Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 1:20-23

ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐγείρας ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐποθρανίοις ὑπεράνω πασῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένο οὐ μονόν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τοῦτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι καὶ ὑπέταξεν πάντα ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν κεφαλὴν ὑπερ πάντα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ πληρουμένου τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. Who worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and causing him to sit down at his right hand in the heavenly realms far about every ruler and authority and power and angelic lord, and every name being named, not only in this age but also in the coming one, and subordinated all things under his feet, and gave him as head over all things in the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every respect.

Paul really likes long sentences. Ephesians 1:20-23 is long, but it is actually tied to the "action" of v. 19, so that it is part of the previous sentence, vv. 15-23. What we have is really one long sentence from v. 15 through v. 23. The English translations and even the Greek text in Nesle-Aland split up this long sentence into smaller sentences for better English understanding. Βut we should consider vv. 15-23 as one sentence. This consideration is not really a problem, for Paul already did give a long sentence (vv. 3-14), and so the style is in keeping with what we have already seen in Ephesians.

God is now seen as the one who worked in the Messiah. He worked in Christ in four ways. First, he raised him from the dead.  The verb here is an aorist participle, identifying that this action constitutes the result of the work God has done in Christ. What work did God do? He raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Second, he caused Christ to sit down at his right hand. This verb is also an aorist participle identifying the result of the work God has done in Christ. Not only did God raise him from the dead, but he also sat him down at his right hand. This action signifies judgment in First Century usage. Sitting down at the right hand is also significant; this position was of the favored one (we might say that the Son became the Father's right-hand man). Christ is placed by the Father into a position of foremost authority where he is seen as the judge. He is placed as the authority in the heavenly realms and is superior to every ruler, authority, power and angelic lord, and every name being named. There is no one, human or spirit, who is not under Christ's position of authority. This truth applies to this age and the one that is coming. Third, God subordinated all things under his feet. Everything is subject to Christ, who rules over all things. Fourth, he appointed Christ as head over all things in the church. The church, that is, the church universal, is the body of Christ and Christ is the head of the church, being placed there by the Father. The church is the fullness of Christ, and Christ is the one who fulfills all things in every respect.

Who worked in Christ, with the result that he raised him from the dead, and he caused him to sit down at his right hand in the heavenly realms far above every ruler, authority, power, angelic lord, and every name being named, not only in this age, but also in the coming age, and he subordinated all things under his feet, and he appointed him head over all things in the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

God has done some major work. The Father has worked in Christ, the recipient of the action, raising him from the dead and placing him into a position of authority over everything in the universe, whether physical or spiritual, but also as head of the church, the congregation of believers everywhere. The church universal is the fullness of Christ, and as Christ fills everything in every way, it is in the church universal that Christ is fully represented as of now. We should recognize or bear in mind that Christ is not only our ruler, but also the ruler over all things, and there is nothing that has not been placed under his authority.

Goodbye, Mail, Hello, Gmail Notifier

I relented and decided to give up using Apple Mail in order to strictly use the browser-based Gmail.

The decision was based on the frustrating inconsistency of Apple Mail's handling of IMAP for Gmail. I have three places that I receive email--my PowerBook, iMac, and iPhone. They all check the same IMAP Gmail account. The reason why I use IMAP is so that I do not have to read a message as "unread" on all three mail viewers. Well, the iPhone use is perfect, but the Apple Mail's use on the PowerBook and iMac is far from it. They inconsistently update the connection with the Gmail server so that the emails are not synced. With Gmail Notifier I no longer have this problem, and I can use Gmail as my default email program.

Sorry, Apple. Until you can figure out how to get a better system working with Gmail's IMAP, I won't be using Mail. Perhaps you did fix the issue in Leopard, but I do not have that system yet. Bummer.

Forthcoming paper on Paul's Perspective on Women

I am currently researching for a paper that I am writing on Paul's perspective on women. I am asking how Paul can have both a positive and seemingly negative view at the same time. The paper will focus on the problematic texts, 1 Cor. 11:2f, 1 Cor. 14:33f, Eph. 5:21f (Col. 3:18f), and 1 Tim. 2:8f, after having first briefly summarized the positive texts. This paper functions to show what scholarship has produced in harmonizing the seemingly negative texts with the positive ones. I will be using many of the sources from my "Why I am not a Complimentarian" paper that I posted on this blog within the last month, such as Linda Belleville's book, Women Leaders and the Church, and several articles from David Scholer and others. Their research and work is valuable because it presents, explains and evaluates multiple exegetical issues, including views that are not their own, so that the sources are not simply one-sided. However, the paper I am writing will make little reference to the multiple views and issues because of limited space (although they will be made note of in the footnotes to be further referenced). I want to report how scholars have interpreted the texts and demonstrated that they are not truly problematic, so that Paul is not understood to contradict himself. This paper will be posted in a couple of weeks. Until then, not much blogging will be going on.

Premier Guitar - Soul Man - Jan 2008

http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2008/Jan/Soul_Man.aspx

Lincoln Brewster is featured in Premeir Guitar Magazine - the first
Christian artist to be featured in the mag!

edit: I guess I should mention the relevance of Lincoln Brewster - Lincoln is the worship pastor of my church.

Exegetical Commentary on Mark 1:1-11

The following is a paper that I submitted in my New Testament Exegetical Methods class:

Translation

Mark 1:1-11

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God. As it was written in the prophet Isaiah, "Behold, I am sending my messenger before you, who will prepare your way. A voice crying out in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight'." John was present in the wilderness baptizing and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. And all the land of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem were coming out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River while confessing their sins. And John was wearing camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and he was eating locusts and wild honey. And while speaking he proclaimed, "One mightier than me is coming after me, of whom I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen the straps of his sandals. I baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." And it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John, and immediately, while rising up from the water, he saw the heavens splitting and the Spirit coming down onto him like a dove, and a voice came from the heavens, "You are my only son. I am well pleased with you."

Notes

1:1 - Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εύαγγελίου - The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God. Ἀρχὴ is anarthrous. Every time it is used in Mark, it never has the article, and it is always translated as definite. Ἀρχὴ is defined by τοῦ εύαγγελίου. This is the beginning of the good news. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is the subject of τοῦ εύαγγελίου. The good news is concerning Jesus Christ. It is possible that Mark 1:1 stops with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and υἱοῦ θεοῦ was not part of the original text, but it is not likely. Textual witnesses not containing υἱοῦ θεοῦ are א, Θ, and Origen. It appears that in light of the evidence of א‭ ‬and Origen, the Today's New International Version (TNIV) omits υἱοῦ θεοῦ in its translation, leaving the verse in this way: "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah."  However, B, D, and A include υἱοῦ θεοῦ. The New International Version (NIV), King James Version (KJV), New Living Translation (NLT), and New American Standard Bible (NASB) all include υἱοῦ θεοῦ in their translations. Since the support for υἱοῦ θεοῦ is broad, having Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine support, and it can account for the absence in the three aforementioned witnesses as homoiteleuton, where scribes would have allowed it to drop out due to the long string of genitives, we should accept it as part of the original text. Furthermore, the gospel as a whole allows for its inclusion since the Sonship of Jesus is a key theme throughout. υἱοῦ θεοῦ is a title of Jesus Christ, identifying him as the Son of God.

It is important to note the connection between this opening verse and the birth statement of Caesar Augustus in the Roman emperor cult. The Priene incription comes from 9 BC; it identifies Caesar as a savior and as a god, who was the beginning for the world of good news (Evans 2003, 1066). The language of Mark 1:1 echoes this Priene inscription (2003, 1066). Mark 1:1 is an attempt to challenge the claims of the Roman emperor cult (2003, 1066).

1:2 - Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ - As it is written in the prophet Isaiah. Mark includes the reference to the prophet Isaiah, whereas Matthew and Luke do not. Matthew and Luke only reference Malachi 3:1 and they make no mention of Isaiah 40:3. The conjunction Καθὼς connects Mark 1:1 with the quotations in 1:2-3 (France 2002, 50). Therefore, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God, is tied to the quotations that follow. If Mark 1:1 is to be understood as the title of the whole gospel, we must not neglect its immediate connection with 1:2-3. Some textual witnesses have in the prophets as opposed to in the prophet Isaiah. The KJV follows this variant, but the NIV, NLT, TNIV, and NASB all have Isaiah as the reference. To take Isaiah out of the reference was clearly an attempt to get rid of confusion since Malachi 3:1 is also quoted in 1:2, and that before Isaiah.

ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν πρὸ προσώπου σου ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου - Behold, I am sending my messenger before you, who will prepare your way. This quotation comes from Malachi 3:1, and it echoes Exodus 23:20, which also echoes the wilderness (France 2002, 63). God is speaking here, and he proclaims that he will send a messenger who will prepare the way. This quotation is paired with a quotation from Isaiah 40:3.

1:3 - φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ - A voice crying out in the wilderness, "Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight." The messenger from Malachi 3:1 is the voice crying out in the wilderness who proclaims, "Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight." This quotation is from the Septuagint of Isaiah 40:3 (Gould 1896, 5).

Note the use of way and paths in Mark 1:2-3. This theme is identified to be the gospel of Jesus Christ mentioned in 1:1 (Edwards 2002, 28-9). The quotations themselves are used to demonstrate that the kingdom of God inaugurated by Jesus is the culmination of Jewish history, of which its prophecies pointed to Jesus (Gould 1896, 5). Therefore, Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 (and Exodus 23:20) together are the Ἀρχὴ from Mark 1:1. The gospel of Jesus Christ did not start with the incarnation, but with the Old Testament.

1:4 - Ἰωάννης ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ βαπτίζων καὶ κηρύσσων - John the Baptizer was in the wilderness and was preaching. Many have argued the Gospel of Mark refers to John as Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων , so that ὁ βαπτίζων is his title. They argue that while the textual witnesses are split, the article should be included in 1:4. By taking into account the style of Mark, it is argued that we find this is the favorite way of identifying John in the gospel narrative (Elliot 1993, 192). They say it is easy to see that due to the influence of Matthew and Luke, which refer to John in the noun form ( βαπτιστής) as opposed to Mark who refers to him in the participial form (βαπτίζων), it was likely for scribes to change to the more popular title in the noun form (1993, 191). Being more familiar with the noun form, it is likely that scribes did not recognize ὁ βαπτίζων as a title for John in 1:4, so they attempted to clean up the verse by omitting the article and make βαπτίζων parallel with κηρύσσων by joining it with καὶ it is argued (1993, 192). However, this argument is not satisfactory.

The text does not necessarily support the use of a title. The inclusion of καὶ makes the understanding of the participle βαπτίζων tied to κηρύσσων. Furthermore, the rest of this section does not refer to John as the Baptizer; at times the Gospel of Mark finds it necessary to refer to John as the Baptizer or the Baptist, but not every time does it give him this title. This section refers to ὁ Ἰωάννης (1:6) and Ἰωάννου (1:9) in addition to Ἰωάννης here. There is no reason to identify him as the Baptizer since no other John has been mentioned yet. While Matthew uses the noun form in the parallel text (3:1), Luke does not refer to John as one associated with baptism, but rather with his father, Zachariah (3:2). Furthermore, the way ἐγένετο is translated affects whether or not we should understand the participle as a title. If we translate it at the beginning of the sentence as we do later on in the section in 1:9, it becomes, "It happened that John the one baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming . . ." However, this is awkward. It is better to place it at the end, so that it becomes, "John, the one baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming . . . was present." But this is true only if we keep the article. There is no reason for us to keep the article if we are not going to maintain that the participle functions as John's title. The title is not necessary. If it actually is a title, the rest of the section is not concerned with it. If we do not include the article, then ἐγένετο becomes, "John appeared in the wilderness baptizing and proclaiming . . ." The dative ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ is a dative of place, identifying where John was present. It is significant that D, which is more expansive, does not include the article. It is also significant that the majority of the Byzantine texts do not include the article, and neither does A or W. Furthermore, Θ does not have the article. In favor of the article are א, B, L, and Δ. The textual witnesses are seemingly split. The inclusion of the article, however, can be explained by the attempt to identify βαπτίζων as the title of John, which would need the article. The evidence is mixed among the textual witnesses, and although the text is best supported as having the article, it can be argued that the article does not belong in the text, especially if one does not see the necessity for a title to be present. The NIV and KJV do not translate the participle as the title for John, but instead they treat βαπτίζων and κηρύσσων as parallel. This translation is supported by the inclusion of καὶ, because it joins the two participles as a dual action of John as present in the narrative. The majority of the textual witnesses include καὶ. The one major exception is B, which does not include καὶ but does include the article. If the article is included it is hard to see the need for καὶ. Yet the textual witnesses are stronger in support for καὶ than for the article. Since καὶ fits the text nicely between the two masculine nominative present participles, and because it has early and broad textual support, we can be confident that it belongs in the text. Given that it belongs in the original text, we have to consider the article in light of this confidence. The use of καὶ between the participles desires a parallel translation, which does not easily allow for βαπτίζων to be attached to the article and understood as a title. The NASB, TNIV, and NLT all take the participle as the title for John, and they treat κηρύσσων as a parenthetical phrase relating to ἐγένετο. No matter how we understand the original text, the context clearly indicates that John was present in the wilderness baptizing and proclaiming, no matter how the text is determined here in 1:4. Since the use of βαπτίζων at this time is still in the introduction to Mark, it is at least possible that Mark was not using it as a title here but rather to define his action, and since he was so well known for this action, later in Mark he was defined with the title to clarify who he was so that the title echoed his function out in the wilderness.

The wilderness theme is important. John the Baptizer is immediately identified as the messenger from Malachi 3:1 and the voice who cries out in the wilderness from Isaiah 40:3. John the Baptizer is the one who prepares the way of the Lord. It is with the coming of John that we know the coming of the Lord is immanent. The wilderness itself is significant. It was a place of renewal, of hope and new beginnings (France 2002, 57). It was where God made the people who came out of Egypt his own (2002, 57). It was where Israel learned to trust God for protection and provision (2002, 57). It was where God prepared the way for his people (Edwards 2002, 27). Thus, from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, John the Baptizer's presence in the wilderness is linked with this renewal theme, which is a preparation for the coming of the Lord.

βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν - a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. This baptism was different from the common ritual washings that were regular and repeated (France 2002, 66). It was different because it was performed by an outside agent, John the Baptizer, whereas the ritual washings were administered by the individual (2002, 68). Furthermore, John's was a baptism of repentance. It signified moral and spiritual renewal, which fits his presence in the wilderness (Edwards 2002, 30). His baptism was a practice of moral reform (2002, 31). Repentance itself was the inward act, but his baptism was the outward sign of that inward act (Gould 1896, 6). He preached a baptism of repentance for the purpose ( εἰς) of forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins dealt with the cancellation of the guilt of sin (BDAG, 155). His baptism involved the forgiveness of sins in some way or another. In Matthew, John proclaimed, "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has come" (3:2). However, Luke retains the βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (3:3), but it also adds the connection to Isaiah 40:3 in Luke 3:4. Matthew brings in Isaiah 40:3 as John quotes it in his proclamation in Matthew 3:3.  

1:5 - καὶ ἡ Ἰουδαία πᾶσα χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν καἰ ἐβαπτιίζοντο ὑπ᾽αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογοὐμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτἰας αὐτῶν - And all the land of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem were coming out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, while confessing their sins. It is interesting that the people of Judea and Jerusalem were leaving the central hub of the Jewish universe to meet John the Baptizer out in the wilderness. The fact that they went out to him and not vice versa is striking as well. As indicated already, they were being baptized by John, which is different from the regular ritual washings in Judaism. They were confessing their sins, which is contemporary or simultaneous with their being baptized by John. The NIV, KJV, TNIV, and NASB takes ἐξομολογοὐμενοι as contemporaneous to ἐξεπορεύετο. The NLT takes ἐξομολογοὐμενοι as temporal with a past tense, like this: "And when they confessed their sins, he baptized them in the Jordan River." However, the present tense of ἐξομολογοὐμενοι indicates a simultaneous action with ἐβαπτιίζοντο and should be translated as "while confessing," but it does not mean that the people were baptized as they were actually confessing their sins. The confession and the baptism were simply bound up as a unit; the text does not indicate which action happened first. Matthew contains this same contemporary participial phrase in 3:6. 

1:6 - καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος τρίχας καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον - And John was wearing camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist and he was eating locusts and wild honey . Neither Matthew or Luke contain the reference to John's clothing or diet as Mark does here in 1:6. This statement regarding the clothes reinforces John's prophetic image (France 2002, 69). It echoes 1 Kings 1:8, which identifies that Elijah wore hair and a belt (Edwards 2002, 32). Mark is identifying John the Baptizer with Elijah. The statement regarding the diet demonstrates, if anything, John's character. He was a man of the wild and survived, apparently, off of the land, though still within the limits of the Law.

1:7 - Καὶ λέγων ἐκήρυσσεν ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου - and while speaking, he proclaimed, "One mightier than me is coming after me." While he was speaking to those he was baptizing, he proclaimed that someone else would come after him, and that one would be greater than John. λέγων is contemporaneous with ἐκήρυσσεν; it is possible to not even translate λέγων since the main action is synonymous with it, but to match the style of the text it is appropriate to keep it in the translation.  ἰσχυρότερός indicates one who is stronger either physically, spiritually or mentally, and in this case it indicates someone who would be stronger spiritually (BDAG, 480). ἔρχεται indicates that the coming of the ἰσχυρότερός was immanent (Cranfield 1959, 48). Furthermore, the coming of the Lord was seen as immanent since the messenger was in the wilderness preparing the way. The proclamation of the messenger reinforces this immanent coming. 

οὗ ἱκανὸς οὐκ εἰμὶ κύψας λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ - of whom I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen the straps of his sandals. John makes a comparison between himself and the immanent ἰσχυρότερός. He humbly declares himself not even fit to perform the role of a Gentile slave to the ἰσχυρότερός (Edwards 2002, 33). Matthew has a different account of this humbling statement than Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke (3:16) both say that John humbly admits he is not worthy of untying the sandal straps of the ἰσχυρότερός, whereas Matthew (3:11) says John admits that he is not worthy to carry the sandals of the ἰσχυρότερός. 

1:8 - ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὐμᾶς ὕδατι. δὲ αὐτὸς βαπτίσει ὐμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ - I baptized you with water. But he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. John makes an additional comparison that demonstrates further the superiority of ἰσχυρότερός. This comparison is regarding baptism. Matthew (3:11) and Luke (3:16) says that John claimed that the ἰσχυρότερός will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, and they make no mention to his own baptism in contrast. In Mark, John's baptism was with water, which is in contradistinction to the baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. The aorist ἐβάπτισα does not indicate that John had ceased baptizing, but it probably indicated that he was talking to those he had already baptized and so it was appropriate to use the aorist. John contrasts the two baptisms, which is evident in the contrastive δὲ. The baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός is inward, not outward (France 2002, 71). In other words, it is spiritual not physical. John's baptism was preliminary or preparatory, meaning it was of lesser significance than the spiritual baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός (2002, 71). John's baptism was paving the way for a permanent and more powerful reality to come in the baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός . Furthermore, John's baptism was symbolic; it outwardly expressed an inward reality. His was a ritual or physical expression, but the baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός is strictly a spiritual or inward reality (Gould 1896, 2). The baptism of the ἰσχυρότερός is of greater significance for the sole reason that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit was the action of God in the Old Testament (Edwards 2002, 33). To say that the ἰσχυρότερός would baptize with the Holy Spirit was tantamount to identifying him as God.

1:9 - Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας - And it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee. The ἰσχυρότερός abruptly enters the scene at this point in the narrative, but only the readers  already familiar with the story of the good news of Jesus Christ know this to be true. The text itself does not yet identify this Jesus of Nazareth as the ἰσχυρότερός. In fact, the text lends to the idea that this Jesus is certainly not the ἰσχυρότερός. Jesus comes from Nazareth, a town in Galilee that was very much incomparable to Jerusalem. Jesus was sort of a "nobody" who came from an obscure town. This Jesus would not have been a good fit for the ἰσχυρότερός John mentioned in his proclamation (France 2002, 75). 

καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου εἱς τὸν Ἰορδάνην - and he was baptized by John in the Jordan. If the former clause in 1:9 did not entirely convince the readers that Jesus was not the ἰσχυρότερός, this current one does. To be baptized by John would likely disqualify Jesus as the ἰσχυρότερός in the readers' minds (France 2002, 75). It is often speculated as to why Jesus was baptized, but the text does not give us any real answers. We know that it happened, and it was apparently necessary, but beyond that we do not know. The NLT improperly translates the Greek text, taking the passive βαπτίσθη and translating it as an active, in this this way: "One day Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River." The NIV, KJV, TNIV, and NASB all properly translate βαπτίσθη in the passive. 

1:10 - καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν τοὺς οὐρανοὺς σχιζομένους καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν ὠς περιστερὰν - and immediately while rising up from the water he saw the heavens splitting and the Spirit coming down onto him like a dove . Here we see the Gospel of Mark's first stylistic use of εὐθὺς. Luke omits the rising up theme and adds an element of prayer in the baptism of Jesus (3:21). Matthew retains Mark's use of εὐθὺς, although there is a textual variant in Matthew regarding its use (3:16). Only the KJV and NASB retain the use of εὐθὺς in their translations of Mark. The NIV, NLT, and TNIV either ignore it, "As Jesus was coming up out of the water" (NIV and NLT), translating the participle as simultaneous with εἶδεν, or a more colloquial phrase is used, "Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water" (TNIV). Any of these translations is acceptable. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting open. Matthew and Luke do not use the same verb in reference to the heavens. Whereas Mark uses σχίζω, "to tear open" (BDAG, 981), Matthew (3:16) and Luke (3:21) use ἀνοίγω, "to render something accessible or open" (BDAG, 84). 

The vision in Mark is reminiscent of Ezekiel 1:1 and Isaiah 63:19 (64:1 in English texts; France 2002, 77). The vision in Ezekiel, also by a river, saw the heavens open. Isaiah is a plea for God to tear open the heavens and come down. At the baptism God tore open the heavens and came down. Not only did Jesus see the heavens splitting, but he also so the Spirit coming down onto him, which is significant. The Spirit was given by God to particular people in the Old Testament, but it was an identifying marker of the Messiah, such as in Isaiah 11:2; 42:1; and 61:1 (France 2002, 77). Texts like these identify the expectation that the Messiah would be endowed with the Spirit (Edwards 2002, 36). Thus, Jesus is marked out as the Messiah when the Spirit comes down and rests on him (France 2002, 77). This theme of splitting is also found in the Testament of Levi and other Jewish texts. It appears during cataclysmic demonstrations of God's power, like the splitting of the Red Sea in Exodus 14:21, Moses' splitting of the rock in Isaiah 48:21, the splitting of the Mount of Olives on the Day of the Lord in Zechariah 14:4, or the descent of the heavenly man in Joseph and Aseneth 14:3 (Edwards 2002, 35-6). The splitting is significant precisely because it marks an incident of utmost importance. That the Spirit was visible like a dove may only mean that Jesus could see the Spirit, but it does not necessarily mean anything more (Evans 2003, 1067). It could be possible that it echoes Genesis where Noah sends out a dove, but the vocabulary does not match, and it is difficult to say whether or not this was intended by the author. 

1:11 - καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εὐδόκησα ἐν σοὶ - and a voice came from the heavens, "You are my only son; I am well pleased with you." The fact that a voice is coming from the heavens stands in stark contrast to the voice that came from the wilderness. In contrast to the words that came from the wilderness, the words that are to follow in 1:11 stand out as being of utmost importance (France 2002, 79). Some textual witnesses do not have the verb ἐγένετο, such as the original hand of א, and D. Others have ἠκούσθη instead, such as Θ and 28. It is likely that the text did not originally include ἐγένετο, although it seems that it was at least implied, because D, which is normally expansive, is shorter, and the original, earlier copy of א‭ ‬omits it, and the other variants can be explained by scribal attempts to clarify what the action of the voice from heaven was. The text used above is supported by the second correct of א, A, B, and L. Matthew and Luke differ from Mark and from each other. Matthew supplies λέγουσα, "saying" (3:17). Luke supplies γενέσθαι, "came" (3:22). Given Matthew and Luke's practice of supplying an action, it is possible that Mark would have supplied ἐγένετο, but the evidence does not strongly support its inclusion. The NLT does not use either, but instead supplies "said." The NIV, KJV, TNIV, and NASB retain the use of ἐγένετο, or at least they might supply it as an implied verb. 

The statement, "You are my only son; I am well pleased with you," comes from the heavens. Luke follows Mark here, while Matthew puts the statement a little differently. Matthew has "This is my only son, in whom I am well pleased" (3:17), which is different from the use use of the second person in Mark and Luke (3:22). The first clause of the statement is probably from Psalm 2:7 and Genesis 22:2 (Evans 2003, 1067). Psalm 2:7 says, "You are my Son; today have I begotten you." The first clause of the heavenly statement in 1:11 is quite close with the first clause in Psalm 2:7. The addition of ἀγαπητός probably comes from Genesis 22:2. It reads, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love." In the Septuagint, only is ἀγαπητός . The original meaning of ἀγαπητός is only (Turner 1930, 13). We must beware of the NIV, KJV, NLT, TNIV, and NASB, which all translate ἀγαπητός as a referent to one being loved and without the idea of only. The noun ἀγάπη was a Christian creation; it is rarely found in the Septuagint and not found in classical Greek literature. Aristotle used it of an only son in Ethics and of the only eye of a one-eyed man in Rhetoric (Turner 1930, 13). The Septuagint uses ἀγαπητός as only in Genesis 22:2, 12, 16; Amos 8:10; Jeremiah 6:26; and Zechariah 12:10 (1930, 13). For the purposes of this section of the Gospel of Mark, ἀγαπητός ought to be translated as only. Jesus is identified by the voice from the heavens as the only son. The heavenly voice at the baptism declared Jesus to be God's son, and anointed and equipped him with God's Spirit (Edwards 2002, 39). 

The latter part of the baptism, Mark 1:10-11, which is based on Isaiah 63:19 (64:1 in English texts), contains all the elements of the Testament of Levi. The Testament of Levi says, "The heavens will be opened, and from the temple of glory sanctification will come upon him, with a fatherly voice, as from Abraham to Isaac. And the glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him. And the Spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him [in the water]. For he shall give the majesty of the Lord to those who are his sons in truth forever" (18:6-8; Charlesworth, 1.795). This text expands Isaiah 63:19 (Edwards 2002, 35). In Jewish tradition, the splitting of the heavens, the giving of the Spirit, and the voice from heaven signify the inauguration of the kingdom of God (2002, 34). Therefore, Jesus is seen as the inaugurator of the kingdom of God in 1:10-11, especially because the heavens have opened and the Spirit has come forth (2002, 34). He is clearly identified as the ἰσχυρότερός, despite coming from Nazareth and being baptized by John.

_______________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Charlesworth, J., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. In Edwards, James, The Gospel According to Mark, ed. D. A. Carson, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U. K., and Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Apollos, 2002), 35.

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1959. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Ed., C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in 2000.

Edwards, James. 2002. The Gospel According to Mark. Ed., D. A. Carson. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U. K., and Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Apollos.

Elliot, J. K. 1993. The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: Brill.

Evans, Craig. 2003. Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. J. D. G. Dunn and J. W. Rogerson, eds. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company.

France, R. T. 2002. The Gospel of Mark: A commentary on the Greek text. I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner, eds. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Cambridge, U. K., and Carlisle: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and The Paternoster Press.

Gould, Ezra. 1896. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark.  Samuel Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Briggs, eds. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Reprinted in 1969.

Turner, C. H. 1930. The Gospel According to St. Mark: Introduction and commentary. New York and Toronto: The Macmillan Co.

Difficulty in the Lord's Prayer?

The following is a paper that I submitted in my New Testament Gospels class:

The Lord's Prayer is an important lesson in Christianity. When the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, he gave them what we now call the Lord's Prayer. The Lord's Prayer is in a sense a set of specific instructions for prayer from Jesus according to the gospels of Matthew and Luke. But how are we to understand what to pray when the Lord's Prayer is hard for us to think about, interpret and comprehend? For example, one of the most difficult parts of the Lord's Prayer is the last phrase--"do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one" (Matthew 6:13, my translation). This phrase is difficult because it is often questioned theologically as to how temptation can be linked with God. If God does not tempt anyone, why would Jesus say, "do not lead us into temptation?" By taking into consideration the biblical understanding of the testing of God, the use of the word temptation in the New Testament, and the functions of the two petitions together in Matthew 6:13, we will be able to determine how Jesus could make such a statement while directing and instructing his disciples to pray.

The Lord's Prayer involves a petition against being tested. The Greek word for temptation means "tempt" but also "test" (Barclay 1958, 225). To test someone in the New Testament is to determine how strong and loyal one will be in service to God (1958, 225). This idea of testing is seen in the Old Testament. God gives tests in Genesis 22:1, Exodus 15:25; 16:4; 20:20, Numbers 14:22 and still in other places of the Old Testament (Dunn 1992, 623).  God tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac (Barclay 1958, 225). Genesis 22:1 reads, "And it came to pass that God did tempt Abraham" (1958, 225; italics in original). The word tempt in Genesis 22:1 does not mean to entice into wrongdoing, but is used in reference to a test that functioned to determine how strong Abraham's service was to God (1958, 225-6). When said in reference to God in the Old Testament, tempting is understood as testing obedience and loyalty (1958, 226). But in the Lord's Prayer Jesus instructed his disciples to make a request to God to spare them from very trying times of testing (Nolland 2005, 292). 

The petition is broad in scope. It has been suggested that Jesus was referring to the testing that will come in the end times (Nolland 2005, 292). The idea behind this suggestion is that Jesus was teaching his disciples to make a petition to God to spare them from the eschatological testing that could lead to apostasy (2005, 292). This petition has also been understood in reference to a time or period of testing (Morris 1992, 148). However, the text does not support an eschatological reference, nor does it allow for a period of testing. No evidence can be cited to support one particular kind of testing in this text. On the contrary, the text points towards "testing in general" (1992, 148). 

The petition concerns a negative outcome. Testing can have either a positive or negative result. Either the one being tested will resist or give in. It would be undesirable for the one to give in. Such a result is what the prayer seeks to avoid. The petition asks God to spare the disciples from those tests that would lead to a negative outcome (Dunn 1992, 623). This petition admits the weaknesses that they have; it "reflects a sense of one's own frailty and limitation, one's vulnerability to [tests]" (Nolland 2005, 292). Knowing that we are weak, this prayer seeks to keep the disciples far from anything that might lead into sin (Morris 1992, 148). Thus, this petition is actually a prayer of utmost commitment to the will of God, for it demonstrates a desire for obedience to God and loyalty to His will (Dunn 1992, 623). 

God is known to test people, yet Jesus instructed his disciples to ask God to spare them from those trying tests that would have a negative outcome. However, we must understand this petition in light of the next one--"but deliver us from the evil one."

The Lord's Prayer involves a petition for relief. Jesus has already instructed his disciples to ask God to withhold testing that would bring their faith to the brink, but now he adds that they should ask for deliverance from the intentions and purposes of the evil one if they do go through trying tests (Hagner 1993, 151-2). While God tests people so that they might be strengthened, the opposite is true for the intentions of the evil one for those he puts into tribulation. The conjunction that introduces this final petition in the Lord's Prayer sets the new action in a contrasting relationship with what precedes it (Morris 1992, 148). God tests for good, but the evil one tempts for harm. Therefore, Jesus urged his disciples to be devoted to God in the tests that he gives him and to request that God would only test them in those areas that would not break their faith, and at the same time he exhorted them to ask for deliverance from the purposes of the evil one. The first petition requests for God to not put the disciples "into 'hot water'" (Nolland 2005, 292). The second petition requests for God to deliver the disciples from situations in which they already find themselves in "hot water" (2005, 292). These two petitions "reflect a confidence in the sovereign love of God that will preserve us in the testing of our faith now and in time of tribulation" (Hagner 1993, 152). 

Jesus was encouraging his disciples to be dependent on God. The Lord's Prayer reflects a dependency on God as the Father--the provider. It reflects a desire for God's will to be done. The two petitions in Matthew 6:13 continue this thought. The disciples' prayer for God to keep them from terrible tests that would ruin their faith was a prayer of dependence. Such a prayer recognizes the weaknesses on the part of the disciples and their need for God's sovereign help. Furthermore, prayer for deliverance is also a prayer of dependence. To pray for deliverance was to admit that the disciples were not able to withstand the temptations of the evil one on their own strength. The disciples were to be fully dependent on God and to seek God's will. The Lord's Prayer brought their focus onto their dependence on God. Jesus could use the words in the Lord's Prayer in reference to the Father because the Old Testament attributed testing to God and in this instance the word temptation was not to be understood as an enticement into wrongdoing. Such language was particularly helpful in this instance to emphasize total dependence on God.

Is the Traditional View of Hell Trustworthy?

This post is a paper that I submitted in my third Systematic Theology class. 

Introduction

What will hell be like? That question is a tough one to answer, but when we look at Scripture we can indeed answer it. However, answers vary even though they are claimed to be based on sound biblical interpretation. But which one is correct? Although there are several different interpretations or views regarding what hell will be like, our own examination of Scripture will inform us if the information given by one view or another is erroneous or correct. What will hell be like? Robert A. Peterson thinks he knows what it will be like. He says it will be eternal punishment. In his book, Hell On Trial: the case for eternal punishment, Peterson looks at several areas of theology to indicate that hell will be eternal punishment, and he spends much space looking at what the Bible has to say regarding what hell will be like.  

In observing the Old Testament portion of the Bible, Peterson looks at three sections. First, he looks at several judgment passages that are found in the Old Testament, which are as follows: the Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea, and the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities of Israel.[1] Second, he examines what the Old Testament has to say about Sheol.[2] Third, he explores Isaiah 66:22-4 and Daniel 12:1-2.[3] After looking at these three sections of the Old Testament, Peterson looks at the New Testament to determine what it has to say regarding hell, and he starts with Jesus.

Peterson looks at Jesus and what he said regarding what hell will be like. In order of the canonical books, he looks at the content of the four gospels. He explores several texts in Matthew (5:21-2, 27-30; 7:23; 8:11-2; 10:28; 13:30, 40-3, 49-50; 18:6-9; 23:15, 33; 24:51; 25:30, 41, 46),[4] and several passages in Mark (1:24; 3:11; 5:7; 9:42-8), Luke (16:19-31) and John (3:16-21, 36; 5:28-29; 8:21, 24).[5] Peterson does not stop at the end of the canonical gospels, for he also treats several passages from different epistles. He examines Romans 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Hebrews 6:1-3, Jude 7 and 13, and Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10, 14-15; 21:8; 22:15.[6] Of all these texts, Peterson chose ten to focus on in his treatment of the traditional view in Two Views of Hell, a book that debates the traditional (eternal torment) and conditional (annihilation) views of hell.

Peterson resorts to a fair exegetical treatment of his ten chosen Scripture passages in Two Views of Hell. He specifically looks at Isaiah 66:22-24 and Daniel 12:1-2, demonstrating that the Old Testament taught that there would be everlasting contempt for all the wicked ones.[7] He looks at Matthew 18:6-9, Revelation 14:9-11, and Revelation 20:10, 14-15, which he argues that these texts teach eternal torment.[8] Peterson examines Matthew 25:31-46, a text that he claims reveals eternal condemnation.[9] He explores Mark 9:42-48 and determines that it teaches eternal suffering.[10] He looks at 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and says it proclaims eternal destruction. [11] Peterson examines Jude 7, which he claims that it teaches eternal punishment. [12] He also looks at Jude 13 and argues that it teaches eternal darkness. [13] Of these ten passages, Peterson consistently focuses on the eternal element of each of them, which is characteristic of the traditional view since it is based on the never ending punishment of the wicked.

Granted that Peterson has written extensively on this topic and on each of these passages, it is necessary to keep his exegesis in check. Therefore, it is only right that we should perform our own exegesis of these texts so that we can clearly determine if what Peterson has written is correct or erroneous. If it is correct, then we can place confidence in Peterson and the traditional view. If it is not, then we might still be able to place confidence in the traditional view, but it would be hard to place any in Peterson. We will conduct our own exegesis of five of the ten aforementioned passages from Two Views of Hell. After having performed our own exegesis, we will briefly compare and contrast the two exegetical studies and then come to a conclusion regarding the reliability of Peterson and the traditional view of hell. To the following passages we now turn: Matthew 18:6-9; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; Revelation 14:9-11; and Revelation 20:10-15.

Exegesis of Five Passages

Matthew 18:6-9

Matthew 18:6-9 is translated as follows:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble, it would be better for him should a donkey's millstone be hung around his neck and he be thrown into the depths of the sea and drowned. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks. For it is necessary that stumbling blocks come but woe to the person through whom they come. But if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter into life crippled or lame than to be thrown into eternal fire having two hands or two feet. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pick it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to be thrown into the hell of fire having two eyes.[14]

The beginning of this passage concerns disciples, not literal children.[15] Jesus, in talking of his followers, warns against causing others to stumble in their faith. In other words, the issue being discussed concerns disciples being caused to lose their faith, whether by someone else or all by one's own self. [16] Jesus is expressing a concern for the avoidance of offense that would cause someone to lose faith.[17] He is concerned against actions and behavior that act against the spiritual well being of another person.[18] We should bear in mind that Jesus expects his disciples to do everything in their power to keep themselves from stumbling. We should also bear in mind that Jesus considers it a dire situation and act for someone to cause another to stumble. It is within these two elements that we must understand Jesus' statements regarding hell.

As we pay special attention to vv. 8 and 9, we should also be aware of a few other syntactical and vocabulary issues in this passage. In v. 6 we have a comparison being made by Jesus. He says that it would be better for a person who makes one of his disciples to stumble to be drowned in the deep sea by having a large object hung on his neck and being cast into the sea. The comparison clearly indicates that the actual judgment will be something much worse. However, Jesus does not clarify what the true judgment will entail; he leaves his listeners with the dreadful picture of the drowned person and adds nothing more to the future judgment.[19] At any rate, this picture expects a dire punishment for something quite scandalous. The Greek word for "to stumble" (v. 6) is skandalizein. Some have understood the use of this word in this text as the serious causing of someone to fall into sin, or perhaps even to lose their faith in Jesus and the gospel; it is not a simple personal offense. [20] This verb entails much more than a personal offense as it "speaks of setting off the bait stick of a trap and thus ensnaring."[21] Commentators either say that the stumbling mentioned is either in reference to disciples sinning or losing faith. In either case, the well being of the disciple is at stake, because someone is actively acting against his or her interest when causing someone to stumble.[22] This picture demonstrates the severity for causing someone to stumble; the ramifications of such an action are dire.

Jesus uses picturesque hyperbole in the verses to follow, which demonstrates a necessity for a desire towards drastic action in order to overcome stumbling blocks.[23] Jesus commands that his disciples cut off their hand or foot and throw it away if it causes them to stumble. He actually expects that their hands and feet will in fact cause them to stumble.[24] Since he expects that they will stumble by use of their appendages, it is odd that he would command them to cut them off and throw them away. The same is true of his conditional statement regarding the eye. He expects it to be true for his disciples to stumble by use of the eye, and it is equally as odd as in the earlier conditional statement for him to command that his disciples pluck out their eyes and throw them away. The mixture of the first class condition with the harsh imperatives serves as a clear indication that we are dealing with hyperbole. In telling his disciples to cut off their hands and feet or pluck out their eyes and throw them away, Jesus "is using picturesque language to make clear that he looks for a complete and thorough repudiation of evil. . . . [And] his followers should take decisive action to be rid of sin." [25] However, we must ask ourselves why Jesus would expect such a drastic measure. The answer is to keep oneself from reaping harsh punishment.

Jesus alludes to the kind of punishment that will be given to the one who does not guard against stumbling. He talks of eternal fire and hell of fire in reference to that one's punishment. The phrase "eternal fire" in v. 8 is important in two ways. One, "eternal" denotes a period without end.[26] This adjective modifies "fire," which indicates that it is to be understood as being without end. Two, "fire" is a reference to the substance with which God will punish sinners.[27] This language depicts judgment and punishment. When we combine "fire" with "eternal" we end up with a punishment without end, "eternal fire." This phrase is "used metaphorically in an expression that brings out the painfulness of the lost in their eternal lostness."[28] The phrase "hell of fire" in v. 9 is somewhat confusing. However, "of fire" in Greek is a genitive of content, which means that it identifies the content of the noun it belongs to. In this case, hell is said to contain fire. The idea of fire as God's punishment of sinners is also present in this phrase. The two phrases combine to show a small picture of what hell will be like. Hell will involve some form of punishment. This punishment will take place in hell, and it will never end.[29] It is no wonder that Jesus would resort to commanding such drastic measures, because "given how high the stakes are, any sacrifice is worth making to keep oneself back from a life of sin."[30]

Jesus took stumbling very seriously. He charged the person who actively tries to cause another to stumble with a serious offense and he charged his disciples to do everything that they possibly could to actively keep themselves from stumbling. The former he proclaims harsh punishment on; the latter he warns against harsh punishment. It is the latter punishment mentioned that gives us any sort of clarity towards what hell will be like, while the former is left open to one's imagination. The fundamental idea of punishment in the latter is it will take place in hell and it will be without end. The text does not indicate anything further regarding what hell will be like.

Matthew 25:31-46

Matthew 25:31-46 is translated as follows:

But whenever the Son of Man might come in his glory and the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne; and all the nations will be gathered together before him, and he will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to the ones on his right, "Come here blessed ones by my Father, receive your inheritance the kingdom having been prepared from the laying of the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you put clothes on me, I was weak and you tended to me, I was in prison and you came to me." Then the righteous ones will answer him by saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we see you as a stranger and invite you in, or naked and put clothes on you? And when did we see you weak or in prison and we came to you?" And the king having been answered will say to them, "Truly I say to you, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine you did to me." Then he will say to the ones on his left, "Go away from me accursed ones into the eternal fire the one having been provided for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you did not give me something to eat, I was thirsty and you did not give me a drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I was naked and you did not put clothes on me, I was weak and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they will say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or weak or in prison and did not serve you?" Then he will answer them saying, "Truly I say to you, whatever you did not do to one of the least of these, neither did you do to me." And these ones will depart to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

This long passage is a story told by Jesus concerning the Judgment Day to come at the end of this age. There are two things that we should note regarding the story. First, the story's details must be taken as "revealing images rather than literal descriptions."[31] We need to bear in mind that the story is apocalyptic in nature and is not to be taken as an actual account of what will precisely happen. Second, this story "deals with the evidence on which people will be judged, not the cause of salvation or damnation."[32] This story emphasizes judgment; it is not concerned about how one is saved or damned, but rather it is concerned about what deeds a person has done, which is implicitly connected to one's condition of either being saved or damned. Bearing these two notes in mind, we can now set out to study this passage.

Jesus makes it clear that judgment is the topic when he brings the Son of Man language into the story, for the coming of the Son of Man indicates judgment. [33] In this story, Jesus brings judgment for the righteous and the wicked. He judges that the righteous will go to eternal life while the wicked go to eternal punishment. Both judgments are eternal—without end—so that both will experience the retribution for their deeds in the present life forever and ever. The righteous ones will receive the kingdom that was prepared for them since before the universe was created (v. 34). However, the wicked will enter the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.[34] It is in the eternal fire that the wicked will be punished forever. They will receive "eternal punishment" in the eternal fire. "Eternal" means, "without end." The righteous will have life without end. Similarly, the wicked will have punishment without end. The syntax demands this understanding. The two phrases, "eternal punishment" and "eternal life" are joined by the conjunction, kai. This conjunction informs the equality of the attributes of the two nouns that it joins together. In this instance, the attribute of time is the same. We are certain that the righteous will experience life without end in the kingdom prepared beforehand. Because kai ties "life" and "punishment" together, and especially because both of these nouns are modified by the exact same adjective, we have no choice but to view "eternal" in the same way for both instances. Therefore, the punishment of the wicked will also be without end in the same way that life will be for the righteous. Note also that this punishment is of a particular kind. It is one that denotes transcendent retribution.[35] God will repay the wicked for their deeds. Furthermore, Jesus is speaking of a punishment without end,[36] but it is not clear how that punishment will be carried out.

This story proclaims judgment for the righteous and the wicked. The righteous will be given eternal life, but the wicked eternal punishment in eternal fire—the same fire that was made for the devil and his angels. This text tells us that hell will involve a never ending punishment. However, it does not describe the punishment in any further detail. Thus far we have seen two texts that indicate hell will involve eternal punishment of the wicked. Will it involve anything else?

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 is translated as follows:

An indication of the righteous judgment of God for us to be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, on behalf of which you also suffer, since it is just for God to repay persecution to the ones who persecute you and relief to you who are persecuted with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels in a flaming fire, giving retribution to the ones who did not know God and obey the good news of our Lord Jesus, any of those will pay a penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and away from the glory of his strength when he comes to be glorified in his saints and to be marveled at in all the ones who believe, for our testimony was believed by you, on that day.

This passage takes place in the midst of a discussion on suffering. The verse that we will pay particular attention to is v. 8, but we have to understand it within the context of suffering and vv. 5-10. What is clear from this passage is suffering will be avenged. God will repay those who inflict others (v. 6). God is just. He will return persecution for those who persecute, and rest for those who are persecuted (vv. 6-7). The author of 2 Thessalonians makes a connection between those who persecute and those who either do not know God or did not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such ones will be judged with punishment, which is understood by the phrase "in a flaming fire," which is tied to the revelation of the Lord Jesus. The use of fire language denotes punishment of divine judgment.[37] Since the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will usher in a time of judgment, the context indicates that the author of 2 Thessalonians is writing about the Day of Judgment.[38] We must bear in mind that what we see here is apocalyptic language, which ought not to be taken literally, and that "Paul seeks to portray the frightening punishment awaiting those outside the community and especially the enemies of the community."[39] With this view in mind, we can look at four important features of this text.

First, rest is promised to those that are afflicted. "Rest" denotes "relief from something onerous or troublesome."[40] Furthermore, in itself it is "the lifting of the pressure caused by persecution [sic], but it is accompanied by the positive blessing of participation in God's 'own kingdom and glory' (1 Thess. 2:12)."[41] At the time of the revelation of the Lord, the time when Jesus will come and bring judgment, God will give relief from the afflictions of the oppressors to the oppressed. However, the oppressors will themselves be oppressed by God.

Second, Christ will bring punishment on the ones who both do not know God and obey the gospel at his revelation. "Punishment" denotes "penalty inflicted on wrongdoers."[42] The ones who did not know and obey the gospel are wrongdoers deserving of a penalty. These ones, those not knowing God and obeying the gospel, are due for punishment.

Third, the aforementioned wrongdoers will pay a penalty. "Penalty" denotes "punishment meted out as legal penalty."[43] These ones will be judged and they will be punished for their actions. But how will they be judged? What kind of penalty will they pay? The answer is forthcoming.

Fourth, such wrongdoers will pay a penalty of eternal destruction. "Eternal" means "without end," and it modifies "destruction." The noun, "destruction," is difficult to determine how it ought to be translated. It does mean "a state of destruction."[44] However, it can be in reference to physical destruction or a metaphorical one. [45] The discussion on the use of this word and its translation into English is written best in the following words:

If it were literal here it would imply the annihilation of the enemies of God. On the other hand it may have a more metaphorical signification. The problem is made more difficult by the qualifying adjective [aiônios]. It can mean either something without end or something that is final or ultimate. The latter would accord with the sense of annihilation, while the former would fit with the idea of destruction in the metaphorical sense of punishment. As there is no evidence in Paul (or the rest of the NT for that matter) for a concept of final annihilation of the godless, the expression 'eternal destruction' should probably be taken in a metaphorical manner as indicating the severity of the punishment awaiting the enemies of God . . .[46]

The "eternal destruction" mentioned is metaphorical. The metaphorical language fits the apocalyptic style, which we have noted needs to be taken in a non-literal way. Given that v. 8 contains metaphorical language (i.e., flaming fire) and because it points towards a social exclusion contrasted to the state of the readers that deserves divine retribution,[47] it makes sense that we should understand "eternal destruction" as figurative, not literal. Those wrongdoers that did not know God and did not obey the gospel must face a severe punishment, for they have excluded themselves from the salvation of Jesus Christ.

This passage identifies that hell will involve punishment for the wicked. We still do not know what kind of punishment they will receive while in hell. Yet, we do know that the punishment—destruction—will last forever. Considering that the wicked will pay their penalty "away from the presence of the Lord," hell will also entail being out of the presence of Jesus Christ. Apart from these things, the text is silent. Except that it will involve a severe punishment that will have no end, we still do not know much about what hell will be like.

Revelation 14:9-11

Revelation 14:9-11 is translated as follows:

And another angel, a third one, followed them saying in a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and this image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, then they will drink from the wine of the wrath of God being poured out undiluted in the cup of his anger and they will be tormented with fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises up forever and ever and they do not have rest day and night the ones worshiping the beast and his image and if anyone receives the mark of his name.

This passage contains some additional information that we have not yet seen concerning hell. It is similar to the others in that it also uses fire language to indicate judgment.[48] It too has an element of punishment without end just as the other texts do. Although this text shares some similarities with the ones we have already looked at, it does shed some new light on what hell will be like.

This passage reveals that hell will involve God's wrath. The wicked ones "will become drunk with God's wine, the effect of which will not be temporary. God's wine will make the nations submissive to his judicial will forever . . ." [49] Part of God's judicial will for the wicked is torment. Those who worship the beast and his image and receive a mark on their foreheads or hands will be tormented in fire and sulfur in the presence of Jesus and the angels. Given the context of judgment, the word for "they will be tormented" in Greek means "to subject to severe distress."[50] What will they be tormented with? They will be tormented with fire and sulfur. Fire is indicative of punishment; however, sulfur is indicative of suffering. Suffering is emphasized in this text—a new feature in our research to what hell will entail—"when ['sulfur'] is added to the image . . ."[51] The torment of the unbelievers is a conscious one that attacks the spirit and psyche, which is not an uncommon feature for Revelation as a whole in reference to trials that precede the Day of Judgment or are part of it.[52] The result of the torment, the smoke, is a mixed metaphor. The smoke is "figurative of an enduring memorial of God's punishment involving a real, ongoing, eternal and [sic] conscious torment. . . . The genitive [tou basanismou] does not express the source of the smoke ('the smoke arising from [their] torment'; brackets in the original) but association or reference: 'the memorial to [their] torment'" (Brackets in the original). [53] Furthermore, the smoke ascending forever and ever is a reminder for past and ongoing judgment, which is seen in the following words:

It is not the smoke of a completed destruction, but 'smoke of their torment.' The nature of the torment is explained in the second part of v. 11 [sic]: it is not annihilation but lack of rest. Indeed, annihilation would be a kind of rest or relief from the excruciating torment of the brief final judgment. Therefore, the smoke is metaphorical of a continued reminder of the ongoing torment of restlessness, which endures for eternity. [54]

This passage tells us three important things about what hell will be like in the context of the final judgment, and some of which are new pieces of information. One, hell will involve God's wrath. Two, hell will involve torment. And three, the torment will never end. Except for these three important things, the text does not tell us anything else about what hell will be like.

 

Revelation 20:10-15

Revelation 20:10-15 is translated as follows:

And the devil the one who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and sulfur where also the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it, of whom the earth and the heaven fled away from his presence, but no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the large and the small, standing before the throne. And scrolls were opened, then another scroll was opened, which is the scroll of life, and they judged the dead from what was written in the scrolls regarding their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and they were judged last according to their works. Then death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone is not found written in the scroll of life, he will be cast into the lake of fire.

 

This passage also uses fire language, which indicates judgment is a key theme in it. This passage notes the same things as the other four passages, except that it proclaims that the devil, the beast and the false prophet are all going to be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented for all eternity. In addition, it also proclaims that everyone will be judged according to their deeds, which are written in the scrolls, and everyone will be judged according to the scroll of life. This context of judgment is important to note for interpreting this text.

Within the context of judgment, the devil is cast into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet to be tormented day and night forever and ever. To be sure, the lake of fire certainly is not a literal place, but rather it is spiritual.[55] It is the second death, which "is separation forever from God's presence in the 'city' of God."[56] "To be tormented" is "to be subjected to severe distress."[57] What kind of torment are we talking about? The kind of torment referenced is "conscious suffering, especially spiritual and psychological suffering. . . . that this is a real, ongoing suffering for those represented by the images of 'beast and false prophet' is apparent, since the same expression of eternal punishment applies to the individual devil in this verse and since virtually the same expression is applied to the individual followers of the beast in 14:10-11" (Italics in the original). [58] The devil, the beast and the false prophet will be subjected to severe distress, and this will happen for all eternity. The preposition, eis, is an extension in time that indicates duration, [59] so that "forever and ever" refers to a time that has no end.[60] Not only will the devil, beast and false prophet be judged at the Day of Judgment, but so also will everyone who has ever lived. No one can hide from the Judge. Everyone is subject to judgment. All will be judged according to their works. "Judge" denotes "a judgment based on taking various factors into account."[61] Everyone's deeds will be taken into account when they come before the Judge. However, no one's deeds will be good enough to save one's self from the wrath of God. What counts is whether or not one's name is written in the scroll of life. If it is not, then that person will be cast into the lake of fire. Since eternal torment awaits the devil, beast and the false prophet in the lake of fire, it also awaits anyone whose name is not found in the scroll of life. Since we are not viewing the lake of fire as a literal location, we do not take it to mean that it indicates annihilation, but rather eternal torment.[62] Indeed, "It appears that our author believes in eternal punishment rather than annihilation of the wicked in view of Rev. 14:10-11 [sic]" (Brackets in original).[63]

This passage indicates that hell will involve eternal torment. This torment will be of such a kind that it will vex the spirit relentlessly. Hell will also involve the devil, the beast and the false prophet being tormented along with all those who did not have their name written in the scroll of life.

 

Conclusion

The exegesis of Matthew 18:6-9, Matthew 25:31-46, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Revelation 14:9-11, and Revelation 20:10-15 reveal several things about what hell will be like. Much of the information provided by these texts is repetitive, but they all bring something new to the argument. Of these five texts, there are at least four common themes, which are as follows: one, hell is a place; two, hell is eternal; three, hell will involve eternal punishment; and four, hell will include the wicked. These texts also reveal that hell will be a place of oppression and destruction for the wicked (2 Thess. 1:5-10), and it will torment its inhabitants by not giving rest to them (Rev. 14:9-11). Hell was designed for the devil and his associates, but all those who did not have their name written in the scroll of life will be sent to hell to join the devil (Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 20:10-15). Whatever hell may be like, it will certainly not be pleasant, which is why Jesus emphasizes that his disciples should do everything that they can to avoid it by taking drastic measures in this life (Matt. 18:6-9).

The exegesis that we have conducted revealed that the five passages proclaim that hell will involve eternal punishment. We agree exegetically with the general understanding of these texts that Peterson presents in Two Views of Hell and Hell on Trial. In his treatment on Matthew 18:6-9, Peterson notes that Jesus is referring to eternal destinies and his disciples.[64] Peterson also demonstrates that Jesus uses picturesque language for the drowning of a person to leave the listener or reader with a horrific image to show the severity of one who causes another to stumble.[65]