and ourselves, our motivation to try hard things and stick with them, our ability to look good and persuade, and our acceptance in our communities,” (p. 26). For example, if we are being honest, how often do we, when considering a claim, “implicitly ask ourselves, ‘What kind of person would believe a claim like this, and is that how I want other people to see me?’” (p. 23). Such thinking fuels soldier mindset. In practice, we cannot eliminate soldier mindset from our reasoning processes entirely. After all, it is our default mentality. By nature, we like having our beliefs confirmed. But we can take intentional steps towards cultivating more of a scout mindset.

What are some of the key characteristics that distinguish scout from soldier mindset? In chapter four, Galef gives five features that define a scout. The first is the ability to tell other people when you realize that they were right. Galef caveats this quality by noting that “Technically, scout mindset only requires you to be able to acknowledge to yourself that you were wrong, not to other people. Still a willingness to say ‘I was wrong’ to someone else is a strong sign of a person who prizes the truth over their own ego.” The second quality is reacting well to criticism. Galef explains, “To gauge your comfort with criticism, it’s not enough just to ask yourself, ‘Am I open to criticism?’ Instead, examine your track record. Are there examples of criticism you’ve acted upon? Have you rewarded a critic (for example, by promoting him)? Do you go out of your way to make it easier for other people to criticize you?” (p. 52). The third quality that marks out a scout is the ability to prove oneself wrong. Galef asks, “Can you think of any examples in which you voluntarily proved yourself wrong? Perhaps you were about to voice an opinion online, but decided to search for counterarguments first, and ended up finding them compelling. Or perhaps at work you were advocating for a new strategy, but changed your mind after you ran the numbers more carefully and realized it wouldn’t be feasible,” (p. 54). The fourth feature of scout mindset is to avoid biasing one’s information. “For example,” writes Galef, “when you ask your friend to weigh in on a fight you had with your partner, do you describe the disagreement without revealing which side you were on, so as to avoid influencing your friend’s answer? When you launch a new project at work, do you decide ahead of time what will count as a success and what will count as a failure, so you’re not tempted to move the goalposts later?” (p. 56). The fifth feature that Galef lists is being able to recognize good critics. Galef comments, “It’s tempting to view your critics as mean-spirited, ill-informed, or unreasonable. And it’s likely that some of them are. But it’s unlikely that all of them are. Can you name people who are critical of your beliefs, profession, or even choices who you consider thoughtful, even if you believe they’re wrong? Or can you at least name reasons why someone might disagree with you that you would consider reasonable (even if you don’t happen to know of specific people who hold those views)?” (p. 57). In summary, Galef notes, “Being able to name reasonable critics, being willing to say ‘The other side has a point this time,’ being willing to acknowledge when you were wrong – it’s things like these that distinguish people who actually care about truth from people who only think they do,” (p. 57).

Chapter 5 of the book offers five tests of bias in our reasoning. The first test is the double standard test, which essentially asks whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we would apply to others. The second test is the outsider test, which attempts to determine how you would assess the same situation or data if you had no vested interest in the outcome. The third test is the conformity test, which attempts to discern the extent to which one’s opinion is in fact one’s own. Galef explains, “If I find myself agreeing with someone else’s viewpoint, I do a conformity test: Imagine this person told me that they no longer held this view. Would I still hold it? Would I feel comfortable defending it to them?” (p. 66). The fourth test is the selective skeptic test – “Imagine this evidence supported the other side. How credible would you find it then?” (p. 68). The final test is the status quo bias test – “Imagine your current situation was no longer the status quo. Would you then actively choose it? If not, that’s a sign that your preference for your situation is less about its particular merits and more about a preference for the status quo,” (p. 69).

Another thing that marks out a scout, according to Galef, is one’s attitude towards being wrong. Scouts, explains Galef, “revise their opinions incrementally over time, which makes it easier to be open to evidence against their beliefs,” (p. 144). Further, “they view errors as opportunities to hone their skill at getting things right, which makes the experience of realizing ‘I was wrong’ feel valuable, rather than just painful,” (p. 144). Galef even suggests that we should drop the whole “wrong confession” altogether and instead talk about “updating”. Galef explains, “An update is routine. Low-key. It’s the opposite of an overwrought confession of sin. An update makes something better or more current without implying that its previous form was a failure,” (p. 147). Galef points out that we should not think about changing our minds as a binary thing – rather, we should think of the world in “shades of grey”, and think about changing our mind in terms of an “incremental shift” (p. 140). Galef notes that thinking about revising one’s beliefs in this way makes “the experience of encountering evidence against one of your beliefs very different” since “each adjustment is comparatively low stakes” (p. 140). For example, “If you’re 80 percent sure that immigration is good for the economy, and a study comes out showing that immigration lowers wages, you can adjust your confidence in your belief down to 70 percent,” (p. 140).

Galef also points out that, when it comes to intentionally exposing ourselves to content representing the ‘other side’ of a debate in which we are interested, people tend to make the mistake of always ending up “listening to people who initiate disagreements with us, as well as the public figures and media outlets who are the most popular representatives of the other side,” (p. 170). However, as Galef explains, “Those are not very promising selection criteria. First of all, what kind of person is most likely to initiate a disagreement? A disagreeable person. (‘This article you shared on Facebook is complete bullshit – let me educate you…’) Second, what kind of people or media are likely to become popular representatives of an ideology? The ones who do things like cheering for their side and mocking or caricaturing the other side – i.e., you,” (pp. 170-171). Instead, Galef suggests, “To give yourself the best chance of learning from disagreement, you should be listening to people who make it easier to be open to their arguments, not harder. People you like or respect, even if you don’t agree with them. People with whom you have some common ground – intellectual premises, or a core value that you share – even though you disagree with them on other issues. People whom you consider reasonable, who acknowledge nuance and areas of uncertainty, and who argue in good faith,” (p. 171).

Lessons We Can Draw from The Scout Mindset

To what extent are we, as Christian scholars and apologists, cultivating a scout mindset? Too often debates between theists and atheists devolve into tribalism, an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, and a smug condescension towards those who disagree with us. But what if we saw those with whom we disagree not as enemies but as colleagues in our quest to attain a better map of reality? Our critics are those who are best placed to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. By listening carefully to our critics, we can construct a more nuanced, more robust worldview. And which critics of our faith are we seeking out to represent the dissenting view? Are we primarily engaging with popular but less-than-nuanced critics of Christianity, or are we actively seeking out the very best, most erudite and well-informed critics of our faith, even if less well known? Can we name some of our critics as honest and thoughtful? How are we positioning ourselves to be in the best place possible to find out we are wrong, if we are in fact wrong? If we are wrong about one or more of our beliefs, can we honestly say that we value truth enough to want to know? How do our answers to the foregoing questions bear on that latter question?

Perhaps at this juncture it should be clarified what exactly apologetics is, since there is regrettably much confusion surrounding this word, both inside and outside of the Christian community. It is commonly thought that the exercise of apologetics is contrary to open-ended inquiry where the conclusion is not stipulated a priori. However, this view is quite mistaken. While apologetics is not identical to open-ended inquiry, it is co-extensive with it in the sense that apologetics is what happens after the results of open-ended inquiry are in, and the time has come to publicize our interpretation of the data. Thus, though the term is seldom used in this context, every publication of a scientific paper is an exercise in apologetics. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was an exercise in apologetics since he sought to sell his interpretation of the observations that he had made on the Galapagos islands. It is common to think of apologists as playing the role of a criminal defence attorney who is committed to defending his client, come what may. In reality, however, a more apt parallel is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry.

Being an apologist of the gospel is no light responsibility. We are asking people to pledge their allegiance to Jesus Christ and dedicate every aspect of their life to His service. This may cost them greatly – even their life. The weight of this responsibility is emphasized by the apostle Paul himself, who stated that, if Jesus was not in fact raised, “We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised,” (1 Cor 15:15). We therefore owe it to those to whom we preach to study diligently the facts and arguments on both sides of the debate to ensure that the gospel is in fact true. We also owe it to those with whom we share the gospel to fully and completely inform them, as far as is possible, concerning the facts of the case. Too often I have seen apologists present popular arguments for Christianity but omit relevant facts that undermine the force of their argument. For some examples of this, see my recent conversation with Wesley Huff on arguments Christians should NOT use.[iv] Whenever you encounter an argument that is supportive of a position that you like, you should always, before publicly repeating the argument, conduct a thorough search for any relevant data that might reduce the evidential force of the argument. At the very least you should determine whether any academic publications, especially those critical of your beliefs, have already addressed the argument. This is but one of several ways in which you can reduce the negative effects of confirmation bias on your reasoning.

What other steps can we take to mitigate against confirmation bias? I try to make it my habit to expose myself to more material – whether that be books, articles, podcasts, videos or other media – that argues against my beliefs than those which argue for them. This reduces the likelihood of me fooling myself, and forces me to think deeper and more carefully about my beliefs, and to develop a more nuanced expression of them. It also puts me in a strong position to find out that I am wrong if I am in fact wrong about any of my beliefs. A first step towards stepping outside of your intellectual echo chamber can be recognizing that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you.

I am sometimes asked how a newcomer to religious debates may discern which apologists to listen to and whom to disregard. Of course, the difficulty here is that, in order to discern which apologists can be trusted to give reliable content, one must have already attained a certain level of knowledge about the subject. But in order to arrive at that threshold of knowledge concerning the subject, one must first determine who to receive information from. How might we escape this dilemma? One criterion of several that I often give is to be wary of anyone who asserts that all of the evidence supports their own personal view and that there is none which tends to disconfirm it. Whenever anyone tells me, concerning any complex topic (whether that be theism, Christianity, evolution or anything else), that all of the evidence is on the side of their own personal view, it leads me to reduce my confidence in their objectivity with the data, and I begin to think that confirmation bias is particularly prominent in this individual’s reasoning process. It is an intellectual virtue to be able to admit that one or more pieces of evidence tends to disconfirm your own view. Of course, presumably you also maintain that the evidence that tends to confirm your view is stronger, on balance, than that which tends to disconfirm it. Nonetheless, recognizing the existence of difficult or anomalous data is a mark of scout mindset. And how might we go about determining whether a given datum confirms or disconfirms our Christian beliefs? For each piece of data we encounter, we should ask ourselves whether that datum, considered in isolation, is more probable given Christianity or given its falsehood. If the former, then it is evidence that is confirmatory of Christianity; if the latter, then it is evidence against. Too often I see people reason that, if a set of data can be made compatible with their beliefs, then they have neutralized the objection to their beliefs. However, this approach is quite simplistic. It is nearly always possible to make discordant data compatible with your beliefs. But that does not mean that the data is not better predicted given that your beliefs are false than that they are true, or that you should not lower your confidence in those beliefs. The appropriate question, when confronted with discordant data, is not to ask “Can I believe I am still right?” Galef rightly points out that “Most of the time, the answer is ‘Yes, easily,’” (p. 141). Rather, we should ask to what extent our confidence in our beliefs needs to be updated in response to this new data.

Another criterion of a credible apologist is that he or she is willing to offer critiques of arguments presented by others on his or her own side of the debate. Are they even-handed in subjecting arguments for their own view to the same scrutiny as those put forward by those on the other side of the debate? This reveals that they are discerning and have a genuine concern for factual accuracy. How one responds to criticism, both friendly critique as well as that from dissenting voices, is also a measure of one’s concern for correct representation of information. An ability to publicly retract false or misleading statements and issue corrections goes a long way to establish one’s credibility. When we encounter a new contributor to the debate, with whose work we have not hitherto interacted, we should also fact-check their statements, going, if possible, back to the primary sources – especially when they stray into territory outside of our own domain of expertise. If they are able to sustain a track record of being reliable in their reportage of information and fully informing the audience about the relevant facts, one ought to be more inclined to trust them as a credible authority. If on the other hand they have a habit of getting things factually incorrect, one should be very hesitant to take anything they say on their word.

One should also be wary of apologists who exaggerate the strength of their argument, over-pushing the data beyond that which it is able to support. It is always better to understate the merits of one’s arguments and pleasantly surprise by overproviding, than to overstate the merits of the argument and disappoint by underproviding. This is why in my writing and public speaking I prefer to use more cautious-sounding statements like “this tends to confirm” or “this suggests” rather than bolder statements like “this proves” or “this demonstrates.” Similarly, I will speak of being “confident” rather than “certain” of my conclusions.

My enthusiastic advocacy for integrity and nuance in apologetics, together with my insistence on subjecting arguments advanced in support of Christianity to the same scrutiny that we would subject contrary arguments to, has on occasion been misconstrued – by atheists as well as by Christians – as an indication of my losing confidence in the truth of Christianity. However, this does not at all follow and, frankly, it saddens me that Christian apologetics has come to be associated, in the minds of many, with a soldier rather than scout mindset. Clearly, it is possible to be convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true and yet still be committed to the honest presentation of information. It is also possible to believe that Christianity is well supported while also maintaining that many of the arguments advanced in support of Christianity are fundamentally flawed or dramatically overstated. I believe it is a virtue rather than a vice to recognize one’s own confirmation bias and thus take steps in the direction of reducing its negative effects on one’s reasoning. The principles that I have advocated in this essay are germane to apologists of any position, regardless of how convinced of that position they are. Otherwise, it is too easy to deceive ourselves, apply double standards, cherry pick data, and inoculate ourselves against finding out that we are mistaken in regards to one or more of our beliefs.

One may of course object to the principles advocated in this essay that, if unsound data or overstated arguments leads people to embrace the gospel, then the end justifies the means. I recall complaining, on more than one occasion, about the presentation of factually erroneous information in defence of Christianity at a University-affiliated Christian society in the United Kingdom. The response with which I was met, lamentably, was that it is very unlikely that any other of the attendees would know enough about the subject to pick up on the errors in the presentation, and we should rejoice that they heard the gospel. This thinking, however, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, we claim to represent the one who identified Himself as truth itself (Jn 14:6). Plenty of Biblical texts condemn the employment of deceptive methods (e.g. Exod 20:16; Ps 24:3-5; 101:7; Prov 10:9; 11:3; 12:22; 24:28; Col 3:9; Eph 4:25). It is therefore not honouring of God when we perpetuate misinformation, even in defence of the gospel. Second, if one with whom we have shared the gospel later does his or her own research to determine whether the things we have said are in fact true, much like the Bereans are commended for doing in regards to Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11), we are responsible for having placed another obstacle between them and the gospel. This is a grave thing to be responsible for.

In summary, cultivating a scout mindset, and minimizing soldier mindset, can help us to think more clearly and with greater intellectual honesty about our beliefs and our reasons for holding them. I cannot recommend any more highly Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset. I would also recommend her presentation for TEDx Talks, “Why ‘scout mindset’ is crucial to good judgment.”[v]

Footnotes

[i] Julia Galef, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t (New York: Porfolio, 2021).

[ii] Dan M. Kahan, “Ordinary science intelligence’: a science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change,” Journal of Risk Research 20, no. 8 (2017), 995-1016.

[iii] Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischoff, “Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 36 (Sep, 2017), 9587-9592.

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVad8BE5A6c

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8

¿Puede un cristiano perder su salvación? Un análisis de los pasajes de advertencia en Hebreos

Español

Por Dr Jonathan McLatchie

Un punto importante de controversia en relación con el libro de Hebreos es si un creyente genuino puede perder su salvación, o si el alejamiento de la fe simplemente evidencia el hecho de que uno nunca había llegado a participar verdaderamente de la fe en Cristo. En el centro de esta controversia están los pasajes de advertencia, que se encuentran en Hebreos 2:1-4, 3:7-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39 y 12:14-29. El propósito de este artículo es evaluar la evidencia bíblica, con un enfoque particular en el libro de Hebreos, sobre si un cristiano profeso que se aleja de la fe pierde su salvación.

Un principio fundamental de la hermenéutica bíblica es que los pasajes poco claros deben interpretarse siempre a la luz de los textos más claros. Esto se desprende de la premisa de que los textos bíblicos, al ser de inspiración divina, aunque compuestos por diferentes autores, son una unidad. Es decir, son internamente consistentes en todo lo que enseñan. Por lo tanto, al interpretar textos difíciles y muy debatidos del libro de Hebreos, debemos preguntarnos primero qué enseñan el resto de las Escrituras sobre este tema. Lo ideal sería analizar otros libros del mismo autor, para que nos ilumine el significado pretendido que probablemente tenga el libro que nos interesa. Desafortunadamente, la autoría de Hebreos es muy debatida entre los académicos del Nuevo Testamento y no se ha alcanzado un consenso claro. Sin embargo, independientemente del autor o autores reales, el texto muestra indicios de reflejar el pensamiento paulino, y es muy probable que fuera compuesto por un asociado de Pablo, si no por el mismo. [i] Un examen del corpus paulino, por tanto, puede darnos una idea de la teología más amplia del autor de Hebreos. A continuación, debemos examinar el propio libro de Hebreos para determinar si otros textos, además de los pasajes de advertencia que estamos investigando, aportan luz a la cuestión que nos ocupa. Por último, nos corresponde analizar el contexto de cada uno de los cinco pasajes de advertencia, y cómo encajan en el flujo argumental general del libro de Hebreos.

Breve estudio del Nuevo Testamento como un todo

Se podría escribir mucho sobre lo que el Nuevo Testamento tiene que decir sobre la seguridad eterna. Sin embargo, como el enfoque de este artículo es el libro de Hebreos, mantendré mis comentarios breves. Varias afirmaciones en los evangelios parecen indicar firmemente que uno no puede perder su salvación. Por ejemplo, Jesús afirmó que “Todo lo que el Padre me da, vendrá a mí; y al que viene a mí, de ningún modo lo echaré fuera … Y esta es la voluntad del que me envió: que de todo lo que Él me ha dado yo no pierda nada, sino que lo resucite en el día final. Porque esta es la voluntad de mi Padre: que todo aquel que ve al Hijo y cree en Él, tenga vida eterna, y yo mismo lo resucitaré en el día final.” (Juan 6:37-40). Thomas R. Schreiner observa que “el paralelismo establece que venir y creer son sinónimos. Así, decir que aquellos que El Padre da, ‘vendrán’ al Hijo significa también que ‘creerán’ en el Hijo”[ii]. Jesús también afirmó que “Nadie puede venir a mí si no lo trae el Padre que me envió, y yo lo resucitaré en el día final” (Juan 6:44). Las dos referencias a “lo” en este versículo se refieren claramente al mismo individuo, es decir, al que fue traído. La implicación es que el que es traído será finalmente resucitado en el último día. Jesús continúa diciendo, “Mis ovejas oyen mi voz, y yo las conozco y me siguen; y yo les doy vida eterna y jamás perecerán, y nadie las arrebatará de mi mano. Mi Padre que me las dio es mayor que todos, y nadie las puede arrebatar de la mano del Padre.” (Juan 10:27-29). En griego, la frase que denota “jamás perecerán” es οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. La expresión οὐ μὴ es un doble negativo, usado en griego para enfatizar. Por lo tanto, se puede traducir mejor “nunca jamás perecerán”. De nuevo, esto apoya la doctrina de la seguridad eterna.

Un posible contraejemplo que se puede dar a estos textos en los evangelios es la caída de Judas, uno de los Doce. Sin embargo, Juan 6:64-65 sugiere que Judas no era un auténtico creyente incluso antes de su traición a Jesús: “Pero hay algunos de vosotros que no creéis. Porque Jesús sabía desde el principio quiénes eran los que no creían, y quién era el que le iba a traicionar. Y decía: Por eso os he dicho que nadie puede venir a mí si no se lo ha concedido el Padre.” El uso de la expresión “Διὰ τοῦτο…” (“Por eso os he dicho”) enlaza el verso 65 con el 64, indicando que la razón por la que Jesús sabía de antemano quiénes abandonarían la fe es porque él preconocía a quiénes les había concedido el Padre la capacidad de venir a Jesús. El episodio del lavamiento de los pies en la última cena añade más respaldo a la idea de que Judas de hecho, no era un creyente antes de la traición: “Jesús le dijo: El que se ha bañado no necesita lavarse, excepto los pies, pues está todo limpio; y vosotros estáis limpios, pero no todos.” (Juan 13:10).

Múltiples textos fuera de los evangelios también apoyan la doctrina de la seguridad eterna. En 1 Juan 2:19, el apóstol Juan también habla de los falsos profetas, diciendo, “Salieron de nosotros, pero en realidad no eran de nosotros, porque si hubieran sido de nosotros, habrían permanecido con nosotros; pero salieron, a fin de que se manifestara que no todos son de nosotros.” Esto es consistente con el punto de vista de que caer no es una pérdida de la salvación, sino más bien una evidencia de que uno nunca ha caminado verdaderamente con Cristo. La única interpretación alternativa viable de este texto es leerlo como que “salieron de nosotros porque ya no eran de nosotros” Sin embargo, esto es un alegato especial, ya que la palabra griega οὐκέτι (“ya no”) está completamente ausente en este pasaje.

Pedro señala que los creyentes “sois protegidos por el poder de Dios mediante la fe, para la salvación que está preparada para ser revelada en el último tiempo.” (1 Pedro 1:5). La frase “ sois protegidos” (φρουρουμένους) expresa el concepto de que la herencia del creyente es preservada por Dios. Sin embargo, 2 Pedro también contiene un pasaje de advertencia contra la caída que no es diferente de los que se encuentran en Hebreos (2 Pedro 2:20-22): “Porque si después de haber escapado de las contaminaciones del mundo por el conocimiento de nuestro Señor y Salvador Jesucristo, de nuevo son enredados en ellas y vencidos, su condición postrera viene a ser peor que la primera. Pues hubiera sido mejor para ellos no haber conocido el camino de la justicia, que habiéndolo conocido, apartarse del santo mandamiento que les fue dado. Les ha sucedido a ellos según el proverbio verdadero: El perro vuelve a su propio vómito, y: La puerca lavada, vuelve a revolcarse en el cieno.” Pedro, pues, parece sostener tanto que la salvación está condicionada a la permanencia en la fe como que los que son salvos perseverarán hasta el final.

¿Y que del corpus paulino? ¿Proporciona algún apoyo adicional a la seguridad eterna? Un texto útil aquí es la declaración de Pablo a los cristianos de Filipos de que “estando convencido precisamente de esto: que el que comenzó en vosotros la buena obra, la perfeccionará hasta el día de Cristo Jesús.” (Filipenses 1:6). Del mismo modo, Pablo dice a los cristianos de Corinto que Cristo “el cual también os confirmará hasta el fin, para que seáis irreprensibles en el día de nuestro Señor Jesucristo.” (1 Corintios 1:8, cf. Tesalonicenses 5:23-24). Estas afirmaciones parecen apuntar en la dirección de que la perseverancia en la fe es realizada por Dios mismo. Pablo también escribe a los romanos que “Porque a los que de antemano conoció, también los predestinó a ser hechos conforme a la imagen de su Hijo, para que Él sea el primogénito entre muchos hermanos; y a los que predestinó, a ésos también llamó; y a los que llamó, a ésos también justificó; y a los que justificó, a ésos también glorificó.” (Romanos 8:29-30). Este texto establece una cadena ininterrumpida de redención desde el preconocimiento activo de Dios hasta el llamado del creyente, pasando por su justificación y glorificación final. En otras palabras, todos los que son llamados y justificados por Dios serán ciertamente glorificados.

Sin embargo, para el presente estudio también hay pasajes de advertencia que se encuentran en el corpus paulino. Por ejemplo, Pablo escribe “sin embargo, ahora Él os ha reconciliado en su cuerpo de carne, mediante su muerte, a fin de presentaros santos, sin mancha e irreprensibles delante de Él, si en verdad permanecéis en la fe bien cimentados y constantes, sin moveros de la esperanza del evangelio que habéis oído, que fue proclamado a toda la creación debajo del cielo, y del cual yo, Pablo, fui hecho ministro.” (Colosenses 1:22-23). Pablo también escribe, “Porque no quiero que ignoréis, hermanos, que nuestros padres todos estuvieron bajo la nube y todos pasaron por el mar; y en Moisés todos fueron bautizados en la nube y en el mar; y todos comieron el mismo alimento espiritual; y todos bebieron la misma bebida espiritual, porque bebían de una roca espiritual que los seguía; y la roca era Cristo. Sin embargo, Dios no se agradó de la mayor parte de ellos, pues quedaron tendidos en el desierto.” (1 Corintios 10:1-5). La afirmación de la seguridad eterna, junto con la afirmación de que la salvación está condicionada a la perseverancia, es algo que también se encuentra en Hebreos, como veremos. Sin embargo, Pablo mantiene juntas esas dos ideas aparentemente contradictorias. Escribe sobre el evangelio “por el cual también sois salvos, si retenéis la palabra que os prediqué, a no ser que hayáis creído en vano.” (Corintios 15:2). En otras palabras, aunque la salvación está condicionada a la perseverancia en la fe, un verdadero creyente no dejará de perseverar. Por supuesto, esto plantea una pregunta sobre el propósito de los pasajes de advertencia en Hebreos y el resto del Nuevo Testamento: ¿Por qué hay que advertir si no hay peligro de caer? Volveré sobre esta cuestión más adelante en este artículo.

Un análisis de textos claros en el libro de Hebreos

Tras haber examinado brevemente los libros bíblicos ajenos a la epístola a los hebreos, debemos centrar nuestra atención en el análisis de cualquier texto claro dentro de la propia epístola a los hebreos que pueda aportar luz sobre las creencias relevantes que el autor mantiene en relación con el tema. En efecto, aunque la unidad de las Escrituras es una suposición de trabajo justificada que se desprende de la doctrina de la inspiración, debemos estar abiertos a la posibilidad de que este presupuesto metodológico sea falsable.

El autor de Hebreos nos dice que una consecuencia necesaria de ser partícipes de Cristo es mantener “firme hasta el fin el principio de nuestra seguridad” (Hebreos 3:14). La implicación aquí es que si alguno no persevera en la fe entonces ese individuo no ha llegado a ser partícipe de Cristo – confirmando las numerosas declaraciones en otros escritos del Nuevo Testamento y por lo tanto apoyando nuestra suposición de trabajo de la unidad de las Escrituras. De hecho, “una cuidadosa atención a la redacción muestra que estas líneas no mencionan lo que será cierto para quienes que se mantienen, sino lo que ya es cierto de ellos, si verdaderamente perduran. Su resistencia a la tentación será la prueba de su conexión vital con Cristo. El escritor afirma que su permanencia en la fe demostrará que son miembros de la casa de Dios, no que llegarán a serlo en el futuro. Mantener su confianza revelará la realidad que ya han llegado a compartir en Cristo, no que la llegarán a compartir. Al continuar en la fe, demuestran también la obra que Cristo ya ha comenzado y que ciertamente completará en ellos.” [iii]

Otro texto relevante en Hebreos es la afirmación del autor de que “Por lo cual Él [Cristo] también es poderoso para salvar para siempre a los que por medio de Él se acercan a Dios, puesto que vive perpetuamente para interceder por ellos.” (Hebreos 7:25). Esto presenta un enigma teológico para el punto de vista de que la salvación puede perderse al caer, ya que si Cristo está de pie intercediendo en nombre de los que son suyos y sin embargo están cayendo, la conclusión parece inevitable que la intercesión y las oraciones del Hijo están siendo rechazadas por el Padre, lo que implica una disensión dentro de la divinidad.

Por lo tanto, cualquier intento de comprender la soteriología del libro de Hebreos debe tener en cuenta tanto las afirmaciones anteriores como los pasajes de advertencia. A estos pasajes de advertencia me referiré ahora.

¿Se dirigen los pasajes de advertencia a los auténticos creyentes?

La primera cuestión que debemos abordar es si los pasajes de advertencia se dirigen a los creyentes genuinos y hablan de una caída de alguien que verdaderamente ha creído. Quizás el más famoso de los pasajes de advertencia es el que se encuentra en Hebreos 5:11-6:12. Los versículos 4-6 afirman que “Porque en el caso de los que fueron una vez iluminados, que probaron del don celestial y fueron hechos partícipes del Espíritu Santo, que gustaron la buena palabra de Dios y los poderes del siglo venidero, pero después cayeron, es imposible renovarlos otra vez para arrepentimiento, puesto que de nuevo crucifican para sí mismos al Hijo de Dios y le exponen a la ignominia pública.”. El trasfondo contextual de este texto parece mostrar que los destinatarios al que el autor escribía no lograban progresar espiritualmente y se encontraban en un estado de infancia y letargo espiritual (Hebreos 5:11; 6:12). Por lo tanto, el autor les advierte en los términos más enérgicos sobre el peligro de caer, un paso que estaban a punto de dar. De hecho, el autor se refiere constantemente a la potencialidad de dar este paso más que a su propia realidad (Hebreos 2:1; 3:12-13; 4:11, 11, etc.). Así, dice en 6:9 “Pero en cuanto a vosotros, amados, aunque hablemos de esta manera, estamos persuadidos de las cosas que son mejores y que pertenecen a la salvación”.

A lo largo de la predicación de Hebreos, el autor alude al peligro de que su auditorio se aleje o descuide el evangelio de la salvación (Hebreos 2:1,3), de que pierda la confianza y retroceda en la fe (Hebreos 10:35, 38-39). Estaban al borde de la incredulidad y endurecidos por el engaño del pecado (Hebreos 3:12-13,19), la desobediencia (3:18; 4:6, 11) y el rechazo a Dios (Hebreos 12:25). Leemos en 10:26-31 “Porque si continuamos pecando deliberadamente después de haber recibido el conocimiento de la verdad, ya no queda sacrificio alguno por los pecados, sino cierta horrenda expectación de juicio, y la furia de un fuego que ha de consumir a los adversarios. Cualquiera que viola la ley de Moisés muere sin misericordia por el testimonio de dos o tres testigos. ¿Cuánto mayor castigo pensáis que merecerá el que ha hollado bajo sus pies al Hijo de Dios, y ha tenido por inmunda la sangre del pacto por la cual fue santificado, y ha ultrajado al Espíritu de gracia? Pues conocemos al que dijo: Mía es la venganza, yo pagaré. Y otra vez: El Señor juzgará a su pueblo. ¡Horrenda cosa es caer en las manos del Dios vivo! “. El verso 29 habla de cómo el apóstata ha “tenido por inmunda la sangre del pacto por la cual fue santificado”. La interpretación de este texto depende en gran medida de la identificación del referente del pronombre de este versículo. Si el pronombre se refiere al individuo que deliberadamente sigue pecando, entonces esto sugeriría que el texto está hablando de un creyente genuino, que ha pasado por la santificación por la sangre de Cristo, que ha caído en una rebelión consistente contra Dios. Por otra parte, una minoría de intérpretes, para evitar la fuerza de este texto, ha sugerido en cambio que el pronombre del versículo 29 puede referirse a Cristo que fue santificado, ya que se dice antes en la homilía que Cristo “y aunque era Hijo, aprendió obediencia por lo que padeció;” (Hebreos 5:8).[iv] Sin embargo, esto parece ser una interpretación ad hoc. Randy Booth comenta: “Algunos sostienen que las palabras ‘por las que fue santificado’ se refieren a Jesús (véase Juan 17:19). Tal interpretación no puede ser suficientemente apoyada. Además, incluso si se refirieran a Jesús, hay que admitir que la palabra ‘santificar’ se utiliza de forma diferente a la que aparece antes en Heb. 10:14. Seguramente la experiencia de santificación de Jesús es muy diferente a la que experimentamos nosotros”.[v]

Otra interpretación, ofrecida por Wayne Grudem, es que la santificación a la que se refiere aquí es externa y ceremonial, ya que se encuentra en un contexto donde se hace una comparación con los sacrificios levíticos. [vi]Thomas Schreiner señala, de manera correcta en mi opinión, dos problemas con este enfoque. Uno de ellos es que “se podría hacer un argumento similar con respecto a la limpieza de la conciencia, ya que el autor contrasta la limpieza de la conciencia con la proporcionada por el sistema levítico. Por lo tanto, en los propios términos de Grudem es metodológicamente posible que la limpieza de la conciencia sea también externa y no salvadora”.[vii] Schreiner también señala que “el contraste con la santificación levítica tiene la intención de enfatizar la superioridad de la obra de Cristo. El contraste y la comparación con el sistema levítico no indican que la santificación proporcionada por Cristo sea meramente externa, porque a lo largo de Hebreos el antiguo pacto simboliza exteriormente lo que ahora es una realidad interior por medio de Cristo. Grudem, al relegar la santificación en Hebreos 10:29 a la santificación ceremonial, contraviene en realidad uno de los temas principales de Hebreos, a saber, que lo que se anticipó en forma de sombra en el Antiguo Testamento se ha convertido ahora en una realidad en y por el sacrificio de Cristo”.[viii]

Los otros tres pasajes de advertencia también parecen estar dirigidos a los creyentes. En Hebreos 2, el autor advierte a sus lectores para que no “se desvíen” (2:1) ni “descuiden” (2:3) una “salvación tan grande”. Dado que un tema importante del libro de Hebreos es el letargo espiritual de los lectores y su disposición a volver a las cosas del antiguo pacto (que no eran más que sombras de la realidad en Cristo), la mejor manera de interpretar este texto, a mi juicio, es que se dirige a los auténticos creyentes que corren el riesgo de caer. Que esta advertencia se dirige a los creyentes también lo sugiere el uso del pronombre inclusivo ἡμᾶς (“nos”) en Hebreos 2:1.

El pasaje de advertencia de Hebreos 3:7-4:13 también parece estar dirigido a los creyentes, ya que el 3:12 dice “Tened cuidado, hermanos, no sea que en alguno de vosotros haya un corazón malo de incredulidad, para apartarse del Dios vivo”. El hecho de que el autor se dirija a los destinatarios de la advertencia como ἀδελφοί (“hermanos”) sugiere que su exhortación se dirige a los hermanos creyentes.

Por último, la advertencia de Hebreos 12:14-29 se entiende mejor si se dirige a los creyentes. El autor escribe “Vosotros, en cambio, os habéis acercado al monte Sión y a la ciudad del Dios vivo, la Jerusalén celestial, y a miríadas de ángeles, a la asamblea general e iglesia de los primogénitos que están inscritos en los cielos, y a Dios, el Juez de todos, y a los espíritus de los justos hechos ya perfectos, y a Jesús, el mediador del nuevo pacto, y a la sangre rociada que habla mejor que la sangre de Abel” (Hebreos 12:22-24). Esto sugiere fuertemente que los destinatarios son auténticos creyentes. En el versículo que sigue inmediatamente, el autor dice: “Mirad que no rechacéis al que habla. Porque si aquéllos no escaparon cuando rechazaron al que les amonestó sobre la tierra, mucho menos escaparemos nosotros si nos apartamos de aquel que nos amonesta desde el cielo” (Hebreos 12:25). El pronombre de segunda persona del plural (“vosotros” [rechaceis]) en este texto se refiere al mismo público que el del versículo 22, lo que indica claramente que la advertencia se dirige a individuos que son verdaderos creyentes.

Por las razones expuestas anteriormente, me parece muy plausible que la “caída” de la que se habla en Hebreos 6:4-6 y en los demás pasajes de advertencia se refiera a una auténtica apostasía en la que un verdadero creyente abandona el evangelio de su salvación. Si ese es el caso, entonces parece que la salvación está condicionada a la perseverancia en la fe. Lo que no está tan claro, sin embargo, es si esto implica que un verdadero creyente puede perder su salvación al caer. Es a este interrogante al que me referiré a continuación.

¿Puede un cristiano perder su salvación?

Si, como he argumentado, los pasajes de advertencia de Hebreos se dirigen a los creyentes, ¿implica esto que un cristiano puede perder su salvación? De ser así, tendríamos que reevaluar nuestra presunción metodológica de la unidad de las Escrituras, o reevaluar los numerosos textos del resto del Nuevo Testamento que he argumentado que apoyan la seguridad eterna. Algunos intérpretes han seguido este camino y han argumentado que la pérdida de la salvación es realmente una posibilidad para el creyente. Por ejemplo, Scot McKnight ha ofrecido un análisis de los cinco textos de advertencia, en el que argumenta que los creyentes sí están en la mira y que un cristiano puede perder su salvación al caer[ix]. Howard Marshall del mismo modo argumenta que un cristiano puede perder su salvación al caer, ya que sostiene que los pasajes de advertencia serían desprovistos de su significado si un creyente no pudiera de hecho desviarse de la fe y perder su salvación al hacerlo.[x] Sin embargo, sostiene que caer es la excepción y no la regla, como lo revelan los textos que hablan de la gracia preservadora de Dios. Según Marshall, la relación entre las amenazas y las promesas de Dios es paradójica y no se puede entender[xi]. Marshall también reinterpreta textos fuera del libro de Hebreos que parecen enseñar la seguridad eterna del creyente. Por ejemplo, sugiere que la cadena de oro de la redención de la que se habla en Romanos 8:29-30 puede, de hecho, ser rota por el creyente.[xii]

Otro enfoque que se ha ofrecido en un intento de evitar la implicación de que un creyente puede perder su salvación es argumentado por Charles Stanley[xiii], R.T Kendall[xiv], y Zane C. Hodges [xv] [xvi]. Estos autores argumentan que los pasajes de advertencia, aunque se dirigen a los creyentes, en realidad se refieren a la pérdida de recompensas, o a la pérdida de una vida cristiana feliz y fructífera. Según esta perspectiva, todos los que confiesen a Jesús como Señor se salvarán, sin importar el fruto (o la falta de él) que se produzca en la vida del creyente. Kendall, por ejemplo, sugiere que el reino de Dios del que se habla en textos de advertencia como 1 Corintios 6:9-11 y Gálatas 5:21 no se refiere al cielo, sino a Dios habitando en los corazones de los creyentes[xvii]. Asimismo, cuando se trata de las advertencias en Hebreos, Kendall sostiene que los textos están advirtiendo sobre la pérdida de recompensas, no de su salvación eterna. [xviii] Sin embargo, este enfoque se equivoca al separar la salvación de las buenas obras y la perseverancia en la fe. Numerosos textos del Nuevo Testamento indican que las buenas obras son un acompañamiento necesario de la fe salvadora y proporcionan el fundamento de la seguridad de la propia salvación. De hecho, “Así también la fe por sí misma, si no tiene obras, está muerta” (Santiago 2:17).

Mi opinión es que, aunque los pasajes de advertencia se dirigen efectivamente a los creyentes, y aunque los textos de advertencia se refieren a una auténtica apostasía, un cristiano no puede perder su salvación. Ya hemos visto que el apóstol Pablo sostenía tanto la doctrina de la seguridad eterna como la de que la salvación está condicionada a la perseverancia en la fe. Si esas ideas pueden mantenerse en armonía, entonces no hay razón para pensar que el libro de Hebreos enseña que un cristiano puede perder su salvación.

Yo diría que la clave interpretativa se encuentra en Hebreos 3:14, ya comentado en este documento, que dice: “Porque somos hechos partícipes de Cristo, si es que retenemos firme hasta el fin el principio de nuestra seguridad”. Esto es coherente con lo que se dice en el corpus paulino sobre la apostasía. Por ejemplo, escribe sobre el evangelio: “por el cual también sois salvos, si retenéis la palabra que os prediqué, a no ser que hayáis creído en vano.” (1 Corintios 15:2). La soteriología del libro de Hebreos, por tanto, no parece ser diferente de la de Pablo y Pedro. Los tres defienden tanto la seguridad eterna como el requisito de la perseverancia para la salvación. Ambos mantienen unidas estas dos doctrinas al sostener que la prueba de un verdadero creyente es que perseverará en la fe. En numerosos textos, Pablo indica que ciertos comportamientos, incluida la perseverancia, acompañan necesariamente a la verdadera salvación y advierte a los creyentes que se pongan a prueba a sí mismos para asegurarse de que están realmente en la fe (por ejemplo, 2 Corintios 13:5-6).

El propósito de los pasajes de advertencia

Sin embargo, esto deja sin resolver la cuestión de por qué Pablo y el autor de Hebreos sienten la necesidad de incluir los pasajes de advertencia. Si los verdaderos creyentes no dejarán de perseverar, ¿qué sentido tiene advertirles que deben perseverar en la fe para heredar la salvación? La respuesta que encuentro más satisfactoria es la que Thomas Schreiner ha llamado “el punto de vista de los medios de salvación”.[xix] Es decir, observar y hacer caso de los pasajes de advertencia es el medio por el que obtenemos la salvación. No se trata de una salvación basada en las obras, ya que, en mi opinión, la perseverancia es una expresión necesaria de la verdadera fe y está anclada en la gracia sustentadora de Dios. Aunque las obras son necesarias para la salvación, esas obras no son meritorias. Más bien, las obras son un acompañamiento necesario de la fe salvadora. La gracia de Dios es tan poderosa que no sólo imparte al creyente la salvación sin ninguna obra meritoria de nuestra parte, sino que también regenera al creyente. En efecto, “lo sorprendente de las Escrituras es que los pasajes relativos a la firmeza de la fidelidad de Dios y los pasajes con amonestaciones son inseparables. No encontramos ni un solo pasaje que permita a alguien dar por sentada la inmutabilidad de la gracia de Dios en Cristo”.[xx]

Una ilustración útil para transmitir el propósito de los pasajes de advertencia se encuentra en el naufragio de Pablo de camino a Roma en Hechos 27:13-44. Pablo dice a los marineros, “Pero ahora os exhorto a tener buen ánimo, porque no habrá pérdida de vida entre vosotros, sino solo del barco,” (Versículo 22), ya que un ángel le había dicho a Pablo que “Dios te ha concedido todos los que navegan contigo” (Versículo 23). No obstante, “Pablo dijo al centurión y a los soldados: Si estos no permanecen en la nave, vosotros no podréis salvaros.” (Versículo 31). Aquí, Pablo tiene la garantía de Dios de que todos los que están con él en el barco se salvarán. Sin embargo, Pablo también advierte con franqueza a los marineros que para salvarse deben permanecer en el barco. En otras palabras, su salvación estaba condicionada a su permanencia allí, pero Dios cumplió la condición llevándolos a que perseveraran. Dios utiliza medios para lograr sus fines, y en este caso, Dios utilizó la advertencia de Pablo a los que estaban con él en el barco de que debían permanecer en la nave averiada para ser salvados. Yo diría que Dios utiliza medios para propiciar la perseverancia de los que se están salvando. Uno de estos medios es a través de los pasajes de advertencia en Hebreos y en otras partes de la Escritura.

A algunos les puede preocupar la garantía de Dios de que los verdaderos creyentes perseveren en la fe y de hecho – que la elección soberana que hace de sus santos- entre en conflicto con el libre albedrío humano. Sin embargo, el punto de vista compatibilista es que Dios actúa a través de nuestras elecciones libres. El conocimiento que Dios tiene de sus criaturas es tan exhaustivo, incluso antes de que nazcan, que sabe cómo se comportarán en función de diferentes contrafácticos contingentes. Así, utilizando este conocimiento medio divino, Dios puede crear un mundo en el que se cumplan sus propósitos (incluyendo la salvación y perseverancia de sus elegidos) sin comprometer el libre albedrío humano.[xxi]

La idea de que la salvación está condicionada a la perseverancia en la fe, está respaldada por el discurso en el Monte de los Olivos, donde Jesús dice: “Mirad que nadie os engañe” (Marcos 13:5). Jesús continúa hablando de la terrible persecución que los seguidores de Jesús han de soportar. Dice que “Y seréis odiados de todos por causa de mi nombre, pero el que persevere hasta el fin, ese será salvo” (Marcos 13:13). Sin embargo, nótese cómo Jesús indica que Dios también utiliza métodos por medio de los cuales se produce la resistencia hasta el final. Continúa diciendo “Porque aquellos días serán de tribulación, tal como no ha acontecido desde el principio de la creación que hizo Dios hasta ahora, ni acontecerá jamás. Y si el Señor no hubiera acortado aquellos días, nadie se salvaría; pero por causa de los escogidos que Él eligió, acortó los días.” (Marcos 13:19-20). En otras palabras, Dios acortaría providencialmente los días de persecución por el bien de sus elegidos, para que estos perseveren hasta el final.

Conclusión

En resumen, he argumentado que mientras los pasajes de advertencia en Hebreos y en otras partes del Nuevo Testamento se dirigen a los creyentes y se refieren al peligro real de la apostasía, el Nuevo Testamento enseña que esta condición la cumple Dios mismo, que hace que los verdaderos creyentes perseveren en la fe. Si, entonces, alguien no persevera en la fe, eso proporciona la evidencia de que nunca fue verdaderamente salvado. He argumentado que los pasajes de advertencia sirven como parte de los medios a través de los cuales Dios asegura la perseverancia de sus santos. Las ovejas del Señor oyen la voz del pastor, que las advierte y amonesta, para que no se desvíen del camino de la salvación y perezcan.

Notas de pie de página:

[i] David Alan Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,” (“¿Quién escribió Hebreos? La evidencia interna y externa reexaminada”) Faith & Mission 18, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 3-26.

[ii] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” (Perseverancia y seguridad: Un estudio y una propuesta) The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 32-62.

[iii] Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (“Una visión clásica reformada”, en Cuatro puntos de vista sobre los pasajes de advertencia en Hebreos), ed. H. W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007), 207.

[iv] James R. White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice, Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises (Part II),” (La novedad del nuevo pacto: Mejor Pacto, Mejor Mediador, Mejor Sacrificio, Mejor Ministerio, Mejor Esperanza, Mejores Promesas (Parte II)) Eamon Younis, March 30 2020, http://eamonyounis.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-newness-of-new-covenant-better_30.html.

[v] Randy Booth, “Covenant Transition,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (“Transición del pacto”, en El caso del bautismo infantil del pacto), ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 298.

[vi] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study of Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Practical Perspectives on Calvinism, (La perseverancia de los santos: Un estudio de caso de Hebreos 6:4-6 y los otros pasajes de advertencia en Hebreos”, en La gracia de Dios, la esclavitud de la voluntad: Perspectivas bíblicas y prácticas del calvinismo) Volume One, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 177-178.

[vii] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” (Perseverancia y seguridad: Un estudio y una propuesta) The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 49-50.

[viii] Ibid., 50.

[ix] Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” (“Los pasajes de advertencia de Hebreos: Un análisis formal y conclusiones teológicas,”) Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59.

[x] Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Guardado por el poder de Dios: Un estudio sobre la perseverancia y la caída) (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1969), 196-216.

[xi] Ibid., 210-211.

[xii] Ibid., 103.

[xiii] Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (La seguridad eterna: ¿Puede estar seguro?) (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990).

[xiv] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Una vez salvo, siempre salvo) (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983).

[xv] Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (El Evangelio asediado: Un estudio sobre la fe y las obras) (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981).

[xvi] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Absolutamente libre: Una respuesta bíblica a la salvación por el señorío) (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1989 and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).

[xvii] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Una vez salvo, siempre salvo) (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 125-130, 159-184.

[xviii] Ibid., 177-178.

[xix] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” (Perseverancia y seguridad: Un estudio y una propuesta) The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 32-62.

[xx] Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Faith and Perseverance, (Fe y perseverancia) trans. R. D. Knudsen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 116-117.

[xxi] Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereinty: A Molistinist Approach (Salvación y soberanía: Un enfoque molinista)(Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010).

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

El Dr. Jonathan McLatchie es un escritor cristiano, orador internacional y debatiente. Tiene una licenciatura (con honores) en biología forense, un máster (M.Res) en biología evolutiva, un segundo máster en biociencia médica y molecular, y un doctorado en biología evolutiva. En la actualidad, es profesor adjunto de biología en el Sattler College de Boston (Massachusetts). El Dr. McLatchie colabora en varios sitios web de apologética y es el fundador de la Apologetics Academy [Academia de Apologética] (Apologetics-Academy.org), un ministerio que trata de equipar y formar a los cristianos para que defiendan la fe de forma persuasiva mediante seminarios web regulares, así como de ayudar a los cristianos que se enfrentan a las dudas. El Dr. McLatchie ha participado en más de treinta debates moderados en todo el mundo con representantes del ateísmo, el islam y otras perspectivas alternativas de cosmovisión. Ha dado charlas internacionales en Europa, Norteamérica y Sudáfrica promoviendo una fe cristiana inteligente, reflexiva y basada en la evidencia

Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bo21og

Traducido por Monica Pirateque

Editado por Elenita Romero

November 11, 2022/by Guest

Does Isaiah 9:6 Affirm the Deity of Israel’s Messiah?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jonathan McLatchie

This past weekend, I had the privilege of participating in a moderated panel debate with my friends Dr. Shabir Ally, Yusuf Ismail, and Samuel Green. The topic was focused around the question of whether Isaiah 9:6 affirms the deity of Christ. Isaiah 9:6-7 reads,

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

In this essay, I intend to flesh out in more detail than I was able during our short dialogue the case that Isaiah 9:6 indeed affirms the divine status of Israel’s Messiah. I will be defending two basic contentions: (1) Isaiah 9:6 is best understood as a text concerning the Messiah, and (2) Isaiah 9:6 identifies the Messiah as a divine person.

The Messianic Context of Isaiah 9:6

In this first section, I will outline the case for taking Isaiah 9:6 to be a text concerned with the awaited Messiah of Israel. This was the view of the evangelist Matthew, who quoted Isaiah 9:1-2 of Jesus in 4:14-16. This section will be divided into four subsections. In the first, I will argue that the broader context of the entire book of Isaiah implies the Messianic identity of the child born in Isaiah 9. In the second, I will argue that intertextual connections between Isaiah’s prophecy and the prophecy of Micah and Zechariah suggest the Messianic identity of Isaiah’s promised deliverer. Third, I will interact with the popular objection that Isaiah 9 was in fact fulfilled not by Jesus but by King Hezekiah. Fourth, I will show that the interpretation of Isaiah 9 as a Messianic text is not a Christian invention, but rather was affirmed by Jonathan ben Uzziel, in his Aramaic Targum interpretive translation of the book of Isaiah.

Isaiah 9:6 In the Light of the Servant Songs

The Messianic identity of the child described in Isaiah 9 can be determined by an analysis of intertextual links with other parts of the book of Isaiah. In Isaiah 11:1-5,10, we read,

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. 2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord— 3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist…10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.

This text is indisputably speaking of the Messiah, as even the great medieval Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki) concedes [1] — the descendant of David (and therefore of his father Jesse). This means that this text connects with our text in Isaiah 9:6-7, which speak of a divine child reigning from David’s throne. The conclusion that Isaiah 11 is speaking of the same individual as Isaiah 9 is further supported by the statement that “with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth”, which resembles what is said of the child born in Isaiah 9 (verse 7): “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” Thus, the Messiah spoken of in Isaiah 11 is the same individual as that spoken of in Isaiah 9:6-7. The idea in both of those texts is that the Davidic dynasty, though it would fade away into obscurity, would one day bring forth a shoot from its stump, or a root out of its dry ground. Indeed, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 11:10 for “root” (verse 1 uses the same word in the plural) is שֹׁ֣רֶשׁ (sheresh), the very same word used of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:2: “For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root (שֹּׁ֙רֶשׁ֙) out of dry ground.” We can further confirm the connection between Isaiah 53 and 9 & 11 by looking at Isaiah 42:2-7, which speaks of the same servant as that described in Isaiah 53:

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 4 he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.” 5 This is what God the Lord says— the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: 6 “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

Thus, like the Messiah of Isaiah 9 and 11, the servant is going to “bring justice to the nations” (verse 1) and “establish justice on the earth” (verse 4). God also says “I will put my Spirit on him”. Compare with Isaiah 11:2 (“And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him…”). Moreover, the servant is going to “open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” But that is exactly what we read of the divine child in Isaiah 9:1: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.” He is also to be a “light for the gentiles”, just as we saw in Isaiah 11:10: “In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.” Isaiah 9:2 similarly says, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.” We also see these texts being connected to Isaiah 49:1-7, yet another Messianic text:

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. 2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away. 3 And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” 4 But I said, “I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God.” 5 And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him— for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength— 6 he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” 7 Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: “Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

This text portrays the servant as the true Israel (verse 3), an individual who regathers and redeems national Israel (verse 5) (note also the comparison of the righteous servant in Isaiah 42:1-9 with the unrighteous servant, Israel, in Isaiah 42:18-25). The servant also — just as we saw in our other texts — is a light for the gentiles (verse 6). There is also a striking parallel in verse 7 to Isaiah 52:15:

…so shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.

Notice also that the servant in Isaiah 52:15 sprinkles the nations, which is consistent with the mission statement assigned to the servant in Isaiah 9, 11, 42 and 49. This, among other clues, indicates that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the same individual as is spoken of in these other texts by Isaiah, including chapter 9.

It is of relevance here to note that, consistent with the divine titles that are bestowed upon the child of Isaiah 9:6, one can adduce further evidence in support of the divine status of the servant from these parallel texts in Isaiah. For example, one of the most intriguing aspects of Isaiah 52-13-53:12 is the exaltation language that is applied to the suffering servant in 52:13: “Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted.” This is the very same exaltation language that is used exclusively of Yahweh elsewhere in the book of Isaiah. Consider, for example, Isaiah 6:1: “In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.” We likewise read in Isaiah 33:5,10, “The Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high… ‘Now I will arise,’ says the Lord, ‘now I will lift myself up; now I will be exalted.’ Isaiah 57:15 similarly says, “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.’” In case any readers were in doubt about whether this exaltation language of being “high and lifted up” could be applied to anyone who is not Yahweh, Isaiah 2:11-17 sets the record straight:

11 The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. 12 For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up—and it shall be brought low; 13 against all the cedars of Lebanon, lofty and lifted up; and against all the oaks of Bashan; 14 against all the lofty mountains, and against all the uplifted hills; 15 against every high tower, and against every fortified wall; 16 against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft. 17 And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the lofty pride of men shall be brought low, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.

Thus, we see, that the language that Isaiah 52:13 applies to the suffering servant can only be used of a divine person. However, we see further evidence in the suffering servant song of a divine Messiah. Consider again Isaiah 53:11-12:

11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Thus, we read that the servant will justify many and make intercession for sinners. However, we read in Isaiah 59:16: “He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him,” (c.f. Isa 63:5). Thus, there was nobody found worthy enough to intercede or bring about salvation — so Yahweh did it Himself using His very own arm. And yet we see in Isaiah 53:11-12 that the servant shall intercede. How can He do so if nobody besides Yahweh is worthy? This is explained if indeed the servant is a divine person.

Isaiah 9:6 in the Light of Immanuel

There is a clear link between the child of Isaiah 9:6-7 and that who bears the name of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14. To do justice to the text of Isaiah 7 and its various interpretations would require an extensive discussion. I will therefore succinctly summarize my own preferred interpretation of this text, and how it relates to our text in Isaiah 9. The context of the text is, in brief, that Rezin, the Syrian king, and Pekah, the king of the northern kingdom of Israel (that is, Ephraim) had formed an anti-Assyrian alliance, and had requested cooperation from Ahaz, king of Judah. Upon Ahaz’s refusal to cooperate with their coalition, Syria and the northern kingdom waged war upon Judah, seeking to take it and set up the son of Tabeel as king in place of Ahaz. This posed a grave threat to the continuity of the Davidic line and therefore to the Messianic hope. Thus, Isaiah was instructed by the Lord to go and meet Ahaz, taking with him his son, Shear-jashub, and give Ahaz reassurances that God would protect them from Syria and Ephraim:

It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. And within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people. 9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.’”

It should be observed that verse 9 makes the promise conditional upon Ahaz’s faith in God for deliverance: “If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.” God then speaks to Ahaz in verse 11 and asks him to name a sign that God can give him as further assurance that God will be with him: “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” Ahaz replies in verse 12, with a false pretense of piety: “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.” This incurs God’s anger, who replies thus in verse 13-14: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Alec Motyer comments, “The sign is no longer a matter of invitation but of prediction, no longer persuading to faith but confirming divine displeasure.” [2]

Though invisible in the English translations, the Hebrew verbs and second person pronouns in verse 13-14 are no longer in the singular but in the plural, suggesting that the addressee has shifted from Ahaz to the entire house of David. To the house of David, God gives assurance that the promised Davidic heir – the Messianic expectation – is still on track. The name Immanuel means “God with us.” Does this imply a literal dwelling of God in the midst of his people in the form of this child, Immanuel? This, of course, is the New Testament teaching, and it is noteworthy that Matthew’s gospel quotes Isaiah 7:14 of Jesus at the beginning of his gospel, in 1:23 and at the concluding verse of his gospel, in the context of the great commission, Jesus says, “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Thus, Matthew’s gospel is bookended with the idea that, in the person of Jesus, God himself has come to dwell in the midst of his people. What, though, is the meaning of the name Immanuel in the context of Isaiah 7:14? Is it a divine title, or is it merely a prayer of a mother in Judea for deliverance? On this, Alec Motyer remarks, “We can weigh the probability of this interpretation by putting ourselves into the situation. Leaving aside the momentous possibilities that she is a virgin (‛almâ), a young woman becomes pregnant and calls her child Immanuel, either as an expression of faith in the face of adverse facts or as a prayer for help. Where is the ‘sign quality’ in this—especially after Isaiah has spoken the name and set the idea in motion? … What a depressing anticlimax following the Lord’s expressed willingness to ‘move heaven and earth’ and Isaiah’s dramatic outburst about the Sovereign himself giving a sign! The passage requires something more and if we look to the wider context of this closely integrated section we find it.” [3] Indeed, in Isaiah 8:8, we read, allusion is made to “your land, O Immanuel.” Motyer notes that “Nowhere else does the Old Testament exemplify ‘land’ with a possessive pronoun accompanied by the subject of the pronoun in the vocative.” [4] The use of the possessive pronoun attributing the land to Immanuel is rather suggestive that this child is no ordinary individual. Consistent with this, Motyer observes that “the singular possessive is linked with ‘land’ as a political unit only in the case of kings (e.g. Dt. 2:31; 2 Sa. 24:13), Israel personified or some other personification (e.g. Je. 2:15; Ho. 10:1), or of the Lord (e.g. 1 Ki. 8:36; Ezk. 36:5).” [5] Given that the child described in Isaiah 7:14 is most probably the same child as that spoken of in Isaiah 9:6-7 (that is, the recipient of the four-fold title, including “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity”), the best explanation is that Immanuel is not merely a theophoric name, but in fact an indication that in this child God himself has come to dwell in the midst of his people.

Comment must be given at this point in regard to the common assertion that the idea of a virginal conception is foreign to the text of Isaiah 7:14. According to this view, the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (almah) is not the word for a virgin but merely a young woman. Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint did not think that that παρθένος (the Greek word for a virgin) was an unreasonable rendering of the Hebrew. One might also wonder how a young woman giving birth to a son would be a miraculous “sign”. Furthermore, Alec Motyer notes that “Of the nine occurrences of ‛almâ those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the ‛alāmôṯ, contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, ‛almâ is not a general term meaning ‘young woman’ but a specific one meaning ‘virgin’. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, ‘so far as may be ascertained’, ‛almâ was ‘never used of a married woman’.” [6] Moreover, “Genesis 24 is particularly important as providing a direct comparison of ‛almâ and beṯûlâ. Abraham’s servant’s prayer (24:14) is couched in terms of a ‘girl’ (na‛arâ), of marriageable age (beṯûlâ) and single (‘no man had ever lain with her’). The qualifying words indicate that by itself beṯûlâ is not specific. In the light of this accumulating knowledge of Rebekah, verse 43 finally describes her as ‛almâ, which is clearly a summary term for ‘female, marriageable, unmarried’. There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used beṯûlâ. ‛almâ lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.” [7]

Verse 15 indicates that “He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.” This indicates that the Immanuel child would be born into the poverty of his people, since curds and honey is, according to verses 21-22, the food of poverty.

Verse 16 is perhaps the most challenging verse for a Messianic reading: “For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.” However, Michael Rydelnik points out that “While many have considered v. 16 to be a continuation of the prophecy in 7:13-15, the grammar of the passage suggests otherwise. The opening phrase in Hebrew can reflect an adversative nuance, allowing for a disjunction between the child described in 7:13-15 and the one described in verse 16.” [8] Indeed, Rydelnik suggests, “There is a different child in view in this verse,” and “it makes most sense to identify the lad as Shear-Jashub. Otherwise there would be no purpose for God directing Isaiah to bring the boy.” [9] Recall that in verse 3, Isaiah had been instructed to bring his son Shear-Jashub (meaning, a remnant shall return) to the meeting with Ahaz. Rydelnik proposes that “having promised the virgin birth of the Messiah (7:13-15), the prophet then points to the very small boy that he has brought along and says, ‘But before this lad (using the article with a demonstrative force) knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.’” [10] Isaiah goes on to say to Judah in the very next chapter, “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” It is also noteworthy that in verse 16 the second person pronoun is once again in the singular, suggesting that the addressee is Ahaz again. As Isaiah had predicted, within a couple of years Tiglath-Pileser had defeated both Israel and Syria.

In Isaiah 8:3-4, we read,

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the boy knows how to cry ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.”

The individual who bears the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz (meaning “quickly to the plunder”) is not the same individual as the child who bears the name Immanuel, described in the previous chapter. This is apparent because he is born to the prophetess through marital intercourse, which disqualifies his mother from being an עַלְמָה (almah), a word which, as discussed previously, denotes an unmarried woman. Furthermore, the child does not bring blessing upon the people of Judah but rather judgment, resulting from Ahaz’s unbelief. As God explains in 8:6-8,

6 “Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, 7 therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, 8 and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.”

As noted earlier, the use of the possessive pronoun in this verse attributing the land to Immanuel is suggestive that the name Immanuel is not merely a theophoric name, but in fact represents that this individual bears a divine nature. This gains all the more traction with the four-fold title given to the child in Isaiah 9:6, the implications of which we shall soon discuss.

Isaiah 9:6 in the Light of Micah 5:2-5

A further Messianic text that bears on our passage is Micah 5:2-5, written by a prophet who was a contemporary of Isaiah, in which we read,

Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.

Even Rashi concurs that this text expresses the Messianic hope. [11] Notice the parallels between this text and those Christological passages in Isaiah. Micah 5:5 indicates that “he shall be their peace,” which links with the title bestowed upon the child in Isaiah 9:6, “prince of peace.” He is also said to come out of Bethlehem, the city of David (which links with the prophecies of Isaiah 9:7 and 11:1, which assert that the individual will be of Davidic descent). The allusion in Micah 5:3 to “when she who is in labor has given birth” has long been recognized to be an intertextual reference to Isaiah 7:13-15. Verse 3 also indicates that “then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel.” This is consistent with what is said of the servant in Isaiah, namely, that he will “bring Jacob back to him; that Israel might be gathered to him” and that he will “bring back the preserved of Israel” (Isa 49:5-6). Micah 5:4 also indicates that the Messiah will be “great to the ends of the earth.” This too is consistent with the servant from Isaiah, of whom it is said that he “shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious,” (Isa 11:10) and that through him God’s salvation would “reach to the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6). Note too the statement in Isaiah 11:10 that the servant “shall stand as a signal for the peoples,” which dovetails with the statement in Micah 5:4 that he “shall stand and shepherd his flock.”

Verse 2 indicates that the Messiah’s “coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” The King James Version translates this phrase, “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” The latter translation is more suggestive of the Messiah’s eternal and divine nature, whereas the rendering of the ESV (which reads “from ancient days” rather than “from everlasting”) could be interpreted to mean that the Messiah had his origins in Bethlehem back in the ancient times of King David. Which translation is correct? Michael Brown notes that “In most cases in the Scriptures, ʿolam clearly means eternity, as in Psalm 90:2, where God’s existence is described as meʿolam weʿadʿolam, “from eternity to eternity” (cf. NJPSV). There are, however, some cases where ʿolam cannot mean “eternal” but rather “for a long time” (either past or present).” [12] Examining the broader context of Micah reveals that the Hebrew word עוֹלָם (olam) means “forever” in 2:9 and 4:5, 7. However, in Micah 7:14 the phrase “as in the days of old (עוֹלָם)” uses the word in its non-eternal sense. The context therefore allows for either translation, and we cannot be dogmatic as to the translation of Micah 5:2.

Some might worry that the reference to “the Lord his God” in Micah 5:4 undermines the interpretation of the Messiah as a divine person. However, the New Testament implies that, at the incarnation, Jesus submitted to the Father as his God. Indeed, this is a corollary of the fact that the Lord is the God of all flesh (Jer 32:27) and that in the person of Jesus the son of God became flesh (Jn 1:14). Even the gospel of John and the book of Revelation, both of which are quite emphatic about Jesus’ deity, refer to the Father as Jesus’ God (c.f. Jn 20:17; Rev 1:6, 3:2 and 3:12). For further discussion of this subject, I refer readers to my article here.

Isaiah 9:6 in the Light of Zechariah 9:9-12

The Messianic identity of the child described in Isaiah 9:6-7 is further supported by a comparison with Zechariah 9:9-12, which is unequivocally Messianic. As even Rashi states with regards to this text, “It is impossible to interpret this except as referring to the King Messiah, as it is stated: ‘and his rule shall be from sea to sea.’ We do not find that Israel had such a ruler during the days of the Second Temple.” [13] If, then, it can be shown to be probable that Isaiah 9:6-7 and Zechariah 9:9-12 speak of one and the same individual, this would supply yet further evidence for identifying the child with the Messiah. In this text, Zechariah prophecies:

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. 11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. 12 Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double.

The individual of whom Zechariah speaks in this passage is clearly the same individual of whom Isaiah spoke. Notice the close parallels. Just as we read of the servant in Isaiah, this individual establishes worldwide justice and peace on the earth, and his rule extends from shore to shore, including to the gentiles. We also have a reference to prisoners being set free from the waterless pit, which bears striking parallels to Isaiah 9:2 (“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone”) and Isaiah 42:7 (“…to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness”). Furthermore, the expression, “his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” parallels Psalm 72:8, in which it is said of Solomon, the Davidic heir, “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth!” This is consistent with the statement in Isaiah 9:7 that the one spoken of would reign “on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.”

It is also of note that Zechariah 9:9-12 can be argued on its own terms to speak of a divine-human person, thus paralleling the divine titles bestowed on the child of Isaiah 9:6. In this text, we see that Israel’s king (the same individual as spoken of by Isaiah), who is to come and establish peace on the earth, is to be a human who rides on a donkey (to ride on the back of a donkey, he must be physical). But Zechariah also tells us something else that is very important in relation to Israel’s coming king. In Zechariah 14:1-9, we read,

Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him. 6 On that day there shall be no light, cold, or frost. 7 And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light. 8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. 9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.

This refers to a time yet future when all nations will be gathered for battle against Jerusalem, but God Himself will intervene against Israel’s enemies. Verse 4 states something very intriguing: the feet of Yahweh will stand upon the Mount of Olives. For Yahweh’s feet to stand upon the mount of olives, He must join to Himself a physical body — for a non-material being has no feet. It seems that this allusion is intended to be taken literally rather than metaphorically, since the feet touching the mount of olives is responsible for the mountain literally being split in two from east to west. Thus, here we see a picture of Yahweh himself clothed with a physical body. Verse 9 further tells us that in that day “the Lord will be king over all the earth.” Thus, the king of Zechariah 9:9-10, whom we read of coming to Jerusalem with salvation, physically mounted upon a donkey, appears to be Yahweh Himself. Here we thus see a foreshadow of the incarnation where, in the person of Christ, God will take upon himself human flesh. One might object to this by suggesting that the Messianic king of Zechariah 9:9-12 is merely God’s agent, and hence he can be appropriately referred to as “king” because he stands in the place of God, doing his bidding. However, on this interpretation it makes little sense for God to physically come to earth to reign if he was intent on working through a non-divine human intermediary.

Another reason to take the Messianic king spoken of in Zechariah 9:9-12 as a divine figure is the passage’s intertextuality with Zephaniah 3:14-20, which exhibits several striking parallels with Zechariah 9:9-12, including the expressions “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!” This text also speaks of a king of Israel in the midst of His people who comes as their salvation to clear away all Israel’s enemies. The text also speaks about the restoration of Israel’s fortunes (Zeph 3:20, c.f. Zech 9:12). However, the king of Israel in Zephaniah 3 is identified in verse 15 as none other than the Lord God Himself: “The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst.” This provides further support for interpreting the Messianic king of Zechariah 9:9-12 as a divine person.

Is Hezekiah the Fulfilment of Isaiah 9:6?

An objection to our interpretation that must be considered is stated by Rabbi Tovia Singer: “In an effort to portray Isaiah 9:6 as a future prophecy about a divine Jesus, Christian Bibles crudely mistranslated this passage. This verse is not discussing any future event or the messiah. Rather, Isaiah is describing the exaltation of King Hezekiah and the divine names bestowed upon him following the miracle when Jerusalem was saved from the Assyrian siege 2,700 years ago. Read this passage in the original Hebrew for yourself! The KJV, NAS, and a host of other Christian Bibles meticulously changed all of the past tense verbs in this verse into a future tense so it would appear to be foretelling of an event in the distant future.” [14] However, the use of the perfect tense in Isaiah 9:6 may be plausibly understood as utilizing the Hebrew idiom of the prophetic perfect, where a future event is so assured that it is spoken of as though it were already completed. Other examples of the prophetic perfect are Isaiah 5:13 (where Isaiah speaks of the future captivity of Judah as though it had already transpired); Isaiah 10:28-32; Isaiah 53:2-11; and Amos 5:2.

Is this text referring to King Hezekiah, as Singer and other Jewish apologists suggest? To begin, let us look at what may be said in favor of this interpretation. It is sometimes alleged that the name Hezekiah means “mighty God.” However, this is quite the stretch, as the name literally means “God gives strength.” [15] However, a somewhat stronger case may be made from observing intertextual parallels between Isaiah 9 and texts that concern the Assyrian siege of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah. In Isaiah 9:4, we read, “For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian.” Compare this to Isaiah 10:5, in which we read, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury!” Isaiah continues in 10:24-27,

24 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: “O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did. 25 For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts will wield against them a whip, as when he struck Midian at the rock of Oreb. And his staff will be over the sea, and he will lift it as he did in Egypt. 27 And in that day his burden will depart from your shoulder, and his yoke from your neck; and the yoke will be broken because of the fat.”

Tovia Singer also claims another parallel between Isaiah 9:6, which identifies the child as “the Mighty God” and Isaiah 10:21, which states that “The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.” [16] However, this parallel is a weak one since the title is conferred upon the child of Isaiah 9:6 (identified by Singer as Hezekiah), whereas it is unequivocally a title of the God of Israel in Isaiah 10:21.

A more striking parallel exists between the ending of Isaiah 9:7, which asserts that “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” In the entire Hebrew Biblical corpus, this phrase appears only two other times, in Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31, both of which refer to God’s miraculous salvation of Hezekiah and his besieged nation from King Sennacherib and his Assyrian army.

This positive case, though seeming initially plausible, is, however, clearly overtaken by the negative evidence against this text being fulfilled by Hezekiah. For one thing, Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh, was a wicked and idolatrous king who reversed his father’s reforms and restored polytheistic worship in the temple of Baal and Asherah (2 Kgs 21). He even apparently participated in the cult of Moloch, sacrificing children as offerings (2 Kgs 21:6). Within just four generations, the nation was exiled to Babylon, which conflicts with Isaiah’s statement that “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore,” (Isa 9:7). The Medieval scholar, Isaac Troki, attempts to evade this conclusion by claiming that the words “without end” are “a mere figure of speech,” and that “We find, similarly, in Isaiah 2:7, ‘And his land was full of silver and gold, and there was no end to his treasures; and his land was full of horses, and there was no end to his chariots.’ Thus we also find in Ecclesiastes 4:8, ‘There is One, and no second, and he has neither son nor brother; and there is no end to all his troubles.” [17] Troki also interprets the phrase, “on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore,” (Isa 9:7) to mean “that his dominion – that is the dynasty of David – will never perish. And though an interruption occurred during the time of the captivity, the government, nonetheless, will, in the days of the Messiah, return to the scion of David.” [18] However, as Michael Brown notes in response to Troki, “it is clear from the examples he cites that these words refer to something that can hardly be counted or measured because it is so vast and boundless, like the riches of Solomon or the troubles of an afflicted man. How then can this prophecy that states ‘of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end’ apply to Hezekiah? Even granting that the words ‘without end’ do not have to be taken literally in terms of an eternal kingdom—although this would be a perfectly good way of expressing that concept in Hebrew—they simply do not describe Hezekiah’s reign, which was quite limited in international scope and influence.” [19] Brown also asks, regarding Troki’s suggestion that this text need not refer to an uninterrupted reign, “How could Isaiah have been more clear? Is there no significance to the words ‘from that time on and forever’?” [20]

Though there are, as discussed above, some textual parallels between Isaiah 9 and the texts that concern the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah, there are also intertextual links – in my view, more striking – between Isaiah 9 and other texts that deal with the Davidic Messiah who would establish global peace and establish a worldwide dominion under his reign. Moreover, since the same individual is also spoken of by Isaiah and other prophets in the context of the Babylonian exile (Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is sandwiched between passages that clearly concern the Babylonian exile, as are other Biblical Messianic texts, such as Jeremiah 23:5-6), the textual links between those passages regarding the Messiah and those regarding the Assyrian siege and the Babylonian exile are, in my view, best understood as parallels of what would one day be accomplished in a much greater way, and a prophecy of hope in the midst of those trials, rather than as texts that speak of the same event.

Furthermore, given that Hezekiah (and indeed anyone else who may be said to be the individual concerned) failed to fulfil what is spoken of the child in Isaiah 9, our text must be adjudged to be either a failed prophecy or a Messianic prophecy. One might, of course, object that Jesus has not fulfilled these predictions either, since global peace has not yet been realized. However, it is plausible to view this prophecy as still awaiting its ultimate completion when Jesus returns again. Given Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (that may be historically confirmed), the Christian has a justified expectation that the Messiah will indeed return to finish what he has begun. This was the interpretation of Jesus and the apostles (c.f. Mk 13:26-27; Acts 1:11; 1 Thess 3:13, 4:13-18). I would contend that there are also hints to this effect in the Old Testament. There are texts in the Hebrew Bible that prophecy of a suffering Messiah who suffers and dies (c.f. Isa 52:13-53:12; Dan 9:26). On the other hand, there are prophecies that indicate this same “pierced” Messiah will be beheld by his enemies (Zech 12:10). The reference to being “pierced” dovetails with Isaiah 53:5, where the servant is said to be “pierced” for our transgressions. Though the Hebrew verb is different (חלל vs דקר), the connotation is the same. Zechariah 12:10 is undoubtedly speaking of the same event as that described in Zechariah 14, when the Lord God himself will descend from heaven to the aid of his people against their enemies. This is apparent from the context, since the verses leading up to 12:10 indicate that “On that day the LORD will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, going before them. And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem,” (Zech 12:8-9, c.f. Zech 14:1-9). As discussed earlier, Zechariah 14:4 indicates that the Lord’s feet will physically stand on the mount of olives. As shown previously, verse 9 suggests that the physically descending Lord is none other than the Messianic king of whom we read in Zechariah 9:9-12. If this is so, then the implication is that the one pierced in 12:10 is likewise the Messiah. The fact that the Lord descends upon the mount of Olives in a physically embodied form is also consistent with the Jews beholding a physical affliction originating during his former coming.

Singer further alleges, “To further conceal that Isaiah 9:6 is referring to names given to Hezekiah, the New International Version Bible completely deletes the word ‘name,’ causing the verse to read, ‘and he will be called.’” [22] This, however, is an incredibly weak point since to say that someone will be called by a name can be non-literal and need not denote a birthname. Indeed, Tovia Singer himself points out that Jeremiah 33:16, speaking of the city of Jerusalem, asserts that “And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’” [23] Hezekiah was certainly not conferred those names by his mother.

Ancient Jewish Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 9:6

It may also be observed that the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, an Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible, explicitly identifies this text as speaking of the Messiah: “The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who lives to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.” [21]

The Deity of Israel’s Messiah

Having established that Isaiah 9:6 concerns the Messiah, we must now turn our attention to the question of whether it affirms His deity. As we have seen, Isaiah 9:6 confers upon the Messiah a four-fold title: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Mighty God

The most provocative of those titles is Mighty God. At first consideration, one might think that this ends the debate. However, orthodox Jewish interpreters often point out that the title God can be used in some contexts of those who are not God. For example, in Exodus 7:1, God says to Moses, “See, I have made you God (אֱלֹהִ֖ים) to Pharaoh” (though some English translations add the word “like” before “God,” this is not present in the Hebrew text). Psalm 8:5 also uses the word אֱלֹהִ֑ים (Elohim) in reference to angels, or heavenly beings.

A royal inauguration Psalm refers to the Davidic King as “God” (Ps 45:6-7):

6 Your throne, O God (אֱ֭לֹהִים), is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; 7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.

Notice that the referent of this Psalm is ascribed the title of אֱ֭לֹהִים (Elohim), yet distinguished from his God who has anointed him with the oil of gladness. Some Christian commentators have identified this as a reference to the Messiah. [24] However, I believe this to be a mistake, since the context makes it clear that this Psalm concerns a royal inauguration of a Davidic heir. The Psalm is introduced in verse 1 with a royal tribute: “My heart overflows with a pleasing theme; I address my verses to the king; my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe.” This by itself is not fatal to a Messianic interpretation. However, verse 9 adds further clarity: “…daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.” If this Psalm concerns the Messiah, who is the queen of whom this text also speaks, not to mention the daughters of kings who are his ladies of honor? It has been suggested that the “wedding in Ps 45 is intended to be a figurative depiction of the eschatological wedding banquet,” with the queen being a metaphor for God’s people and the bridesmaids representing foreign nations. [25] While this is not impossible, it seems to me that the most straightforward reading is that the bride and bridesmaids are literal rather than figurative. Thus, it must be granted that the title אֱ֭לֹהִים (Elohim) carries a broader meaning than merely an alternative designation of Yahweh, though of course it can be (and usually is) used in this sense. The question, then, is what we can determine from the context about its meaning in Isaiah 9:6.

In Isaiah 9:6, the complete phrase that is used is אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר (el gibbor). This expression occurs three other times in the Hebrew Biblical corpus, and in all three of those cases it refers specifically to Yahweh (Deut 10:17; Jer 32:18; Isa 10:21). One of those references is in fact in the very next chapter that follows our text: “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God (אֵ֖ל גִּבּֽוֹר),” (Isa 10:21). This tends to favor an interpretation of the same expression in Isaiah 9:6 as likewise denoting divine status. However, a sample size of three is not sufficiently large to render this conclusion beyond all doubt, and so we must further supplement it with additional argumentation. It should be noted here that it may be contended that an exception is found in Ezekiel 32:21: “The mighty chiefs (אֵלֵ֧י גִבּוֹרִ֛ים) shall speak of them…” This verse uses the phrase, אֵלֵ֧י גִבּוֹרִ֛ים (ele gibborim), which is sometimes claimed to be the same words used in Isaiah (in the same order) but in the plural form and connected in a genitive relation, literally “gods of mighty ones.” However, the word אֵלֵ֧י (ele) actually derives from the root, אַ֫יִל (ayil), which can mean a ram or a leader/chief. [26]

It is also noteworthy that the word, אֵ֖ל (el) occurs in the singular form 217 times in the Biblical text, and always (without exception) denotes nothing less than absolute deity (though there is a handful of instances where it is used to refer to false gods (c.f. Deut 32:12; Pss 44:20, 81:9; Isa 44:10, 45:20; and Mal 2:11). Thus, if Isaiah 9:6 does not use the word אֵ֖ל (el) to denote divine status, it would be the sole exception.

Some have pointed out that the word גבר (gibbor) is sometimes used as a noun, meaning ‘hero’ or ‘warrior’, and thus the phrase אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר (el gibbor) in Isaiah 9:6 could perhaps mean something like ‘godlike warrior.’ On this view, the word אֵ֖ל (el) would be taken adjectivally rather than as a noun. There are many examples in the Hebrew Bible of the word אֵ֖ל (el) being used with a following noun or adjective. Hebrew scholar Alec Motyer comments, “With a following adjective ’ēl always retains its full status as a noun (e.g. Ex. 20:5; Dt. 7:9; 10:17).” [27] He further remarks, “if ever ’ēl is used adjectivally, the phrase is never identical with Isaiah 9:6〈5〉and its meaning is never diluted into ‘godlike’. Whenever we find a construction identical with Isaiah 9:6〈5〉 (’ēl with a following adjective or noun), ’ēl is never adjectival but is always the ruling noun, more closely defined by the additional word.” [28]

As quoted previously, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel renders Isaiah 9:6 into Aramaic: “The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who lives to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.” [29] This rendering avoids the implication of the child being afforded titles such as “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity.” However, on this translation, Michael Brown remarks, “The problem with this translation, aside from the fact that it is grammatically strained, is that almost all the names are heaped upon God, and only the last two are given to the son—although it is the naming of this royal child that is central to the verse. How odd! Clearly, the names refer to the son, not to the Lord who gave them. In other words, the Targumic rendering would be like saying, ‘And God—the great, glorious, holy, wonderful, eternal, unchangeable Redeemer and King and Lord—calls his name Joe.’ There is no precedent or parallel to this anywhere in the Bible and no logical explanation for this rendering, nor is it even a natural, grammatical rendering of the Hebrew. The characteristics of the royal child are central—highlighted here by his names—not the characteristics of the Lord.” [30]

Everlasting Father

The child is also identified by the title, “Everlasting Father,” (עַ֖ד אֲבִי ad abi) which may be translated as a genitive phrase, “Father of Eternity” (since אֲבִי, abi, in the Hebrew text, stands in a genitive relationship to עַ֖ד, ad). Hans Wildberger concurs with this rendering: “אבי־עד can only mean ‘father of eternity.’” [31] This translation implies that the child is in fact the creator himself, which is unequivocally an attribute of deity. Rydelnik and Spencer note that “The child born here is not to be confused with the Father in the triune Godhead. Rather, the Son of God is the creator of time, the author of eternity.” [32] Walter Kaiser likewise comments, “Thus the one who will arrive later is one who has been here from the beginning of time and more!” [33] The NET Bible notes similarly stress, “This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the ‘Son’ is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the ‘Father.’) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people.” [34] Indeed, God is portrayed as a Father to his people in various texts, including Isaiah 22:21, 63:8, and Job 29:16.

The term “Father” may also describe the relationship of the Messiah to his people. This would not be inconsistent with what Isaiah says elsewhere concerning the Messiah: “when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring (זֶ֖רַע, zera); he shall prolong his days,” (Isa 53:10). It is sometimes alleged that this verse precludes Jesus from being the Messiah, since Jesus left no physical descendants. However, the expression יִרְאֶ֥ה זֶ֖רַע (yireh zera ,‘see seed’) is only used one time in the Hebrew Bible, and so one can hardly be dogmatic as to its meaning. At any rate, the word זֶ֖רַע (zera) is used figuratively at times in the Hebrew Scriptures, even including the book of Isaiah. Isaiah referred to Israel as ‘a seed of evildoers’ (1:4), ‘a seed of an adulterer’ (14:20) and ‘a seed of falsehood’ (57:3-4). Thus, in those texts, the term ‘seed’ or ‘offspring’ refers to one who is to the core an evildoer etc. In like-manner, in Isaiah 53:10, it refers to the fact that the suffering servant would see his disciples transformed by virtue of his work on their behalf. This is related in Isaiah 53 to the prolonging of his days, which alludes to his resurrection from the dead.

Wonderful Counsellor

Another title that is ascribed to the child is “wonderful counsellor,” literally “wonder-counsellor.” Though admittedly less conclusive than the titles already surveyed, I believe that this phrase is also suggestive of the child’s divine identity. Indeed, Isaiah says of God elsewhere, “This also comes from the LORD of hosts; he is wonderful in counsel and excellent in wisdom,” (Isa 28:29, emphasis mine). Motyer concludes concerning this text, “To designate the child as pele’ makes him ‘out of the ordinary’, one who is something of a ‘miracle’. Isaiah’s use of the noun in 25:1 and the verb in 28:29 of the Lord’s ‘counsel’ suggests that he would not resist the notion of deity in 9:6〈5〉, specially when it is contextually linked with Mighty God (’ēl-gibbôr).” [35]

One must exercise caution, however, not to overstate the case with respect to this title, as some well-meaning Christian scholars have done. For example, Edward E. Hindson asserts that “Motyer notes that pele’ is used 15 times of extraordinary acts of God.” [36] However, Motyer in fact writes that “It is used fifteen times of human acts etc. where it means ‘what is out of the ordinary’, e.g. Jonathan’s love for David (2 Sa. 1:26; cf. 2 Ch. 2:9; Dn. 8:24). Even where it has unfortunate overtones (e.g. 2 Sa. 13:2) it means ‘more than he could bring himself to do’.” [37] Hindson’s representation of Motyer is therefore inaccurate. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum also claims that “In English, ‘wonderful’ may be freely used of many things, but in Hebrew it is reserved exclusively for that which is divine.” [38] However, this is incorrect, as the examples listed by Motyer attest. The above caveats notwithstanding, Motyer nonetheless notes that “It is used fifty-four times of the acts of God and there the meaning is ‘supernatural’, that which, for whatever reason, requires God as its explanation, for example his omnicompetence (Gn. 18:14), the way his acts confound human estimates (Ps. 118:23), the ranges of his moral providences (Ps. 107:8, 15) and when the beleaguered people felt only a ‘miracle’ could save them (Je. 21:2). In particular it describes God’s exodus-acts (Ex. 3:20; 34:10). Isaiah uses the verb in 28:29 of the Lord’s ‘counsel’ (linking with 9:6〈5〉) and in 29:14 of his work of changing the human heart.” [39] There is also a possible connection with Judges 13:18, where the angel of the Lord says to Manoah, after Manoah inquired after his name, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful (פֶּלִאי, peli)?” I have argued elsewhere that the angel of the Lord is himself revealed to be the Messiah and indeed a divine theophany. It may be that the translators of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible made this connection, since the Septuagint translation reads, “Because a child was born to us; a son was given to us whose leadership came upon his shoulder; and his name is called ‘Messenger of the Great Council,’ for I will bring peace upon the rulers and health to him.” [40] The Greek word translated “messenger” is ἄγγελος which, much like the Hebrew equivalent מַלְאָךְ (malak) can be translated both as “messenger” or “angel.” It seems plausible that the Septuagint translators thus understood the child of Isaiah 9:6 to be none other than the angel of the Lord!

Prince of Peace

The final title to be ascribed to the child is “Prince of Peace.” This title does not contribute to our case for the divine status of the child of Isaiah 9, though it does connect with those passages (as discussed earlier) elsewhere in Isaiah, as well as Zechariah, which speak of the Messianic figure establishing global peace. It also connects our text with the prophecy of Micah 5:5, which states of the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem that “he shall be their peace.”

Conclusion

In summary, we have seen that Isaiah 9:6-7 can be shown to be a Messianic text, by careful comparison of this text with other indubitably Messianic prophetic passages, both in the book of Isaiah as well as elsewhere in the Hebrew Biblical corpus. We have also seen that Isaiah 9:6 is best understood to indicate the deity of the child concerned, both by an analysis of the four-fold title that is bestowed upon the child, particularly the provocative titles, “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity,” as well as other texts that can be shown to concern the same individual.

Footnotes

[1] “Rashi on Isaiah 11:1”, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Isaiah.11.1.1

[2] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 84.

[3] Ibid., 85-86.

[4] Ibid., 86.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 84-85.

[7] Ibid., 85.

[8] Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2010), kindle.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] “Rashi on Micah 5:2”, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Micah.5.2

[12] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 39.

[13] “Rashi on Zechariah 9:9”, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zechariah.9.9

[14] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014), 182.

[15] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 306.

[16] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014), 185.

[17] Isaac Troki, Hizzuk Emunah: Faith Strengthened, trans. Moses Mocatta (New York: Sefer Hermon, 1970), 106–7.

[18] Ibid., 107.

[19] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 37.

[20] Ibid.

[21] “Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 9:5”, Seferia, https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.9.5

[22] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014), 182

[23] Ibid., 183.

[24] Seth D. Postell, “Psalm 45: The Messiah as Bridegroom,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Edwin Blum (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), 573-586.

[25] Ibid., 579.

[26] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[27] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[28] Ibid., 105.

[29] “Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 9:5, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.9.5

[30] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 32–33.

[31] Hans Wildberger, A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 1-12 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991), 404.

[32] Michael A. Rydelnik and James Spencer, “Isaiah,” in The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael A. Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1024.

[33] Walter Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1995), 164.

[34] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Is 9:6.

[35] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[36] Edward E. Hindson, “Isaiah 9:1–7: The Deity of Messiah,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Edwin Blum (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), 836.

[37] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[38] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology: A Study of Old Testament Prophecy Concerning the First Coming of the Messiah (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1998), 39.

[39] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[40] Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Is 9:6.

Undesigned Coincidences in the Scriptures: An Argument for Their Veracity (Part 1) — Old Testament Examples

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jonathan McLatchie

The principle of undesignedness was first identified by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Horae Paulinae. Therein, he highlighted example after example of undesigned integrations between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The principle of undesignedness refers to cases where two or more sources dovetail with each other in a manner that cannot be attributed to the design of the author. In 1850, J.J. Blunt published his book Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, in which he took Paley’s argument further, documenting examples in the Old Testament, as well as between the gospels, and between the gospels, Acts, and Josephus. The principle of undesignedness is a forgotten but brilliant argument which can be used to corroborate Biblical history. In this article, I want to consider a few examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament. In a subsequent article, I will discuss examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.

Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?

2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,

And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.

In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.

Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?

In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.

It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:

It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.

But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.

Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.

This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.

Example #2: Hezekiah’s Treasury

For our second example, turn over to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:

At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them.

Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah’s pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read:

Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (verse 8).

Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.

Now let’s consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:

In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.

Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him “all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house” and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution – and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.

For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:

And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward.

Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.

This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.

Example #3: The Uniformity of Expressive Silence

Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out – this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence – repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.

Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham’s servant’s journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother,” who “came out with her water jar on her shoulder.” Abraham’s servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:

When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.” She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.” The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master’s kinsmen.” Then the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things.

The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage – a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) – the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.

Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham’s servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things,” (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father’s household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother’s household. Verse 29 further informs us, “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring.”

After having been invited into the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said…” The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may “take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken” (verse 51).

The servant then gives gifts, we are told, “to Rebekah” and “to her brother and to her mother,” (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, “Her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’” It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).

Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him, Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel’s own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.

We cannot state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.

Conclusion

Many further examples could be given in the Old Testament, but I hope that these three examples suffice to show how this argument can be wielded to corroborate Biblical history. In part 2, we will consider examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? An Analysis of the Warning Passages in Hebrews

Theology and Christian Apologetics

A significant point of contention in regard to the book of Hebrews is whether a genuine believer can lose their salvation, or whether falling away from the faith merely evidences the fact that one had never truly come to share in Christ. At the center of this controversy are the warning passages, which are found in Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:7-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39, and 12:14-29. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Biblical evidence on whether a professing Christian who walks away from the faith forfeits their salvation, with a particular focus on the book of Hebrews.

A fundamental principle of Biblical hermeneutics is that the unclear passages should always be interpreted in light of clearer texts. This follows from the premise that the Biblical texts, being divinely inspired, though composed by different authors, are a unit. That is to say, they are internally consistent in all that they teach. When interpreting difficult and hotly debated texts in the book of Hebrews, therefore, we must ask ourselves first what the rest of the Scriptures teach about this topic. Ideally, we would particularly want to analyse any other books by the same author to provide illumination on his probable intended meaning in the book in which we are interested. Unfortunately, the authorship of Hebrews is widely debated among New Testament scholars and no clear consensus has been reached. However, irrespective of the actual author(s), the text does show evidence of reflecting Pauline thought, and was very likely composed by an associate of Paul, if not by Paul himself [1]. An examination of the Pauline corpus, therefore, can give us some insight into the broader theology of the author of Hebrews. We must then examine the book of Hebrews itself to determine whether other texts, beside the warning passages under investigation, provide illumination on the question before us. Finally, it is incumbent upon us to analyse the context of each of the five warning passages, and how they fit into the general argumentative flow of the book of Hebrews.

A Brief Survey of the New Testament as a Whole

Much could be written on what the New Testament has to say about eternal security. However, since the focus of this paper is the book of Hebrews, I will keep my comments brief. Various statements in the gospels seem to indicate strongly that one cannot lose one’s salvation. For example, Jesus stated that “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:37-40). Thomas R. Schreiner observes that “the parallelism establishes that comes and believes are synonyms. Thus, to say that those given by the Father ‘will come’ to the Son also means that they ‘will believe’ in the Son.”[2] Jesus further stated that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:44). The two references to “him” in this verse clearly allude to the same individual, namely, he who was drawn. The implication is that the one who is drawn will ultimately be raised up on the last day. Jesus later goes on to say, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” (John 10:27-29). In Greek, the phrase denoting “they will never perish” is οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The expression οὐ μὴ is a double negative, used in Greek for emphasis. It hence may be best translated “they will never ever perish.” Again, this supports the doctrine of eternal security.

One possible counter example that may be given to these texts in the gospels is the falling away of Judas, one of the Twelve. However, John 6:64-65 suggests that Judas was not a genuine believer even prior to his betrayal of Jesus: “‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’” The use of the expression “Διὰ τοῦτο…” (“This is why…”) links verse 65 with verse 64, indicating that the reason Jesus foreknew who would forsake the faith is because he knew before time to whom the ability to come to Jesus had been granted by the Father. The foot washing episode at the last supper adds further support to the idea that Judas was not in fact a believer prior to the betrayal: “‘And you are clean, but not every one of you.’ For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean,” (John 13:10).

Multiple texts outside of the gospels also support the doctrine of eternal security. In 1 John 2:19, the apostle John also speaks of false prophets, saying, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” This is consistent with the view that falling away is not a forfeiting of one’s salvation but rather an evidence that one has never truly walked with Christ. The only viable alternative interpretation of this text is to read it as saying that they “went out from us because they were no longer of us.”[3] However, this is special pleading, since the Greek word οὐκέτι (“no longer”) is completely absent from this passage.

Peter indicates that believers “by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time,” (1 Peter 1:5). The phrase “being guarded” (φρουρουμένους) expresses the concept that the inheritance of a believer is preserved by God. 2 Peter, however, also contains a warning passage against falling away that is not unlike those found in Hebrews (2 Peter 2:20-22): “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’” Peter, then, seems to uphold both that salvation is conditional upon remaining in the faith and that those who are saved will persevere to the end.

What about the Pauline corpus? Does it provide any additional support for eternal security? One helpful text here is Paul’s statement to the Christians in Philippi that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 1:6). Similarly, Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that Christ “will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Corinthians 1:8, cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). These affirmations would seem to point in the direction of perseverance in the faith being accomplished by God Himself. Paul also writes to the Romans that “those whom [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified,” (Romans 8:29-30). This text sets up an unbroken chain of redemption from God’s active foreknowledge to the calling of the believer, to their justification and ultimate glorification. In other words, everyone who is called and justified by God will certainly be glorified.

Of interest to the present study, however, there are also warning passages to be found in the Pauline corpus. For example, Paul writes “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister,” (Colossians 1:21-23). Paul also writes, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness,” (1 Corinthians 10:1-5). The affirmation of eternal security, together with an affirmation that salvation is conditional upon perseverance, is something also found in Hebrews, as we shall see. Paul, however, holds those two apparently conflicting ideas together. He writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). In other words, while salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith, a true believer will not fail to persevere. Of course, this raises a question about the purpose of the warning passages in Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament: Why does one need to be warned if there is no danger of falling away? I shall return to this question later in this paper.

An Analysis of Clear Texts in the Book of Hebrews

Having briefly surveyed Biblical books outside of the epistle to the Hebrews, we must turn our attention to analyse any clear texts within Hebrews itself that might provide illumination as to relevant beliefs the author holds relating to the subject. Indeed, while the unity of Scripture is a justified working assumption that falls out of the doctrine of inspiration, we must be open to the possibility of this methodological presupposition being falsified.

The author of Hebrews tells us that a necessary consequence of coming to share in Christ is holding “our original confidence firm to the end,” (Hebrews 3:14). The implication here is that if one does not persevere in the faith then that individual has not come to share in Christ – confirming the numerous statements in other New Testament literature and thereby supporting our working assumption of Scriptural unity. Indeed, “Careful attention to the wording shows that these lines do not cite what will be true if they hold on, but what is already true of them, if in fact they endure. Their endurance through temptation will be the evidence of their vital connection to Christ. The writer asserts that their continuance in faith will demonstrate that they are members of God’s household, not that it will make it so in the future. Holding on to their confidence will reveal the reality they already have come to share in Christ, not what they will share. By continuing in faith, they demonstrate the work Christ has already begun and will certainly accomplish in them.” [4]

Another relevant text in Hebrews is the author’s statement that “[Christ] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them,” (Hebrews 7:25). This presents a theological conundrum for the view that salvation may be forfeited by falling away, since if Christ is standing making intercession on behalf of those who are His and yet they are falling away, the conclusion seems inescapable that the intercession and prayers of the Son are being rejected by the Father, thereby implying a dissension within the godhead.

Any attempt to understand the soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, must make sense of both the statements given above and the warning passages. It is to these warning passages that I now turn.

Are the Warning Passages Addressing Genuine Believers?

The first question we must address is whether the warning passages are addressed to genuine believers and speak of a falling away of someone who truly believed. Perhaps the most famous of the warning passages is that found in Hebrews 5:11-6:12. Verses 4-6 state that “it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” The contextual background of this text seems to be that the audience to whom the author was writing were failing to make spiritual progress and were in a state of spiritual infancy and lethargy (Hebrews 5:11; 6:12). The author thus warns them in the strongest of terms about the danger of falling away, a step they were on the verge of taking. Indeed, the author consistently refers to the potentiality of taking this next step rather than its actuality (Hebrews 2:1; 3:12-13; 4:11, 11, etc). Thus, he says in 6:9, “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things – things that belong to salvation.”

Throughout the homily of Hebrews, the author alludes to the danger of his audience drifting away from or neglecting the gospel of salvation (Hebrews 2:1,3), of throwing away their confidence, and shrinking back from faith (Hebrews 10:35, 38-39). They were on the verge of unbelief and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:12-13,19), disobedience (3:18; 4:6, 11), and rejecting God (Hebrews 12:25). Verses 26-31 say, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Verse 29 speaks of how the apostate has “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” The interpretation of this text rests in large measure on the identification of the referent of the pronoun of this verse. If the pronoun refers to the individual who deliberately carries on sinning, then this would suggest that the text is speaking of a genuine believer, who had undergone sanctification by Christ’s blood, who has fallen into consistent rebellion against God. Alternatively, a minority of interpreters, in order to avoid the force of this text, have suggested instead that the pronoun of verse 29 may be referring to Christ who was sanctified, since Christ is said earlier in the homily to have “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).[5] However, this seems to be an ad hoc interpretation. Randy Booth comments, “Some contend that the words ‘by which he was sanctified’ refer to Jesus (see John 17:19). Such an interpretation cannot be sufficiently supported. Moreover, even if they did refer to Jesus, it must be admitted that the word ‘sanctify’ is used in a different way than it is earlier in Heb. 10:14. Surely the sanctification experience of Jesus is far different from that which we experience.”[6]

Another interpretation, offered by Wayne Grudem, is that the sanctification being referred to here is outward and ceremonial, since it is found in a context where a comparison is being made to the Levitical sacrifices.[7] Thomas Schreiner points out, rightly in my view, two problems with this approach. One is that “a similar argument could be made regarding the cleansing of the conscience, for the author contrasts the cleansing of the conscience with that provided by the Levitical system. Thus, on Grudem’s own terms it is methodologically possible that the cleansing of the conscience is also external and not saving.”[8] Schreiner also points out that “the contrast with Levitical sanctification is intended to emphasize the superiority of Christ’s work. The contrast and comparison with the Levitical system does not indicate that the sanctification provided by Christ is merely external, for throughout Hebrews the old covenant outwardly symbolizes what is now an inward reality through Christ. Grudem, by relegating the sanctification in Hebrews 10:29 to ceremonial sanctification, actually contravenes one of the major themes of Hebrews, namely, what was anticipated in shadowy form in the Old Testament has now become a reality in and through the sacrifice of Christ.”[9]

The other three warning passages also appear to be addressed to believers. In Hebrews 2, the author cautions his readers against “drifting away from” (2:1) and “neglecting” (2:3) the “great salvation.” Given that a major theme of the book of Hebrews is the readers’ spiritual lethargy and disposition to return to the things of the old covenant (which were but shadows of the reality in Christ), the best way to interpret this text, in my judgment, is that it addresses genuine believers who are at risk of falling away. That this warning is addressed to believers is also suggested by the use of the inclusive pronoun ἡμᾶς (“we”) in Hebrews 2:1.

The warning passage in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 also appears to be directed towards believers, since 3:12 says “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” The fact that the author addresses the audience of the warning as ἀδελφοί (“brothers”) suggests that his exhortation is directed towards fellow believers.

Finally, the warning in Hebrews 12:14-29 is best understood as being directed at believers. The author writes “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel,” (Hebrews 12:22-24). This strongly suggests that the addressees are genuine believers. In the verse that immediately follows, the author says, “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven,” (Hebrews 12:25). The second person plural pronoun (“you”) in this text refers to the same audience as that in verse 22, indicating strongly that the warning is given to individuals who are true believers.

For the reasons given above, it, therefore, seems most plausible to me that the “falling away” spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-6 and the other warning passages refers to genuine apostasy where a true believer forsakes the gospel of his salvation. If that is indeed the case, then it would appear that salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith. What is not as clear, however, is whether this implies that a true believer can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away. It is to this question that I now turn.

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

If, as I have argued, the warning passages of Hebrews are addressed to believers, does this imply that a Christian can lose their salvation? If so, we would be required either to re-evaluate our methodological presumption of the unity of Scripture, or to re-evaluate the numerous texts in the rest of the New Testament that I have argued support eternal security. Some interpreters have gone down this route and have argued that loss of salvation is indeed a possibility for the believer. For example, Scot McKnight has offered an analysis of all five of the warning texts, in which he argues that believers are indeed in view and that a Christian can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away.[10] Howard Marshall likewise argues that a Christian can lose their salvation by falling away, since, he argues, the warning passages are robbed of their meaning if a believer cannot in fact stray from the faith and forfeit their salvation by so doing. [11] Nonetheless, he argues that falling away is the exception rather than the rule, as revealed by the texts which speak of the preserving grace of God. According to Marshall, the relationship between God’s threats and promises is paradoxical and cannot be understood.[12] Marshall also reinterprets texts outside of the book of Hebrews that appear to teach eternal security of the believer. For example, he suggests that the golden chain of redemption spoken of in Romans 8:29-30 can in fact be broken by the believer.[13]

Another approach that has been offered in an attempt to get around the implication that a believer can forfeit their salvation is argued by Charles Stanley[14], R.T Kendall[15], and Zane C. Hodges [16] [17]. These authors argue that the warning passages, though directed at believers, actually concern the loss of rewards, or the loss of a happy and fruitful Christian life. According to this perspective, everyone who ever confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved, no matter what fruit (or lack thereof) is borne in the life of the believer. Kendall, for example, suggests that the kingdom of God spoken of in warning texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:21 refers not to heaven but instead to God dwelling in the hearts of believers[18]. Likewise, when it comes to the warnings in Hebrews, Kendall argues that the texts are warning about the loss of rewards, not their eternal salvation. [19] However, this approach errs in the divorcing of salvation from good works and perseverance in the faith. Numerous texts throughout the New Testament indicate that good works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith and provide the grounds of assurance of one’s salvation. Indeed, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead,” (James 2:17).

My own opinion is that, though the warning passages are indeed addressed to believers, and though the warning texts refer to a genuine apostasy, a Christian cannot lose their salvation. We have already seen that the apostle Paul upheld both the doctrine of eternal security and the doctrine that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith. If those ideas can indeed be held in harmony, then there is no reason to think that the book of Hebrews teaches that a Christian can forfeit their salvation.

I would argue that the interpretive key is found in Hebrews 3:14, discussed earlier in this paper, which says “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” This is consistent with what is said in the Pauline corpus concerning apostasy. For example, he writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). The soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, does not appear to be different from that of Paul and Peter. All three uphold both eternal security and the requirement of perseverance for salvation. Both hold those two doctrines together by maintaining that the test of a true believer is that they will persevere in the faith. In numerous texts, Paul indicates that certain behaviours, including perseverance, necessarily accompany true salvation and warns believers to test themselves to ensure that they are indeed in the faith (e.g. 2 Corinthians 13:5-6).

The Purpose of the Warning Passages

This still, however, leaves unaddressed the question of why Paul and the author of Hebrews feel a need to include the warning passages. If true believers will not fail to persevere, what sense is there in warning them that they must persevere in the faith in order to inherit salvation? The answer I find most satisfying is what Thomas Schreiner has called “the means of salvation” view. [20] That is to say, observing and taking heed of the warning passages is the means by which we obtain salvation. This is not works-based salvation, since, in my view, perseverance is a necessary expression of true faith and anchored in the sustaining grace of God. While works are necessary for salvation, those works are not meritorious. Rather, works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith. So powerful is God’s grace that it not only imparts to the believer salvation apart from any meritorious works on our part, but it also regenerates the believer. Indeed, “what is striking about the Scriptures is that the passages concerning the steadfastness of God’s faithfulness and the passages with admonitions are inseparable. We do not encounter a single passage that would allow anyone to take the immutability of the grace of God in Christ for granted.”[21]

A helpful illustration to convey the purpose of the warning passages is to be found in the shipwreck of Paul on route to Rome in Acts 27:13-44. Paul says to the sailors, “I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship,” (verse 22) since an angel had told Paul that “God has granted you all those who sail with you,” (verse 23). Nonetheless, “Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, ‘Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved,’” (verse 31). Here, Paul has been guaranteed by God that all of those with him on the ship will be saved. However, Paul also candidly warns the sailors that to be saved they must remain with the ship. In other words, their salvation was conditional upon their perseverance with the ship, but God fulfilled the condition by causing them to persevere. God uses means to accomplish His ends, and in this case, God used Paul’s warning to those with him on the ship that they needed to remain with the doomed vessel in order to be saved. I would argue that God uses means to bring about the perseverance of those who are being saved. One of these means is through the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in Scripture.

Some may be concerned that God guaranteeing that true believers will persevere in the faith – and, indeed, God’s sovereign election of His saints – conflicts with human free will. However, the compatibilist view is that God works through our free choices. So exhaustive is God’s knowledge of His creatures, even before they are born, that He knows how they will behave given different contingent counterfactuals. Thus, using this divine middle knowledge, God can create a world in which His purposes are accomplished (including the salvation and perseverance of His elect) without compromising human free will.[22]

The idea that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith is further supported by the Olivet discourse, where Jesus says, “See that no one leads you astray (Mark 13:5). Jesus goes on to speak of the terrible persecution that Jesus’ followers are to endure. He says that “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). However, notice how Jesus indicates that God also uses means by which the endurance to the end is brought about. He goes on to say that “in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days,” (Mark 13:19-20). In other words, God would providentially shorten the days of persecution for the sake of His elect, so that they would indeed persevere to the end.

Conclusion

In summary, I have argued that while the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in the New Testament are directed towards believers and concern the real danger of apostasy, the New Testament teaches that this condition is fulfilled by God Himself, who causes true believers to persevere in the faith. If, then, someone fails to persevere in the faith, that provides evidence that they were never truly saved. I have argued that the warning passages serve as part of the means through which God ensures the perseverance of His saints. The Lord’s sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, which warns and admonishes them, lest they should stray from the path of salvation and perish.

Footnotes

[1] David Alan Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,” Faith & Mission 18, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 3-26.

[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 32-62.

[3] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source, 1981), 357.

[4] Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. H. W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007), 207.

[5] James R. White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice, Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises (Part II),” Eamon Younis, March 30 2020, http://eamonyounis.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-newness-of-new-covenant-better_30.html.

[6] Randy Booth, “Covenant Transition,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 298.

[7] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study of Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Practical Perspectives on Calvinism, Volume One, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 177-178.

[8] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 49-50.

[9] Ibid., 50.

[10] Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59.

[11] Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1969), 196-216.

[12] Ibid., 210-211.

[13] Ibid., 103.

[14] Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990).

[15] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983).

[16] Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981).

[17] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1989 and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).

[18] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 125-130, 159-184.

[19] Ibid., 177-178.

[20] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 32-62.

[21] Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Faith and Perseverance, trans. R. D. Knudsen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 116-117.

[22] Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereinty: A Molistinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010).

Tag Archive for: Jonathan McLatchie

Struggling with Doubt?

Needing Closure?

Does the problem of evil, by itself, discredit Christianity?

What about Evidence Doesn’t Seem to Fit?

That’s a Good Question!

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Was Luke a Travelling Companion of Paul?

Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?

What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?

Conclusion

Footnotes:

Recommended Resources Related to the Topic

Key Points:

Some Important Quotes:

Recommendations

Recommended resources related to the topic:

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Summary of The Scout Mindset

Lessons We Can Draw from The Scout Mindset

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Breve estudio del Nuevo Testamento como un todo

Un análisis de textos claros en el libro de Hebreos

¿Se dirigen los pasajes de advertencia a los auténticos creyentes?

¿Puede un cristiano perder su salvación?

El propósito de los pasajes de advertencia

Conclusión

Notas de pie de página:

Recursos recomendados en Español:

The Messianic Context of Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:6 in the Light of Immanuel

The Deity of Israel’s Messiah

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Brief Survey of the New Testament as a Whole

An Analysis of Clear Texts in the Book of Hebrews

Are the Warning Passages Addressing Genuine Believers?

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

The Purpose of the Warning Passages

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic: