Theology

Archived Posts from this Category

January 7, 2011

My “Spiritual Bodies” Experience: How to Spot Exegetical Nonsense

Posted by Jason Dulle under Hermeneutics, Odds & Ends, Theology, Thinking
[10] Comments 

translationA couple of months ago we had a guest preacher at our church.  He was a seasoned preacher, and overall, his message was edifying.  There was one point he made, however, that had me shaking my head.  He quoted John 14:2 where Jesus says “in my house are many mansions,” and then went on to explain that in the Greek this literally means “spiritual bodies.”

When we got home my wife asked me what I thought of the message.  I told her I liked it, except for his absurd interpretation of John 14:2.  She asked if I had looked up the Greek to know that this was the case.  I told her no.  She asked how I knew it was absurd, then.  Here is what I said, and what I want to share with you: If someone says the correct translation of a certain word is radically different than the translation appearing in mainstream translations, then you can bet your bottom dollar the person is mistaken. Think about it, what are the chances that hundreds of individuals who dedicated their entire lives to understanding the Biblical languages are going to miss the boat by a mile, but an individual who has no specialized training in Biblical languages is going to get it right simply by looking up a few words in Strong’s Concordance?

(more…)

 

December 15, 2010

Incest May Become Legal in Switzerland

Posted by Jason Dulle under Ethics, Politics, Sin, Social, Theology
[25] Comments 

Switzerland wants to de-criminalize adult, consensual incest.  What do you think of this move?  Do you think incest should be de-criminalized?  All of it, or just certain forms (e.g. de-criminalizing incest between siblings, but keeping father-daughter incest illegal)?  

For Christian readers of this blog who may disagree with it, I would like to know how you reconcile your opposition to incest with examples of incest in the Old Testament.

 

December 6, 2010

The Ethics of Music/Movie Copying & Downloading

Posted by Jason Dulle under Ethics
[36] Comments 

I want to raise an ethical issue for your consideration and input: copying and/or downloading music/movies.  Is this a form of theft, or is it morally acceptable?  This has become a widespread practice in the culture at large, as well as by Christians.

I am thinking of the following scenarios:

  1. Your friend purchased a CD you’ve been wanting to listen to.  S/he lets you borrow it, and you subsequently download the tracks to your computer and burn them onto a CD to keep for yourself.  Is this theft?
  2. Your friend illegally downloaded a CD you’ve been wanting to listen to.  S/he tells you s/he’ll let you borrow it.  Should you do so?
  3. Your friend bought a new Bible study program for his computer.  You would like to have it too, but don’t have the money to buy it yourself.  Your friend is willing to let you install his copy on your computer.  Should you?
  4. A man on the street is selling bootleg DVDs.  Is it morally acceptable to buy them?
  5. You download movies from the internet for free, and store them on your computer indefinitely, or burn it to a DVD that you keep in your permanent DVD library.  Is this theft?
  6. You download movies from the internet for free, but delete them (or destroy the disk) after you have watched them.  Is this theft?

(more…)

 

December 3, 2010

The Gospels: Why Did It Take So Long for the Church to Write About Jesus?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bible, Historical Jesus, Theology
[13] Comments 

Our earliest canonical Gospel, Mark, was probably written sometime in the early or mid50s, approximately 20-25 years after Jesus ascended to heaven.  Many have wondered why it took so long for Jesus’ followers to commit His teachings and deeds to writing.  The most common answer is that they did not feel the need because they expected the imminent return of Christ.  If Jesus was coming back soon, why bother?  This answer is not adequate, however.  First, it presumes that Jesus’ followers expected His imminent return.  This is debatable.  More importantly, we know from experience that groups expecting an impending apocalypse are often voluminous writers.  Consider the Qumran community in Jesus’ day.  They were expecting the imminent Day of the Lord, and yet they produced an abundance of written materials.  An even more pertinent example is modern believers who espouse to a pre-tribulation, “at-any-moment” understanding of the return of Christ.  Few have hotter print-presses than this group!

Why, then, did they not write sooner?  Perhaps they did, but those documents were not preserved.  Luke tells us that “many have undertaken [the task] to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,” and he utilized at least some of those sources in the production of his own gospel (Luke 1:1-4).  Luke’s gospel was probably written in the late 50s or early 60’s.  For Luke to be aware of these other writings, they must have been written much earlier, possibly much earlier than Mark’s gospel.

(more…)

 

November 30, 2010

What I’ve Been Reading–Mark’s Ending: The Long and Short of It

Posted by Jason Dulle under Book Reviews, Textual Criticism, Theology
[10] Comments 

I have long been interested in the debate over the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, known as the long ending of Mark (LEM).  Recently, I read Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views by Daniel Wallace, David Alan Black, Keith Elliott, Maurice Robinson, and Darrell Bock.  Each author takes a different perspective on the ending of Mark:

  • Wallace = LEM is not original.  Mark ended his gospel at 16:8. (In Bock’s closing summary of the book, he noted his agreement with this position.)
  • Elliott = LEM is not original.  Original ending has been lost.
  • Robinson = LEM is original.
  • Black = LEM is original, but was added by Mark as part of a “second edition” to round our Peter’s lectures.

Of the four, I think Wallace presented the most convincing case, and Black the least convincing.  I will summarize the evidence/arguments for and against the LEM in hopes that this will help you sort through this issue as much as it helped me.

(more…)

 

November 29, 2010

Judas’ Demise: A Contradiction?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible Difficulties, Theology
[5] Comments 

Mt 27: 3-8  Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, 27:4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” 27:5 So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself. 27:6 The chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not lawful to put this into the temple treasury, since it is blood money.” 27:7 After consulting together they bought the Potter’s Field with it, as a burial place for foreigners. 27:8 For this reason that field has been called the “Field of Blood” to this day. (NET)

Acts 1:18  Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. (NET)

This is a favorite “contradiction” appealed to by skeptics to demonstrate the unreliability of the Bible.  But are these two passages really contradicting one another?  After all, it’s not as though Matthew tells us Judas hanged himself, and Luke says he didn’t hang himself.  In fact, Luke doesn’t even tell us how he died.  He only tells us that he fell headfirst and his guts gushed out.  Clearly this cannot be referring to the mode of his death because falling down, in and of itself, cannot cause someone’s belly to burst open and expose his intestines!  Falling from a distance, however, could.  If Judas was hanged as Matthew tells us, it would provide the fall-distance necessary to explain the phenomenon Luke records for us.  Indeed, if Judas hanged himself and his body was left on the tree rather than being removed, his body would have begun to decay, and his belly would have swollen.  Once he was caused to fall (for whatever reason: the rope giving way, his head slipping out of the noose, etc.), his belly would have easily burst open and his guts gushed out.  Matthew’s account and Luke’s account are harmonious, not contradictory.

 

November 23, 2010

Which edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT did Stephanus use?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible, Theology
[5] Comments 

I’ve been researching and writing on the history of the Textus Receptus recently.  There is a data point that I can’t seem to pinpoint.  I’m hoping some of you might be able to help me find the answer.

Erasmus produced five editions of his Greek NT.  Stephanus used Erasmus’ text to create four more editions.  But what edition of Erasmus’ text did Stephanus use?  I don’t see this being addressed much in the literature, and when it is, I am getting conflicting info.  Some say he used Erasmus’ 3rd edition, while others say he used Erasmus’ 4th and 5th editions.  I’m thinking that perhaps Stephanus used Erasmus’ 3rd edition for his own first edition, but then switched course and used Erasmus’ 4th and 5th editions as the basis for his (Stephanus’) 1550 edition.

One thing I’m having trouble understanding is how the mistakes Erasmus introduced into the last six verses of Revelation have made their way into the modern Textus Receptus if Stephanus used Erasmus’ 4th and 5th editions since Erasmus fixed most of those mistakes in his 4th edition.

Is there anybody who has a lot of knowledge about the history of the TR who can help me out on these questions?

 

November 22, 2010

Acts: The Continuation of Jesus’ Ministry

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
1 Comment 

I was listening to a lecture on Acts recently and something pretty basic about Luke’s intent clicked for me in a way it hadn’t before.  Luke began his second work with these words:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, [2] until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. [3] He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. [4] And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; [5] for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” [6] So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” [7] He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. [8] But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:1-8 ESV)

By saying he had previously written of the things Jesus “began” to do and teach, Luke implies that what he is about to write in the second book will be the things Jesus continued to do and teach.  How could this be, however, seeing that Jesus had already ascended into heaven at the end of Luke’s gospel?  Luke tells us.  Jesus taught the apostles via the Holy Spirit while He was still on Earth (v. 2).  He also worked miracles through the Spirit.  Now, that same Holy Spirit would be given to the apostles so they could be empowered to spread the news, mission, and kingdom of Christ on the Earth (vs. 4-8).  Luke’s point is that Jesus’ teachings and ministry continues through the church.

This ties into Luke’s comments about the kingdom of God.  Some may have thought the messianic age was delayed since Jesus had ascended to heaven.  After all, the Jews were expecting an earthly kingdom.   Luke’s answer is that the messianic age did not end with the ascension of Christ.  Jesus is king, and Jesus is reigning even though He is not here in the flesh.  How so?  Through His church.  With the Spirit in us Jesus is present on the Earth, and reigns through us.

 

November 16, 2010

Reifying “Natures” = Two Persons

Posted by Jason Dulle under Christology, Theology, Theology Proper
[73] Comments 

Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) have always struggled to explain the duality of activity and consciousness we see portrayed in Scripture between the Father and Son.  The Father is doing one thing, while the Son is doing another; the Father knows all things, while the Son knows only what the Father reveals to Him; the Father is prayed to, while the Son prays.  How can this distinction of activity and consciousness be explained other than in terms of multiple persons?  Admittedly, that would be the most obvious and natural explanation.  And yet, because we are persuaded that the Biblical affirmation of monotheism extends both to God’s essence and God’s person, OPs have sought an alternative explanation that is Biblically and philosophically sound.

The standard way of explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures.  The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y.  On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature.  What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.”  What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.”  Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities.  On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another.  The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.

(more…)

 

November 14, 2010

Parallel between the Original Commission and the Great Commission

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[2] Comments 

I was listening to a Reasons to Believe podcast the other day.  Fazale Rana raised an interesting observation I had never heard or considered before.  He noted a parallel between God’s original commission, and Jesus’ Great Commission:

“So God created man in his own image….  And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” (Genesis 1:27a, 28)

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20)

In the beginning of creation, God commissioned humanity to multiply themselves in number (through sex), and fill the earth.  Similarly, in the beginning of the new age of the Spirit, Jesus commissions the disciples to multiply themselves in number (through evangelism and discipleship) throughout the earth.  Whereas the first commission was aimed at proliferating human life globally, the new commission was aimed at proliferating eternal life globally.  The sons of Adam had filled the earth, but a new commission was needed to fill the earth with the sons of God.

 

November 11, 2010

Oldest Greek copy of Acts 2:38

Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible
[4] Comments 

I thought you might be interested in seeing the oldest Greek manuscript containing Acts 2:38.  It is found in Codex Sinaiticus, a mid-4th century manuscript.  Here is the page of the codex it is found in (2nd column, middle):

(more…)

 

October 29, 2010

Myth: Rope on High Priest’s Ankle

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[2] Comments 

I’m sure many of you have heard a preacher talk about how the high priest would tie a rope around his ankle before entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement so that if God struck him dead, his body could be removed without anyone else having to enter the forbidden chamber.  Apparently this is a myth.  There’s no historical evidence for this.  The first mention of the practice is in a 13th century A.D. text called the Zohar, and it claims it was a gold chain, not a rope.  An article by Ari Zivotofsky goes into more detail, providing evidence against such a claim.

 

October 15, 2010

In the beginning: John vs. Moses

Posted by Jason Dulle under Christology, Hermeneutics, Theology
[31] Comments 

The Bible begins with one of the most famous proclamations of all time: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  Theologians have historically understood “in the beginning” to refer to the very beginning of time itself.  It was the boundary between timeless eternity and temporality. 

Fast forward to the first century A.D.  John opens his gospel about Jesus Christ with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”  The resemblance to Genesis is unmistakable.  Both Moses and John begin their work with “in the beginning,” and both speak of the creative word of God. 

The question arises as to whether John is using “in the beginning” in the same way as Moses.  For Moses it referred to the beginning of time and creation, but that’s how John is using it, then to say the Word was “in the beginning” seems to imply that the Word was not eternal, but a created entity who began to exist concomitantly with the created realm.  Clearly this cannot be the correct interpretation because John 1:1 identifies the Word as being God (whom we know is eternal, and thus existed “prior to” the universe), and John 1:3 identifies the Word as the uncreated creator.  Why, then, would John say the Word was “in the beginning?”  Why not say Jesus was “before the beginning” or “before the ages?”  What is your take on the matter?

 

October 5, 2010

Intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology, Tongues
[106] Comments 

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

I have always heard this verse interpreted as a reference to praying in tongues.  This seems unlikely, however, since tongues can hardly be described as “groanings,” and tongues are “uttered.”  So what is Paul talking about?  I’ve heard people groaning before, but even those groans are uttered.  I can’t even make sense of an unutterable groan.

And who is doing the interceding?  It’s commonly understood that the Spirit is interceding through human beings, but as I read the text, the Spirit makes intercession “for” us, not “trough” us.  If so, what does it mean to say the Holy Spirit groans?

Does anyone have any insight on the meaning of this passage they would like to share?

 

September 28, 2010

Why Moses Included the Account of Mankind’s Fall

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[3] Comments 

I realized something the other day that I had never picked up on before.  Genesis opens up with an account of man’s creation and fall.  I’ve always taken it as obvious that Moses included the story because he wanted to detail the history of Israel all the way back to creation.  Additionally, however, I think Moses had a very practical reason for including the story: It served as a warning to the nation of Israel.  Just as God had prepared a garden for the first humans to live in, God had also prepared the land of Canaan for the Israelites to inhabit.  And just as God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden because of their disobedience to God’s covenant with them, likewise God would expel the children of Israel from the land of Canaan if they disobeyed the covenant God had made with them.  Adam and Eve’s experience served as a literary and historical example for Israel to learn from, lest they experience the same fate in Canaan.

 

September 20, 2010

A Theology of the Image of God in Man

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[2] Comments 

Justin Taylor posted a nice primer on a Biblical theology of the image of God in man.  Man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26; 9:6; James 3:9).  Though that image became marred by sin, it was passed on to Adam’s posterity (Gen 5:3; 1 Cor 15:49).  In contrast to man who was made in the image of God, Jesus is the image of God (Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4).  The Christian hope is to be fully transformed into Christ’s image.  We have begun to experience that transformation already (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), and will see the fulfillment of the process at the return of Christ (1 Cor 15:49; 1 John 3:2).

 

September 9, 2010

Miracles and the Laws of Nature

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Philosophy, Science, Theology
[7] Comments 

Many non-theists object to the concept of miracles on the grounds that miracles would require a violation of the laws of nature.  They reason as follows:

P1  The laws of nature cannot be violated
P2  A miracle would violate the laws of nature
C    Miracles are not possible

Both premises of this argument are flawed, and for the same reason: the laws of nature are construed as mind-independent, physical realities possessing causal properties.  I think this conception of natural laws is mistaken.

(more…)

 

August 17, 2010

How to tell if someone is a Nestorian

Posted by Jason Dulle under Christology, Theology
[48] Comments 

I have devised a test to quickly determine whether someone holds to a Nestorian Christology.  Ask, “What would have happened to Jesus’ body if the Spirit would have departed from it prior to Jesus’ death on the cross?”  If they answer that Jesus would have continued to live and function, they hold to a Nestorian Christology.  Here’s why:

(more…)

 

July 20, 2010

Omnipotence and Monotheism II

Posted by Jason Dulle under Nature of God, Theology, Theology Proper
[28] Comments 

Back in March I authored a post titled “Omnipotence and Monotheism,” in which I argued that the divine property of omnipotence does not prove monotheism as I had once thought because power is not a substance, and thus need not be exhausted by a single being.  Power is simply the ability to do some X.  Omnipotence, then, is just the property of possessing the ability to do any and all things that are logically possible to do.  It seemed logically possible to me that there could be more than one being who possessed the ability to do anything that is logically possible.  The only logical grounds I could see for postulating monotheism was the principle of parsimony: no more than one God is needed to explain phenomena such as the origin of the universe, and thus there is no reason to postulate more than one divine being.  Parsimony, however, does not make monotheism logically necessary.

With further dialogue on this topic in another forum, I believe I now have the logical grounds on which to conclude that monotheism is logically necessary, and ironically, it involves the divine property of omnipotence!  Any being – if he possesses the property of omnipotence – must possess the ability to destroy other beings, and yet two omnipotent beings could not destroy each other.  If omnipotent being A (OBA) cannot destroy omnipotent being B (OBB), then OBA lacks the power to do some X, and thus is not omnipotent after all.  The same would be true of OBB, leaving us without a being that is truly omnipotent.  And yet, if God is a metaphysically necessary being and omnipotence is a divine property, then omnipotence is a metaphysically necessary property.  Since the property of omnipotence can only obtain in a world in which a single being possesses such a property, there can only be one divine being.  While omnipotence does not prove monotheism in the manner I originally envisioned, omnipotence does make monotheism logically necessary.

(more…)

 

July 15, 2010

The Apostles’ Kids

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Theology
Leave a Comment 

I was reading an article today in which the author was making the case that Mark wrote his Gospel based on the testimony of Peter.  To demonstrate an association between the two he quoted 1 Peter 5:13: “The church in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does Mark, my son.”  Mark, it was claimed, is John Mark—cousin of Barnabas, one-time traveling companion of Paul, and author of the Gospel according to Mark.  While this may be true given Paul’s use of “my son” to refer to close non-relatives in the faith (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 2:1; Tit 1:4; Phm 10), why not be open to the possibility that “Mark” refers to Peter’s actual blood son, and not John Mark the author of the canonical gospel?

This got me thinking.  Most, if not all of Jesus’ apostles had children, and yet I have never heard of any historical information about their identities or their deeds.  Did they follow in the footsteps of their fathers as preachers of the Gospel?  Did any backslide?  Is anyone aware of anything in the historical record?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »