God Raised Jesus from the Dead

March 29, 2026 2 Comments

By whose power did Jesus rise from the dead?

A central tenet of Christianity—if not the central tenet—is the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. But who actually did the resurrecting? Upon quick reflection of Scripture, one might immediately answer that it was God Who raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24; Rom 4:24, e.g.).  This is certainly true, and one could simply conclude with that answer.

Yet historic, orthodox Christianity declares Jesus to be God—as one ‘Person’ of the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (see Matt 28:19, e.g.).  So, do we have Scriptural evidence that Jesus raised Himself from the dead?

But this question suggests an even broader query: Did the Trinity resurrect Jesus from the dead?

As noted above, there are verses—numerous passages—naming “God” as agent in the resurrection of Jesus. In the book of Acts alone there are quite a few: 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 32–33, 37. Turning to Paul’s epistles we find more: Rom 4:20; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14, e.g.

As to the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity, Galatians 1:1 explicitly names God the Father as raising Jesus. The larger context of Ephesians 1:17–20 makes it clear that Paul refers to the Father as raising Christ. And when read in its full context (1 Thess 1:1–10), 1 Thessalonians 1:10 strongly implies that it was the Father Who resurrected Jesus.

The Holy Spirit appears a bit more difficult to establish in Christ’s raising. Romans 1:4 refers to the “Spirit of Holiness” in regards to the Resurrection. Is this the Holy Spirit? Romans 8:11 is less opaque, but perhaps not exactly crystal clear. The larger context, though, favors that the Holy Spirit is in view. The “Spirit of life” in 8:2 implies the Holy Spirit as referent. Verses 4–9 juxtapose Spirit with flesh, which then strongly implies the Holy Spirit (see Galatians 5:16–26). This segues into verse 11 in which we find “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus…Who dwells in you”. The latter (“Who dwells in you”), when taken together with all that precedes it, firmly substantiates the Holy Spirit as referent.

Now we turn to the Son. Is there Scripture indicating Jesus raised Himself? To answer this question, a brief review of English grammar, specifically what is known as voice, might prove helpful.

English sentences are expressed as either in the active voice or the passive voice. In active voice expressions, the subject performs the action of the verb: Alfredo scored the winning goal. In passive voice expressions, the subject is the recipient of the action: The winning goal was scored by Alfredo. The focus here is on the result rather than the agent performing the action.

Now we return to the Son, Jesus Christ. In chapter 2 of John’s Gospel we find Jesus in the Temple (hieron), more specifically the outer court (John 2:14). After fashioning a make-shift whip, Jesus angrily drives out the money changers, then He scatters their coins and overturns their tables (John 2:15). In response, “the Judeans” (hoi Ioudaioi, aka “the Jews”) demand Jesus provide a sign to prove His authority to do such things (John 2:18). Jesus answers, “Demolish this Temple (naos),1 and in three days I will raise it” (John 2:19). The confused Judeans exclaim, “Forty-six years this Temple (naos) was under construction, and yet you, in three days, will raise it?!” (John 2:20). John the Gospel writer, as narrator, explains that Jesus used “Temple” (naos) to refer to His body (2:21). John further explains that when Jesus “was raised from the dead”, His disciples remembered what He had said (2:19) and believed Him (2:22).

With the narrator’s explanation, we well understand that Jesus was referring to raising Himself from the dead in 2:19. This is in the active voice, indicating Jesus as agent performing this action. In other words, the text indicates Jesus’ claim that He would be the agent in His own resurrection.

Yet, in his explanation, John uses the passive voice: Jesus “was raised from the dead”. But this only indicates that John the narrator was more interested in the fact that Jesus had arisen from the dead than in the agent doing the raising. In other words, the passive voice used here cannot be seen as in any way contradicting the active voice used earlier (2:19, 20).2 The passages can be easily harmonized. Jesus claimed He would resurrect Himself. And, in retrospect, Jesus’ disciples understood that He did indeed raise Himself on Resurrection Sunday (2:22).

This is restated later in John’s Gospel. In 10:17 Jesus says, “…I lay down My life, in order to take it up again.” He continues, “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own; I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again (10:18).” So, Jesus not only willingly placed Himself into the murderous hands of His adversaries, He resurrected Himself from their deadly deed. Jesus, in His Deity as God the Son, raised Himself from the dead.

So, yes indeed, God raised Jesus from the dead. The Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—resurrected Christ.

__________________________

1 In John, the Greek hieron (see 2:14) is used here such that it refers to the outer court of the Temple, even though the term can refer to the entire Temple complex. The inner court of the Temple contains what is known as the naos, “sanctuary”, in distinction from the remainder of the complex. But sometimes the latter term is used such that naos = Temple complex, probably as synecdoche. Also, naos (and not hieron) is used figuratively in the NT to refer to the human body as the temple of God/the Holy Spirit (1Cor 6:19). Jesus plays on this ambiguity here. The Judeans repeat Jesus’ use of naos in place of hieron in their response to Him in 2:20, thereby accepting it (probably assuming synecdoche), yet they misunderstand Jesus’ intended meaning. In so doing, ironically, they miss the fact that Jesus was providing the sign they had asked for!

2 In online engagements, I personally have had interlocutors make this absurd claim. Retrospectively rephrasing the event in the passive voice hardly negates the original active voice statement!

Filed under Christian Apologetics, Christology, Gospel, Greek Language studies, Jesus Christ, Passion, Resurrection, Scripture, The Cross Tagged with , , , , ,

No Pre-Tribulation Rapture

July 12, 2025 9 Comments

There will be no pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ (PTR) for Christians. To those who believe the ‘rapture’ will precede a lengthy tribulation period (usually understood to be seven years), I challenge you to provide full, coherent biblical support for this doctrine.

Now, of course there will be a ‘rapture’ event. The first letter to the Thessalonians makes this clear (1 Thess 4:13–17). But the text does not state that this will occur prior to some future period of (great) tribulation. On the contrary, this text implies that the ‘rapture’ will occur shortly before the very end of things:

4:13 Now brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping, so that you will not grieve as the rest—those who have no hope. 14 For since we believe Jesus died and rose again, in this way also God will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus along with Him [Jesus]. 15 For this we say to you, by word of the Lord: We who are alive, those remaining until the Coming [Parousia] of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 Because He, the Lord, will descend from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we who are alive, those remaining, shall be caught up [harpazō, ‘raptured’] together along with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall be forever with the Lord.1

Let’s reason through this. Given that Paul here teaches that the resurrection of the dead in Christ will precede the ‘rapture’ of those still alive at Jesus’ Second Coming (Parousia), the logical implication is that there will be no further resurrection or ‘rapture’ of Christians to follow. In other words, we should not expect another resurrection of the dead or ‘rapture’ to come after these two events.

Yet, proponents of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ (PTR) doctrine2 typically understand the book of Revelation to speak of “tribulation saints”—those who come to Christian faith during the (great) tribulation, which is to follow the earlier PTR event.3 But this necessarily implies a second raising of dead “tribulation saints” and/or a second ‘rapture’ of those “tribulation saints” still alive at a ‘second’ Second Coming when the Lord comes to wage war against His adversaries (Rev 19:11–21). Scripture does not support such a thing. So then, what becomes of these “tribulation saints” under this PTR view?

Logically, it is much better to conceive the raising of the dead and the ‘rapture’ of those still alive in 1 Thess 4:13–18 as occurring after the final (great) tribulation period.  This concurs with Matthew’s recording of Jesus’ words on the Mount of Olives (Matt 24:15–31). As 24:21 states: “For then shall be great tribulation [thlipsis megalē] such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, and not ever, no, never shall be.” Following Matthew’s further description of the great tribulation, some fantastical cosmic events (24:29) foreshadow Christ’s return

24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the sky, and all the tribes/people of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels/messengers with a great trumpet, and He will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”

Certainly this gathering together of “His elect” refers to the same event described in 1 Thess 4:15–17. And this all easily harmonizes with Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians:

15:51 Take note! I tell you a mystery: Not all will sleep, but all will be changed— 52 in an instant, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

All three passages—1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, Matthew 24:30–31, and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52—describe a trumpet blast in conjunction with the end times gathering of Christians. Surely, these passages are describing the same trumpet.

Applying Occam’s razor, the raising of the dead in Christ and the ‘rapture’ of those saints still alive at Jesus’ Second Coming occurs after the great tribulation. Of course, God’s children will not suffer the wrath (orgē) of God (1 Thess 5:9), as God’s enemies certainly will. But this does not mean Christians will not suffer persecution—even unto death—at the hands of God’s enemies. This was precisely the issue in the Thessalonian ekklēsia (1 Thess 4:13–15; 2 Thess 1:5–7).

“But the one who endures to the end, this one shall be saved” (Matt 24:13).

_________________________________

1 My translation, as are all here.

2 See Got Questions: When is the Rapture going to occur in relation to the Tribulation?

3 See Got Questions: What are tribulation saints?

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Eschatology, Faith, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation, Scripture Tagged with , , , ,

For Whom the Bells Toll

November 17, 2023 1 Comment

The church bells suspend
yet the sound keeps blooming
out of the flowers

Throughout the West, in select towns and villages large and small, church bells beckon congregants on Sundays and Holy Days. The ringing bells reverberate down the streets and corridors, the streams and river beds, and in and through creation—both God’s and man’s.

Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and all it contains roar; let the fields and all that’s in them exult: then all the trees in the forest will joyfully shout before the LORD (Ps 96:11–13).

The bells toll for whom?

The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims His handiwork (Ps 19:1).

Opening this post is an adaptation of a Matsuo Bashō haiku.1 Imbued with God’s radiance, the flowers, as all God’s creation, wait in anticipation for the coming emancipation—the glorious Day of the Lord (Rom 8:18–25).

For from the creation of the world, God’s invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made (Rom 1:20).

[See also Music for the Times: Arvo Pärt: Da Pacem.]

__________________________

1 As translated by Robert Bly: The temple bell stops, but the sound keeps coming out of the flowers. The idea for this blog post arose from reading the liner notes to Arvo Pärt’s Arbos, ECM NEW SERIES 1325 (831-959-1), ©1987 ECM Records GmbH.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Devotional, Eschatology, Faith, Gospel, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Redemption, Resurrection, Scripture Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: An Alternate Angle

July 15, 2023 6 Comments

In the Introduction, a brief overview of the main issue in 2:6–7 was discussed. In the Grammatical Parameters segment, relevant grammatical, syntactical, and—to a lesser extent—contextual issues were considered. In this segment, we will take the information gathered thus far and explore another’s alternative exegesis of this passage.

Throughout the centuries, a particular methodology seems to have straight-jacketed exegetes. It was just assumed and followed. This restrained other possible exegeses. For our purposes here, I shall borrow Guthrie’s imperative: “We must continue to ask questions of our methodologies as well as of the text.”14

Following are some questions we should ask of our subject text, starting with the first clause of 2:6 and finishing with the final clause of 2:7. Questioning the text afresh could yield other interpretive avenues foreign to those usually assumed:

-Is “now” to be understood as logical (‘and now that I’ve re-explained all this, you know’) or temporal (and you know what is now “restraining”’)?
-If intransitive use of to katechon (v. 6) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder”?
-Who does the pronoun (“he”) refer to in the middle clause (the accusative/direct object)?
-Whose/which (“his”/”its”) season/time is referred to?
-If intransitive use of ho katechōn (v. 7) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder?
-What is the best way to translate ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes”?

In some cases, an answer to one will directly impact, or even eliminate, another. The alternative interpretation below rather radically ‘reinterprets’ the passage by answering some of these questions differently than prevailing exegesis. A brief background will serve as a preface.

The Schaefer/Frame Interpretation

James Everett Frame, in his early 20th century International Critical Commentary, references a work (from 1890) by Schäfer (Schaefer), an obscure Roman Catholic scholar.15 Since Frame’s work is now in the public domain, we shall quote at length.

First, however, owing to the commentary’s technical nature, Schaefer’s exegesis—as interpreted, in part, by Frame—shall be laid out just below. Brackets identify the referents:

2:6 And as to the present, you know what holds sway [the secret of lawlessness], that He [Jesus] may be revealed in His season. 7 For the secret of lawlessness has already been set in operation [by Satan], only until he who is now holding sway [Satan] becomes out of the middle. 8 Then the lawless one will be revealed…16

Thus, in v. 6 Schaefer/Frame interprets the first clause temporally (“as to the present”), the verb intransitively and (cataphorically) referring to v. 7’s “secret of lawlessness”. The direct object is “Jesus”, and, presumably it is in Jesus’ season that He Himself will be revealed. Since, in the Schaefer/Frame conception, the source of “the mystery/secret of lawlessness” is Satan’s power (mysterion, “mystery” is neuter), then the masculine “restrainer” in v. 7 is Satan himself.

Schaefer in his commentary (1890) agrees with Döllinger in taking κατέχειν [“to hold”] intransitively and in translating it “herrschen,” “rule,” “hold sway.” In his exegesis of the passage he comes to the conclusion not only that τὸ κατέχον [v. 6, “what holds sway”] is the mystery of lawlessness and that αὐτόν (v. 6 [“He”]) is Christ, but also that ὁ κατέχων [v.7, “who holds sway”] is Satan. This identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, original apparently with the Roman Catholic scholar, has the advantage of fitting admirably into Paul’s thinking both here and elsewhere. Assuming Schaefer’s identification as a working hypothesis and applying it in our own way, we suggest first of all that just as Christ is to Paul both the exalted Lord and the Spirit operating in believers, so Satan is both (1) “the god of this age” (2Cor. 4:4), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), the (temporary) ruler (ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι [“who holds sway now”]) of the spiritual hosts of wickedness, and (2) the evil spirit (τὸ κατέχο) that energises in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). The effect of the operation of Satan, the spirit or person who is now holding sway, is characterised as “ the mystery of lawlessness,” that is, the lawlessness which is secretly growing in unbelievers under the spell of Satan. This control of Satan is in accordance with the divine purpose, for it prepares the way for the revelation of the Anomos [“lawless one”] in the time set him by God and not before, the reason being that the mystery of lawlessness, which Satan sets in operation, is to culminate in a definitive apostasy on earth which is the signal for the advent of Satan’s instrument, the Anomos. But this apostasy will not come, and the Anomos will not be revealed until Satan, who is now holding sway, is put out of the way…But the unsolved difficulty in our passage is the reference intended by ἐκ μέσου γένηται [“out of the middle becomes”]. It is just possible that Paul is alluding to the war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 ff.), the religious revolt led by Satan, which is the signal for the sudden apostasy on earth. In this case, ἐκ μέσου [“out of the middle”] refers to Satan’s expulsion from heaven to earth. Though he is thus removed, he makes use of his peculiar instrument, the Anomos, who now issues forth from his place of concealment, and gives him all his power, just as the Dragon (Revelation 13:2) gives the beast his power, his throne, and great authority. Equipped with this power, the Anomos, whose advent is for the doomed alone, gathers his forces for war against Christ (cf. 1Cor 15:24 ff.), attempts the assault on the throne of God in his holy temple in heaven, but is slain in the attempt by the Lord Jesus with the breath of his mouth and is destroyed with the manifestation of his advent. To this conjecture, based on Schaefer’s identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, it may be objected not that Satan is described in reference to his function of κατέχειν, for Paul calls Satan ὁ πειράζων [“the tempter”] (1Thess 3:5), but that (1) Paul might not subscribe either to the identification or to the deductions therefrom indicated above, and (2) that ἐκ μέσου, which to be sure designates only the fact not the manner (forced or voluntary) of the removal, does not at first blush suggest an ἐκβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὴν γῆν [“throwing down to the earth”] (Revelation 12:9).17

In Frame’s conception of Schaefer’s position (which seems to have not been fully fleshed out by Schaefer), Satan and “the mystery of lawlessness” are “connected both essentially and temporally.”18 In other words, Satan is the spirit behind the mystery of lawlessness in the time before the revealing of the lawless one. Concurrent with when this more subdued lawlessness reaches its zenith, Satan “becomes out of the middle” via his expulsion from heaven, which results in the adversary directly operating through the lawless one in a mock ‘incarnation’.

The Schaefer/Frame position can be seen as bolstered by Paul’s use of the same root word (energeō) for “is working” (above as the dynamic equivalent “set in operation”) in v. 7 and in v. 9 (noun form [energeia] of verb: “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”). That is, “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, which was already in operation/working at the time when Paul penned his epistle, culminates in the lawless one’s energization “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”. The energy source is the same, only the latter more manifest, probably to the full.

And yet it is at this point that this schema is open to criticism, as Frame freely admits. More pointedly, if Satan’s (more subdued) power is behind “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, and it is also the adversary’s manifest power energizing the lawless one upon his revealing, then it becomes a question of why Satan would be construed as the one who “becomes out of the middle”. It all seems a bit convoluted.

Another Alternative?

Using the same framework as the lengthy quote above, we might substitute Michael the archangel for Satan here, by construing ho katechōn (v. 7) as transitive (Michael restraining Satan) rather than the Schaefer/Frame intransitive. Once Michael “becomes out of the middle” (Rev 12:9), Satan is able to fully possess the lawless one. But then the issue of context rears its head again. Michael is found nowhere in the context. And this same problem plagues the ‘usual’ interpretations.

Yet, positively, this alternative framework above can induce other conceptions. Is there another way of viewing this passage, while simultaneously remaining faithful to the context? One such view will be presented in the next segment, the conclusion.

_____________________________________

14 George H. Guthrie, “Boats in the Bay: Reflections on the Use of Linguistics and Literary Analysis in Biblical Studies,” in Stanley E. Porter & D. A. Carson, eds. Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p 32. After this statement, which was used as a section header, the author comments: The fundamental question has to do with how meaning functions—how a specific meaning comes to be obtained by the reader of a literary text. In other words, what is the nature of the author–text–reader relationship? Certain queries in this regard will occupy those who seek to integrate newer literary criticism with linguistics (p 32).

15 James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs, International Critical Commentary (ICC), (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912). See p 64 for first reference to Schäfer’s commentary; no title is provided. See here for digitized version.

16 The exegesis and translation are gathered from Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–264. It’s important to note that Frame himself differs at points from Schaefer, though sharing in an intransitive interpretation for both verses. Also prefering this interpretation is Wanamaker (1 & 2 Thessalonians, pp 253–256).

17 Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–262.

18 Frame, Thessalonians, p 264.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Grammatical Parameters

July 9, 2023 9 Comments

[See part I: Introduction.]

To assist in identifying “the restrainer” we might scan through the first chapter of 2 Thessalonians for possible points of contact. At least one commonality is found below.

First, I will translate 2:1–9, even though we’ve yet to explore other interpretive avenues for 6–7. One available option is evident in the forward slash ( / ) between two alternatives. Elsewhere, the grammar and syntax allow other renderings. Explanations will follow further below. Greek words repeated in the text are bracketed and in colored font for easy reference and comparison.

2:1 Now, dear brothers and sisters, regarding the coming [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you 2 not to be easily troubled in mind or alarmed by any spirit, message, or letter, seemingly from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has already begun. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way, for ⸤ that Day will not begin ⸥ unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed [apokaluptō], the son of destruction, 4 the one opposing and exalting himself above all that is called ‘God’ or ‘object of worship’, such that he seats himself in God’s sanctuary, proclaiming that he himself is God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And now you know what restrains[nt] [(him)], that he may be revealed [apokaluptō] in his/its[ms/nt] season. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until the one who/which now restrains[ms] becomes out of the middle. 8 Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]—whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His coming [Parousia]— 9 which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan . . .

Few would find Paul the model of clarity in 2 Thessalonians 2. Besides the run-on sentences and digressions, he even leaves out part of the sentence in v. 3!7 The italicized text between the subscripted brackets ( ⸤ ⸥ ) fills it in.8 Paul also deviates from the plural “we” used throughout this epistle (…we ask you…), to the singular “I” in his digression of 2:5 (…when I was with you, I was telling you these things?).

Grammatical and (Inter-)Textual Considerations

Note the repetition of both Parousia and apokaluptō. On the former (Parousia), Paul uses it twice to refer to Jesus (v. 1, 8) and once to “the lawless one” (v. 9—illustrated here by the use of lower case parousia). Paul contrasts the ‘coming’ of the lawless one with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He juxtaposes the lawless one’s counterfeit parousia with Christ’s true Parousia.9

Regarding apokaluptō, this word is explicitly used twice in reference to the lawless one (v. 3, 8) and once seemingly to him (v. 6). Yet, v. 6 is in a different verbal form (infinitive10) than the others. Interestingly, the noun form (apokalypsis) of this verb signifies Jesus’ revelation in 2Thess 1:7.11 Larger context better illustrates:

1:5 …proof of God’s righteous judgment that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you are suffering, 6 since it is a righteous thing for God to repay those afflicting you with affliction, 7 and to you who are being afflicted with relief with us, at the revelation [apokalypsis] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power.

Paul pastorally comforts the persecuted Thessalonians by assuring them that he, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1) will join them in their relief at Jesus’ revelation, aka Parousia (2:1, 8). Chapter 1, then, serves as a preface to his correction in chapter 2.

Paul specifically uses apokaluptō for the counterfeit parousia. That is, in 2:8–9, he defines the lawless one’s “revealing” by parousia. If we remove the portion of v. 8 referring to Christ’s Parousia (between the em dashes), we are left with: “Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]…which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan…”

Zeroing in on 6–7, we must first mention the verb katechō. At root, it carries the meaning “hold”, though in translation we may further nuance it according to context. Yet it may be important to keep this basic definition in mind, for this could foster out-of-the-box thinking in our subject verses.

The New Testament (NT) uses the word in a variety of ways, with “hold” underlying each occurrence:

-Luke 4:42: crowds were holding [keeping, detaining, delaying] Him, that He not depart from them
-Luke 14:9: in shame, you would begin to hold [occupy] the lowest place
-Acts 27:40: hoisting the mainsail to the wind, they began holding course [heading] towards shore
-Rom 1:18: the wrath of God is revealed against men who hold back [suppress] the truth
-Rom 7:6: having died in that which we were held [bound, confined]
-1Cor 7:30: those buying (things), as if not holding [possessing, owning] (things)
-1Thess 5:21: hold [hold fast, cling] to the truth

This briefly summarizes NT applications, providing fodder for possible alternate renderings in 2:6 and  2:7.

In v. 6, note “him” in brackets. The verb for “restrainer”, katechō, can be understood as acting either intransitively (without accusative direct object) or transitively (with direct object). Either interpretation is possible here. If we assume the word is functioning intransitively, then we simply end the clause with “what restrains” and leave it at that.

If transitive use is assumed, then we supply the direct object from context—“him” in the tentative translation above. Luke 8:15, in which the transitive is surely implied, exemplifies: and having heard the word, they hold [katechō]. In this verse, katechō has no expressed direct object, so translators follow “hold” with a supplied “on to it” (“it” referring to “the word”).

No matter how this is interpreted, there is the accusative direct object “that he may be revealed” in the very next clause. In the intransitive application, this clause further explains in some way “what restrains”. In the transitive application, we would then have a double accusative/direct object structure, in which the second one further explains the first in some manner: “…what restrains him, that he may be revealed”.

The verse begins with the Greek kai nyn, “and now”. The “now” can be interpreted one of two ways: temporal or logical. If temporal, it is rendered like the NASB: “And you know what restrains him now”. In other words, ‘you know what is currently restraining him’. If logical, it is akin to the rendering in the above translation: “And now you know what restrains”.  The sense is ‘now that I’ve re-explained things (2:1–5), you know what restrains’.

The final clause in v. 6 is ambiguous, in that the pronoun can be either masculine or neuter: “in his season” or “in its season”. If masculine is assumed, the pronoun most naturally refers to “he” in the previous clause. But, could it be neuter? If so, what would be the referent?

At first glance, v. 7 appears to contain a syntactical anomaly. It seems to consist in two separate sentences, the second one missing the main verb. However, the solution is to construe it as one sentence, with word order in the latter portion intending to emphasize the subject (“the one restraining now becomes…”) of the dependent clause.12 The effect would be to understand “only” and “until” as a consecutive unit, despite the Greek having “the one restraining now” sandwiched between the two. The International Standard Version (ISV), e.g., renders it in this manner: For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way.

The first part of the sentence—the main, independent clause—is relatively straightforward: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already working”. The final phrase ek mesou genētai (ἐκ μέσου γένηται, “out of the middle becomes”, “from the midst becomes”) in the dependent clause, however, has occasioned some difficulty. This exact phrase is absent in the NT. Though the verb (from ginomai, “become”, “come to be”) is very common, ek mesou occurs only a handful of times. Excluding 2Thess 2:7, here are the NT ek mesou occurrences:

-Matt 13:49: The angels will…separate the evil ones from among the just
-Acts 17:33: Paul went out from the midst of them
-Acts 23:10: snatch him [Paul] from the middle of them
-1Cor 5:2: removed from the middle of you
-2Cor 6:17: come out from among them and be separate

Each of the above is, essentially, “from the middle/midst” or “out of the middle/midst”, though context may favor slightly different wording in English. The meaning is very much the same, however.

Some have tried to interpret this final clause using “the mystery of lawlessness” as the subject of “becomes out of the middle”. However, “the one who/which now restrains” is certainly the subject. The capable F. F. Bruce refutes such a notion:

Attempts have been made to construe the clause as though the reference were to the mystery of lawlessness “coming to pass out of the midst”—i.e. emerging from its place of concealment, but that would require εἰς μέσον [ED: accusative] not ἐκ μέσου [ED: genitive].13

Excursus: Becoming out of the Middle

To further assist in exegeting ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes” we will compare this phrase with a very similar one (same verb but different form) in a Greek romance, likely composed in the 2nd century AD. The selection below is from Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon.

To set the stage, Clitophon and Leucippe become attracted to each other after circumstances place the latter in the former’s household in Tyre. After a time, the two conspire to partake in a nighttime rendezvous in her [Leucippe’s] chambers, with the assistance of household servant Satyrus and Leucippe’s personal maidservant, Clio. On that night, moments after Clitophon lies down in her bed, Leucippe’s mother, Panthea, awakens from a nightmare, provoking her to run to her daughter’s room. Upon seeing the silhouette of a man in Leucippe’s bed, Panthea erupts in hysterics. Under cover of darkness, Clitophon escapes, eventually making his way to his room, unsure if Leucippe’s mother recognized him as he fled. He assumes the worst.

Panthea interrogates Leucippe and Clio [her maidservant] in order to determine the identity of the nighttime visitor. In this, Panthea reveals that she did not realize it was, in fact, Clitophon in her daughter’s room. With this knowledge, Leucippe lies to her mother, saying she did not know the identity of the man. Meanwhile, aware of Panthea’s revelation to her daughter, both Clitophon and Satyrus plan to flee before the entire conspiracy is exposed. With this plan conceived, they proceed to the house of Clinias, Clitophon’s cousin, in order to further prepare.

Soon after, Clio arrives at Clinias’ house, desiring to escape from her sure interrogation by torture come morning. With this, she informs Clitophon, Satyrus, and Clinias that Panthea was as yet unaware of the identity of Leucippe’s visitor. Upon hearing this, Clinias pulls Clitophon aside, suggesting they secretly and swiftly send Clio off, out of harms’ way. This would provide the opportunity for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them, as well.

Following is Clinias’ reasoning in suggesting to Clitophon that Clio be sent away. First is the Greek, which is followed by a word-for-word working translation, then a more readable rendering:

Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 2.27.2:

Οὔτε γὰρ νῦν οἶδε τῆς κόρης ἡ μήτηρ τίνα κατέλαβεν, ὡς ὑμεῖς φατε,
ὅ τε καταμηνύσων οὐκ ἔσται τῆς Κλειοῦς ἐκ μέσου γενομένης:
τάχα δὲ καὶ τὴν κόρην συμφυγεῖν πείσετε.

And-not for now she-knows, the girl’s (the) mother whom she took, as you spoke,
that but will-make-known not be (the) Clio’s out of the middle becomes.
Perhaps now and the girl flee-along-with you-persuade

“For now, the girl’s mother [Panthea] does not know whom she saw, as you said,
and there will be no one to inform her when Clio becomes out of the middle.
And then perhaps you could persuade the girl [Leucippe] to flee with you.”

Clio is currently caught between Leucippe and Leucippe’s mother, Panthea. She does not want to divulge the conspiracy, thereby incriminating herself, Leucippe, Clitophon, and Satyrus; yet, Panthea, who wants to know the identity of the night visitor, will surely attempt to torture her for the information. By following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would become out of the middle.

Her escape would also buy some time for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them all.

To restate, following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would no longer be in the middle of the situation—in the middle between Leucippe and Panthea. She would become out of the middle, removed from the entire situation. Yet, note that it is Clio’s escape that makes her become out of the middle. In other words, her escape is the means by which she becomes out of the middle. It is not some external force removing her—with help from the others, she removes herself (“becomes out of the middle”) by escaping.

We might render the above, “and there will be no one to inform her when Clio escapes”. But, this would fail to retain the poetic value of the original “becomes out of the middle”. We must be careful not to over-translate when rendering texts, thereby imposing our own interpretation upon it.

Application

Applying this excursus to 2Thess 2:7, the overarching point is that the exegete should not be constrained by the common English versions, which use verbiage such as “is removed”, “is taken out of the way”, or “gets out of the way”. It is prudent to begin with the ‘bald’ translation “becomes out of the middle”. To the extent possible, begin with a tabula rasa, a clean slate. Reach an exegetical conclusion only after considering all grammatical and contextual options.

In v. 7, the verb “becomes” can be either passive or middle. If passive, some external force/person provides the action. If middle, ‘the restrainer’ has some part in becoming out of the middle.

Considering the context of v. 8, we know that once “the one who/which now restrains” becomes out the middle, the result is the revealing of the lawless one.

Opened Avenues

Within the framework provided by this part of the current series, one can begin to explore other exegetical possibilities, unencumbered by the usual interpretations. The next segment will provide one such alternative: An Alternate Angle.

___________________________________________

7 Many would argue there is also an ellipsis in 7b, requiring the addition of a finite verb to complete it. However, it is possible ἕως, eōs (“until”) is placed postpositively, after ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι, ho katechōn arti (“the one who/which restrains now”) in order to emphasize “the restrainer”. Assuming so, 7b should be understood as a dependent clause to “The mystery of lawless is already working” instead of a separate sentence. This is the approach taken above. See, e.g., Charles A. Wannamaker, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), pp 255–256.

8 More specifically (and technically), v. 3 is missing the apodosis, which is the main (independent) clause in an ‘if-then’ conditional statement. Only the protasis, the dependent clause, is stated here (“unless [‘if not’] the rebellion comes first and…”). In other words, in the case of vv. 3–4, it is the ‘then’ part that is absent. It is probably best to place the ‘then’ in the beginning of the sentence—as most English versions do—though it can be appended to v. 4, which would yield: “…proclaiming that he himself is God, [then] that Day will not begin.” See Young’s Literal Translation (“…the day doth not come.”).

9 Relatedly, see this post Not One Parousia, But Two.

10 More specifically, it is an articular infinitive within a prepositional phrase, indicating result. See Rodney J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp 368, 372.

11 This same noun is used to begin the final book of the Bible, Revelation: The revelation/apocalypse [apokalypsis] of Jesus Christ…

12 See note 7 above.

13 F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p 171.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Early Christianity, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Introduction

July 1, 2023 14 Comments

The identity of “the restrainer” in 2Thess 2:6 and 2:7 has eluded interpreters. Myriad opinions have been proffered down the centuries, but none have gained widespread acceptance. We might just as well throw up our hands and join Augustine in a chorus of “I confess that I do not know exactly what he [Paul] means” (ego prorsus quid dixerit me fateor ignorare).1

Augustine, like some others, assumes the Thessalonians were privy to insider information that outsiders like us lack (2:5: Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things?).2 Without this essential identifying information, we grasp at straws. But perhaps this premise is misguided?

The Grammatical Puzzle

Though there are several syntactical and grammatical difficulties in this chapter, the primary puzzle appears in the difference between the neuter grammatical gender for “the restrainer” in 2:6 and the masculine in 2:7. Below we will use the NASB to illustrate this grammatical gender difference by adding a subscripted [nt] for neuter and [ms] for masculine. The italicized portions in the translation indicate words the NASB add to the underlying Greek text. The italics in brackets show alternative translations from the footnotes of the NASB. We start at the beginning of the chapter for larger context:

2:1 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure [Lit mind] or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy [Or falling away from the faith (ED: or rebellion)] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains[nt] him now, so that he will be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He [or he] who now restrains[ms] will do so until He [or he] is removed [or out of the way]. 8 Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will eliminate with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming . . .

“The restrainer” is understood to be holding back “the man of lawlessness”. With the neuter to masculine sequence, many have assumed an impersonal principle of some sort must apply to v. 6, while a personal actor related to this principle must be the subject of v. 7. Early interpreters (Tertullian, Chrysostom, e.g.) thought the slots should be filled by the Roman Empire and the Roman emperor, respectively. For those who interpret that Paul left out important identifying information, this would explain why he was seemingly evasive: Paul didn’t want Rome itself to target Thessalonian believers.

Other contenders include Paul’s missionary work, the preaching of the Gospel, Elijah, Michael the archangel, and God the Father or the Holy Spirit. The latter appears to be what the NASB translation committee/interpreters have in view with the capitalized “He” in 2:7. On this interpretation, echoing Chrysostom,3 Green wonders “why the author would make such an opaque reference to God”.4 Adding to this insight, one might wonder why Paul didn’t just spell out the references forthrightly, for, besides a Roman interpretation, there would seem to be no reason to be so indirect.

We might even question the methodology here. A neuter referent must not necessarily indicate an impersonal principle. And a masculine referent does not necessarily mean “the restrainer” is personal. For example, note that the three synonyms for the sea below differ from each other in grammatical gender. We surely would not construe a body of water as personal (except perhaps in figurative usage).

the open/deep sea = to pelagos (neuter)
the deep sea = ho bythos (masculine)
the sea/lake = hē limnē (feminine)

At root, grammatical gender is usually conditioned by the spelling of the particular word. However, as languages evolve, sometimes words can change meaning and/or spelling, which distorts the picture somewhat.5 Typically, words specifically referring to a male are grammatically masculine, while words referring to a female are grammatically feminine, but this is not always the case.6

Consider Jairus’ daughter in Mark 5. Jairus introduces her in 5:23 as his thygatrion (“little daughter”), which is grammatically neuter. Of course, the neuter hardly makes Jairus’ daughter impersonal, a non-person! Yet thygatrion (“little daughter”) is the diminutive form of thygatēr (“daughter”), which is grammatically feminine. In fact, later (5:35), men from Jairus’ house refer to the girl by that very term, thygatēr.

However, when Jesus comes to Jairus’ house to bring her back to life (5:39), He refers to her as the grammatically neuter paidion (“child”). Then, as He is about to restore her (5:41), Mark the narrator prefaces Jesus’ words with: And grasping the hand of the child [paidion (neuter)], He says to her [autē̦ (feminine)].

The account of Jairus’ daughter and the example of synonyms for the sea illustrate that we must not automatically correlate grammatical gender to personhood or non-personhood and/or biological sex. Though this methodology remains a possibility for this context, the exegete should not be constrained by such.

Contextual Considerations

We might also question the validity of the opinions proffered above on the basis that they are all absent from the context. None are found anywhere in 2 Thessalonians 2. If we were to use this as a means by which to tentatively reject such interpretations, the only possible remaining candidate from those listed above would be Rome for the reasons specified earlier.

Zooming out a bit, let us see if we can better understand the issue at hand. Paul begins this chapter with “regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him”. Related to this, we see that the Thessalonians were under the impression that the Day of the Lord had already begun. Inferring from these two concerns, it appears ‘Christ’s coming and our gathering’ falls within the Day of the Lord. Yet that Day cannot begin until the apostasy and the revealing of the lawless one.

Extracting a chronological sketch from the text, we seem to find:

-The Thessalonians were then experiencing “the mystery of lawlessness”
-This “mystery of lawlessness” will continue on, via “the restrainer”
-Once “the restrainer” is no longer ‘restraining’, the lawless one will be revealed
-After this, the Day of the Lord will begin and Jesus will come to gather His saints
-Following this, Jesus destroys the “lawless one”

This provides needed perspective.

In considering alternate exegetical methods, we might think of each occurrence of “the restrainer” as a pronoun, substituting for the thing or person it refers to. The referent could either (anaphorically) precede the pronoun, or it could (cataphorically) follow it. Examples in English should clarify:

Though Carlos scored no goals, he had two assists. (“Carlos” {anaphorically} precedes “he”)
Though he scored no goals, Carlos had two assists. (“Carlos” {cataphorically} follows “he”)

Thus, we might be able to find a reference to “the restrainer” either (anaphorically) before its occurrence or (cataphorically) after its occurrence in the text.

As we continue in this series, we will explore alternatives until we arrive at our tentative conclusion. In the next installment, we will gather a bit more background information and address one tangential aspect.

[See part II: Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Grammatical Parameters.]

_______________________________

1 The City of God against the Pagans, XX.19.

2 Ibid.

3 Homilies on 2 Thessalonians.

4 Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC); Accordance electronic ed., OakTree Software, Inc. Version 2.5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p 315. Relatedly, see my post Rapture Ready?, in which I challenge the typical pretribulation rapture doctrine of the Spirit as “the restrainer” who is removed so “the lawless one” is revealed.

5 See this article by Cindy Blanco at the Duolingo blog: Dear Duolingo: What’s up with all these gendered nouns?, as accessed 07/01/2023.

6 Relatedly, as we can see, grammatical gender does not necessarily indicate biological sex—see Misgendering the Spirit. That is, it appears that some may understand the masculine grammatical gender for “the restrainer” in 2:7 to indicate not just personhood but maleness. Cf. The Holy Spirit as “Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2? and the Contextual Considerations section just below.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Early Christianity, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries

April 14, 2023 17 Comments

In the formative years of the Christian Ekklēsia (“Church”)1 synods (councils) were convened in response to doctrinal controversies and other matters needing refinement. Those synods gaining acceptance in the Ekklēsia at large became known as ecumenical councils.2 Eventually a total of Seven Ecumenical Councils were called.3 The very first of these was the First Council of Nicaea in 325.4

Nicaea 325 primarily sought to define the Divine nature of the person of Jesus Christ, by clarifying His ontological relationship to God the Father—as revealed by Scripture.5 The goal was to settle Christological controversy (see Arius and Arianism).6 The Nicene Creed of 325 resulted. Nevertheless the controversy raged on, so a second council was convened to end it at last.7 Delegates gathered in Constantinople in 381. Another synod was held in this same city in 553; so, somewhat confusingly, this Second Ecumenical Council became known as the First Council of Constantinople (381).8

At this First Council of Constantinople in 381 the Nicene Creed of 325 was both expanded and stream-lined. This new Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) was later known simply as “the Nicene Creed”.9 To alleviate possible confusion, we will call it “the 381 Nicene Creed”.

The 381 Nicene Creed

The original text of the 381 Nicene Creed is in Greek. Philip Schaff’s Greek text in The Creeds of Christendom undergirds the translation below.10 This translation (mine) differs a bit from Schaff’s own English (as found, e.g., in the Wikipedia entry).11 Important Greek words are bracketed and placed just after their English counterparts. Explanations for their importance will follow. Words repeated in the Creed for the apparent purpose of comparison or contrast are color-coded. “We believe” is in the original text only once, opening the Creed, but is parenthetically inserted at points for readability:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And (we believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ—the sole-kin/kind [monogenēs] Son of God, begotten [gennaō] of the Father before all ages [aiōn], Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten [gennaō] not made [poieō], coessential [homo-ousia] with the Father—through whom all things came to be; Who, for us men [anthrōpos] and for our salvation, descended from heaven—enfleshed by the Holy Spirit, and of the virgin Mary—and became man [en-anthrōpos]; Who was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, endured suffering, was buried, rose on the third day according to the Scriptures, and then ascended into heaven, and now sits at the right hand of the Father; and Who again will come with glory to judge the living and the dead—Him in whose kingdom there will be no end.

And (we believe) in the Holy Spirit, the Life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets.

(We believe) in one holy, universal [katholikos], and apostolic Ekklēsia; we profess one baptism for remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and to the life of the age [aiōn] to come. Amen.12

Before proceeding further we must acknowledge that the Creed cannot be understood as on par with Scripture. Yet, in agreement with Oliver Crisp, this creedal statement and others from the Seven Ecumenical Councils “are theologically binding because they are repositories of dogmatic reflection upon Scripture by the undivided Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”13 Accordingly, we must affirm that the above Creed is an accurate Scriptural interpretation. As such, it erects proper doctrinal borders within which to confine ourselves, in order to remain within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

This is not to state the 381 Creed is an exhaustive treatise on Christology, theology, or the Trinity. It is not. Yet one should be careful not to deviate from any of its language or tenets.

Examining the Text and Context

Applying a bit of discourse analysis may illumine the intents and purposes of the drafters.

While large portions of the 381 Creed adopt or paraphrase Scripture, the majority of the Creed is built around 1Corinthians 8:6, borrowing or mirroring its Greek text.

The first section sources one God the Father, (eĩs Theos ho Patēr) from 1Cor 8:6, inserts Almighty, then adds bits and paraphrasing of Colossians 1:16 (heaven and earth, visible and invisible). Both verses overlap in all things (panta). Yet, interestingly, the New Testament (NT) context of the Colossians verse refers to the Son as agent of creation, with the Father as implied Creator, whereas here in the Creed the Father is explicitly Maker. This appears to serve the dual purpose of making explicit what is implied in Col 1:16 (Father as Maker), while alluding to its explicit meaning (Son as agent). This allusion, then, provides a suitable bridge to the next section.

In the second section of the Creed, the middle portion of 1Cor 8:6 is found in the use of one Lord Jesus Christ (eĩs Kyrios Iēsous Christos). Then the text inserts descriptors of Christ (evidenced by my use of em dashes in the translation) before the resumption of 1Cor 8:6, which illustrates the Son’s agency in creation: through Whom all things (di’ oũ ta panta).14 This verbiage approximates that of John 1:3 (panta di’ auto, =all things through Him), and the Creed adds came-to-be (egento) from that verse in John.

The second section also appears to contain a chiastic pattern.15 It opens and closes with the portions of the Corinthians verse noted just above, thus providing an inclusio, framing this subsection:

A1 one Lord Jesus Christ . . .
–– B1 monogenēs Son of God
––– C1 begotten of the Father before all ages
––––– D1 Light of Light
––––– D2 true God of true God
––– C2 begotten not made
–– B2 homo-ousia with the Father
A2 . . . through Whom all things came to be

A1 begins and A2 ends this subsection. We can readily see that C2 is intended to parallel C1 in the repeating of begotten. The same applies to D1 and D2, given the obvious parallelism of Light of Light and God of God. Therefore, in similar fashion, B2 is probably meant to parallel B1 in some key way. Assuming so, the juxtaposition of monogenēs with homo-ousia may assist in defining the former through an understanding of the latter.

Much more can be gleaned, but this will suffice for our purposes here.

The words highlighted in the Creed will be expounded upon in future posts.

_______________________

1 I prefer Ekklēsia over “Church” given the convoluted etymology of the latter. For explanation see Re-Assembly Required.

2 See Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 14 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp xi–xii. Also found at Christian Classics Ethereal Library—here.

3 But not every current Christian tradition affirms them all. The resultant creedal statements are more likely to be affirmed while the associated canons are more likely to be rejected (or forgotten!). Regardless of tradition, I think it important that the individual believer be at least somewhat familiar with these seven.

4 Confusingly, there was another council held in Nicaea in 787, accounting for why this is known as the “First Council of Nicaea”. The 787 is the “Second Council of Nicaea”. A similar thing occurred in Constantinople, as we shall see.

5 Though see Schaff and Wace, Seven Ecumenical Councils: “The question they were called upon to answer was not ‘What do I think is probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture?’ but, ‘What have I been taught, what has been intrusted [sic] to me to hand down to others?’” (p 2). However, one must ask what exactly was handed down but that which was assumed to have been properly exegeted and interpreted from the Scriptures? In fact the Schaff and Wace verbiage on the next two pages (pp 3–4 [in EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HOMOUSIOS]) appears to contradict this statement.

6 See Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), pp 368–371.

7 See Allison, Historical Theology, pp 371–372.

8 So the 553 council became known as the “Second Council of Constantinople”. There was even a third synod convened in this same city, held 680–681, which became known as the “Third Council of Constantinople”.

9 See Allison, Historical Theology, p 372.

10 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, ed. David S. Schaff, 3 Vols., 6th ed. (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1931; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), pp II.57–58.

11 See Schaff, Creeds, I.28–29. Translation below is mine, with help from: Rodney J. Decker, Koine Greek Reader: Selections from the New Testament, Septuagint, and Early Christian Writers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), pp 229–235; Gerald O’Collins, The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999), p 115.

12 Some of the differences between my translation and Schaff’s include “before all ages” in place of Schaff’s “before all worlds” and “through Whom all things came to be” in place of “by Whom all things were made”. On the former, the Greek is (as noted) aiōn, which is more literally “ages”, whereas the word for “worlds” would be kosmos. On the latter, the Greek preposition dia (διά) means’ “through” in dynamic contexts (see here), which seems best suited here, as opposed to Schaff’s “by”. Moreover, Schaff’s “were made” would imply that the Greek word is poieō or something similar (e.g. ktizō), while it is instead ginomai (here as the aorist egeneto), which is better rendered “came to be” or “became”. Taken together, this phrase best represents the Son as agent of creation: The Father, as Maker, created through the Son. See below.

13 Oliver D. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (London/New York: T & T Clark, 2009), p 13; cf. p 14, esp. note 10.

14 It should be noted that this entire verse (1Cor 8:6) is verb-less—“to be” is to be assumed from 8:4–5. Accordingly, these are added to English versions in at least three different places in the verse (is . . . are . . . are).

15 See Palindromes and Chiastic Structures. Such patterns serve as mnemonic devices.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Early Christianity, Faith, Gospel, Greek Language studies, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Passion, Redemption, Resurrection, Salvation, Scripture, The Cross, Trinity Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Confusing Eschatology

December 29, 2022 9 Comments

The vlog below is very well presented. The speaker has a good grasp of Jewish eschatological expectations as well as Christian eschatology. His presentation likely finds allies in ‘former’ Christians, those acquainted with and/or adhering to orthodox Jewish beliefs, and those generally opposed to Christianity.

His basic premise is that the split nature of Christian eschatology, specifically the ‘already’ (inaugurated eschatology) and the ‘not yet’ (future eschatology)—which is at odds with Jewish expectations—was a Christian invention in the wake of Jesus’ death. In accordance with this view, he thinks the New Testament writers fabricated Jesus’ resurrection as a means by which to alleviate the supposed cognitive dissonance resulting from His Crucifixion. Furthermore, he claims that the 2000 year gap between Jesus’ first century appearance in flesh and the Second Coming makes such a split view of eschatology even more untenable.

There are many ways to counter his views; however, given that he does not affirm the NT writings as (in any way?) authentic, the argument would be unable to properly proceed. Yet, there are a number of Old Testament passages one could point to, the first of which I think should be Isaiah 53. Surely, if this is describing the Messiah, and yet Jewish expectations include a Messianic reign, then the Resurrection must implicitly be part of the plan. Motyer lays out Isaiah’s implied resurrection in 53:10–12 succinctly:

Isaiah does not use the word ‘resurrection’ but these verses display the Servant ‘alive after suffering’ (Acts 1:3). Not, however, alive in the Old Testament sense that the dead possess in the half-life of Sheol  [ED: cf. Luke 16:19–31] . . . The dead (9) is alive (10), the condemned (8) is righteous (11), the helpless (7) is the Victor (12).1

The way the vlogger chooses to discount the split aspect of Christian eschatology, though, is problematic. In tune with his confirmation bias, he posits a false analogy. He uses failed ‘prophecy’ in the form of Second Coming predictions—even though such predictions violate the Scriptures Christian orthodoxy accepts—to ‘prove’ how Christians use Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) to resolve such failed prophecy.

He uses the Millerites and Seventh Day Adventism as his example, in which the failed date-setting is salvaged via a ‘spiritualized’ fulfillment, while the Second Coming remains yet future. He then implicitly equates this to the Resurrection and its attendant eschatology, suggesting that first century Christians supposedly used similar CDT in order to relieve their dissonance following Jesus’ Crucifixion.

My point in posting this is to show merely one way a person can try to cast doubt on the truths contained in Scripture. It’s all about one’s presuppositions.

________________

1 J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary [TOTC], (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009 [1999]), p 381 (I Capitalized “Victor”).

____________________________

Related:

Creating Straw Men from Cognitive Dissonance

Filed under Bible, Book Review - general, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Early Christianity, Eschatology, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Kingdom of God, logical fallacies, Pop Culture, Resurrection Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

God Came to Abide with Us

December 25, 2022 3 Comments

God came to abide with humanity and at the hands of humanity die,
so forever in His made-without-hands abode could humanity too reside.

__________________________________________________

Posts of Christmas past:

Coming Soon Near You!

Today an Eternal Present was Unveiled in the City of David

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Devotional, Eschatology, Gospel, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Passion, Redemption, Resurrection, Salvation, The Cross Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Hymn to God and Jesus

July 10, 2022 3 Comments

This song has long been somewhat of an enigma for me. It clearly lays out the Gospel message and has appropriate accompanying music, which builds as it goes. Yet it contains some lyrics that strike me as a bit odd, out of place. Despite my own reservations, it may function well enough as a nice praise/worship song. Those familiar with the song may find my critique here a bit too—well—critical.

The song is “Hymn” by the progressive rock band Barclay James Harvest, the first track from their 1977 album Gone to Earth. See/hear video below the lyrics:

“HYMN”
(John Lees)

Valleys deep and the mountains so high
If you want to see God you’ve got to move on the other side
You stand up there with your head in the clouds
Don’t try to fly you know you might not come down
Don’t try to fly, dear God, you might not come down

Jesus came down from Heaven to earth
The people said it was a virgin birth
Jesus came down from Heaven to earth
The People said it was a virgin birth
The People said it was a virgin birth

He told great stories of the Lord
And said He was the Saviour of us all
He told great stories of the Lord
And said He was the Saviour of us all
And said He was the Saviour of us all

For this we killed Him, nailed Him up high
He rose again as if to ask us why
Then He ascended into the sky
As if to say in God alone you soar
As if to say in God alone we fly

Valleys deep and the mountains so high
If you want to see God you’ve got to move on the other side
You stand up there with your head in the clouds
Don’t try to fly you know you might not come down
Don’t try to fly, dear God, you might not come down

The first two lines together declare God as Creator. And though the second line affirms that no one can see God and live (Exodus 33:20; Isaiah 6:5–7; John 1:18, 6:46; 1John 4:12), it yet also seems a bit out of character with the rest of the verse. And the song. More on this further below.1

The next verse lays out the Virgin Birth. I could quibble, but it adequately functions as part of a simple worship song.  The third verse calls Jesus “Saviour of us all” (British spelling). It works well enough in the context of the song (though, again, I could quibble).

But the theological rubber hits the road in the fourth verse. After verses two and three proclaim Jesus’ coming to earth—and recall the album’s title Gone to Earth—being born of a virgin, and being “Saviour”, verse four declares His death by crucifixion (“For this we killed Him, nailed Him up high”) and His resurrection from the dead. The words “as if to ask us why” can be chalked up to poetic license to rhyme. The final two lines can be interpreted as Jesus being the first-fruits of many. That’s the Gospel!

The final verse is identical to the first. As such, they provide bookends to the Gospel message in between. So how does the song cohere?

According to one (secondary) source, the song is—presumably first quoting John Lees, the writer here—“’primarily about the dangers of drug abuse’ comparing it with the spiritual high of religion.”2 So now we have the interpretive key!

The first line has a double meaning. Besides the one described above, it refers to being high and, conversely, low in an illicit drug sense. This, then, makes sense of the rest of the lines. Some abusers have remarked how drug highs have a spiritual/religious feeling—a sense of ‘God’s’ presence or even seeing ‘God’. But Lees explains that this cannot be done in this life, but “on the other side”.

I think the reader can understand the rest.

So what do you think? Could this song be used in a Christian setting?

P.S. (Pre-Script)

I don’t know that I ever would have heard “Hymn” had it not been for a radio station I listened to when I was a teenager. My introduction to Barclay James Harvest was the track “May Day”, from their 1976 album Octoberon, when the station played the selection upon the album’s release. Though I was intrigued by the music and lyrics, it was the completely unexpected choral/orchestral (the latter likely using keyboards) ending that captivated me (beginning at around 4:53 in the video/vlog further below). I’d never heard such an unusual juxtaposition before. I bought the LP shortly after my initial hearing of this song. From there I explored some of the band’s other output, eventually acquiring the album Gone To Earth, but this was well-before my Christian conversion.

At the time I picked up Octoberon I was not yet aware of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, so I didn’t have a point of reference for the lyrics.3 Oh, but now I certainly do:

“MAY DAY”
(John Lees)

The rock on which I stand is slowly sinking in the sand
The sheer realities of life are rushing by
I am looking out at life and I don’t know what’s wrong or right
And I can’t even see the bright side of the moon

I stopped a man in the street today
And I asked him, “Sir, is it night or day?”
He just stared in disbelief
I asked again but he walked away
He said, “Don’t you know?”
I said, “Can’t you say? Is there something in between?
Is it something I’ve not seen?
Did it change so fast or was it just a dream?”

Time and time again I’ve tried to recreate the past few days
Evaluate the constants from the haze
But every time I think I’m right, they say I’m wrong
“This day is night and night is day –
It’s there in black and white”

Night is light and dark is day
If I disagree they say I’m insane
And the treatment will begin
If I say that the day is light
They just point my eyes to the blinding night, saying,
“We can’t set you free if you always disagree,
So the State is going to pay your doctor’s fee”

They put me out in the pouring rain
To enjoy the sun or to feel the pain
Of the nightmare life’s become
I asked a man in the street today
Or was it yesterday or the day before?
“Is there something I’ve not seen?
Is there something in between?
Did it change so fast or was it just a dream?”

The rock on which I stand is now beneath the ever-flowing sand
The sheer realities are here to stay
I’m looking out at life and now I know what’s wrong and right
It’s what you hear and what you read and what they say

I saw a man in the street today
Asked another man, “Is it night or day?”
He just stared in disbelief
He said, “Friend, it’s your lucky day
I’m a party man, won’t you step this way?
I’ve got something you’ve not seen.”
Now I know it’s not a dream
It just came so fast, that something in between

1 I also wince at the fifth line’s “dear God”, for, to me, it breaches the 3rd Commandment.  Lyrically, I understand why Lees wrote it in, but it comes off a bit frivolous. It doesn’t appear reverential but as a parallel to “you know” in the fourth line; but, “oh no” would have been much better. In fact, I propose that substitution for anyone wishing to cover the song.
2 See Songfacts.
3 The lyrics may have been influenced by David Bowie’s 1974 LP Diamond Dogs, with its dystopian landscape, as based on Orwell’s book. Bowie uses hyperbole to get the dystopian message across, then exaggerates the extent to which one will go to numb its inevitable emotional toll: They’ll split your pretty cranium, and fill it full of air / And tell you that you’re eighty, but brother, you won’t care / You’ll be shooting up on anything, tomorrow’s never there / Beware the savage jaw of 1984 (“1984”). But after the requisite preconditioning, the apocalyptic vision is accepted, welcomed: Someone to claim us, someone to follow / Someone to shame us, some brave Apollo / Someone to fool us, someone like you / We want you Big Brother (“Big Brother”). For his part, John Lees describes the workings and outworkings of the ‘Ministry of Truth’.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Eschatology, Gospel, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Personal Testimony, Pop Culture, Record Review, Resurrection, Salvation, Scripture, The Cross Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started