Eschatology: The Destiny of the Unsaved

There are things in life that can be difficult to reconcile. When it comes to matters of life and death we all want to believe that our loved ones are in a better place, the truth is not all of them are. Most of us have asked the question, “What happens when we die?” There are several opinions on that matter; they are generally those of eternal punishment, annihilationism, and universalism. For a Christian the proper view to be held is that of eternal punishment. When a person who does not profess belief in Jesus Christ dies, they will spend the rest of eternity in hell. The person who believes in the annihilationism point of view assumes that when everyone dies they will go to nothing; we pretty much fade to black. A movement that has become extremely popular here in America in the last quarter century is what is known as universalism, which holds to the belief that no matter what god you believe in, when you die you will go to heaven, and hell is an empty place.

If you have spent any time reading your Bible you have come across different terms for the afterlife and wondered what they mean, I know I have. When reading the Old Testament we come across the term Sheol when a person is referring to death. A common miss conception when we read that is to think of hell, Sheol is a general place where the good and the bad would go after death, before the coming of Christ. When it comes to the term Hades, Elwell says, “In the LXX, Hades (Gr. hadēs) is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew Sheol, the place name of the abode of the dead.”[1] Gehenna is a special term associated with the metaphorical hell fires but is also related to an actual valley near Jerusalem where Baal worship and child sacrifice were practiced. Elwell sums up all three terms this way, “Gehenna shares some common ground with Hades/Sheol; however the latter is more consistently the interim abode of both good and bad souls after death prior to judgment, while gehenna is the final and everlasting place of punishment for the wicked following the last judgment.”[2] Also when you look into it you will not find the term Gehenna but you will find the term hell twelve times in the New Testament.

My personal belief and understanding is you either go one of two places, as a believer in Jesus Christ we will enter into eternal life, and for those who do not believe in Him, suffer eternal punishment. In John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” ^[3] We are told that it is better for us to lose our hand then to go to hell with both of them in Mark 9:43. In Luke 12:5 we are warned to fear God because he can not only kill but can cast us in to hell. In Matthew 25:46 he is again telling us that the righteous (those who believe in him) will have eternal life, while all others will go to eternal punishment.

There are many people who would want to say, “If God is love, then how can he send people to hell?” Or as Elwell points out, “Some passages are adduced, such as those that express God’s goodwill towards all (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9) the universal scope of the cross (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:20; Titus 2:11; Heb 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2), and the wide outreach of Christ’s atoning work (Jn. 12:32; Rom. 5:18; Eph. 1:10).”[4] Jesus told in John 14:6 he was the only way to the Father (the Father resides in heaven, so therefore the only way to heaven is through Jesus). While Jesus has died for the sins of the world, not all have accepted that forgiveness nor repented and begun to follow Christ.

Many people want to question God’s love; is it fair for him to send people to hell? Yes, He sent His only son to die for our sins. 2 Cor. 5:21 “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”^[5] Romans 9:10-29 speaks about how we cannot judge God by our own standards of fairness, because he is the only one who has the right to do as he wills. Even though I know some will go to hell, I do not know who they are, and it is our job according the great commission, to go into the entire world spreading the good news of Jesus Christ.

---

Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic,2001)532.

[2] Ibid, 480

^[3] The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Jn 3:36.

[4] Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary, 396

^[5] The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 2 Co 5:21.

Technorati Tags: Hell,Universalism,Annihilationism,Eternal life,Eternal Punishment.

Women’s Role in the Church

One of the more controversial issues facing the church today is that of women in leadership. It does not matter which church you belong to, they have a view, and they are either for it or against it. The places that are most debated over are that of deacon and elder. The word for deacon in the Greek is diakoneō, roughly meaning “to serve”, and the Greek for elder “presbyteroi” usually referring to an overseer. While the qualifications for both found in 1 Tim 3 are not exhaustive they give us a good understanding of what leaders should be like. Elders should be above reproach, husband to one wife, sober-minded, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own house well, with dignity keep his kids submissive. He should not be a new convert. He should also be well thought of by outsiders.

Deacons likewise should be dignified, not double tongued, not addicted to drinking, not greedy for dishonest gain. They should hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. Their wives should be dignified and not gossips, sober, and faithful in all things. Deacons should also be the husband of one wife and manage their homes well.[1]

When it comes to the leadership of the church, I personally lean more toward a complementarian view, not the more liberal egalitarian or the more rigid hierarchal view. John MacArthur offers a very brief yet succinct opinion on what I believe the complementarian view says, “While both men and women can serve in a variety of ways under the general and broad category of deacon (vv. 8–13), Paul makes it clear that the leadership of the church is limited to men.^[2] We do have one solid source of a woman being a deacon in the New Testament and that is in Romans 16:1, where Paul mentions Phoebe. Even though I have no problem with women being deacons because there is some if limited biblical support there is no support for a woman actually being an elder.

Most commentators agree that women are inferior to men by no means, but however due to natural order women are not to be over men. As for 1 Cor.14:34-35, Paul writes to them because the women there were prone to emotional outburst and disrupting worship[3]. In 1 Tim. 2:11-15 Paul does not say that women have no authority; he merely is saying that they are not permitted to teach men (primarily in public). Warren Wiersbe says, “Women are permitted to teach. Older women should teach the younger women (Titus 2:3–4). Timothy was taught at home by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). But in their teaching ministry, they must not “lord it over” men. There is nothing wrong with a godly woman instructing a man in private (Acts 18:24–28); but she must not assume authority in the church and try to take the place of a man. She should exercise “quietness” and help keep order in the church.^[4]

Some will try and argue in 1 Tim 3:11 the word wives can only mean the word wives while the word that is being used there could also refer to woman. In allowing for the alternative view we do not hold so tightly to the translation of wives. While limitations do exist in the home and church where women have authority, it does not ring true for all areas of her life. Elwell states, “Similarly, the submission required of wives in Ephesians 5 could not be interpreted to include anything that lies outside of the home realm.”[5]

When we view the church as a whole there is no doubt in my mind the valuable role they play. When God created man He created them male and female (Gen 1:27). Mark Driscoll in his book Vintage Church sums up beautifully what I believe about women in ministry,

A complementarian church should encourage women to use the spiritual gifts and natural abilities that God has given them to their fullest extent. This includes anything from teaching a class to leading a Bible study, overseeing a ministry, leading as a deacon, speaking in church in a way that is not preaching, leading worship music, serving Communion, entering into full-time paid ministry as a paid member of the staff, and receiving formal theological education—basically every opportunity in the church except what the Bible and the elders deem elder-only duties.[6]

This is my understanding of the role women should play in ministry. Until the Lord convicts my heart and I am given a different understanding this is what I shall hold to.

Word Count: 856

---

[1] For further information on the requirements of leadership read 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9

^[2] John F. MacArthur, Jr., Different by Design (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1997, c1994.), 113.

[3] Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic,2001)1284.

^[4] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996), 1 Ti 2:9.

[5] Elwell, ed. Evangelical, 1284

[6] Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Vintage Church. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008) 67.

A Short Synopsis of Romans 3:21-4:25

Whether Jew or Gentile, Romans 3:21-4:25 is a very challenging piece of Scripture to wrap your mind around. Modern society has tried to make God out to be some evil sorcerer in the sky who wants to make our lives miserable unless we attempt to appease him with sacrifice. However, if you’re a Christian, Paul tells us he has already been appeased because of the atoning and sacrificial atoning death of Jesus Christ (3:25).

Paul starts off his explanation of it all with verse twenty-one “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it^[1]” The righteousness of God is Jesus Christ himself, and He is the only true righteousness of God. You can do nothing to earn this righteousness, and the Law and the Prophets have been pointing to this time for years. The very next thing Paul tells us is that the righteousness of God is attainable by faith for all who believe in Jesus Christ (my paraphrase). He spends the rest of chapter three explaining how we are justified by faith alone and then in chapter four gives us the example of Abraham’s faith.

In continuing to expound upon our own unrighteousness, Paul adds verse 23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ^[2]” proving that we are not worthy to be in the presence of God. Leon Morris says, “This clear statement of universal sinfulness is basic to Paul’s understanding of the human predicament and also of the salvation Christ brought. Were it not for our sin there would have been no need for Christ’s redemptive activity; because of our sin there is no possibility of achieving salvation by our own efforts.”[3] Paul goes on to strengthen his argument in verses twenty-eight thru thirty. He is telling his readers yet again that only faith apart from the Law will justify them, no matter if they are Jew or Gentile, since God is one he justifies all by their faith. “For if, as Jews proudly confess, there is only one God, then this God must be equally God of Gentiles as well as Jews. Rightly understood, this demolishes any ultimate difference between Jew and Gentile before the Lord.”[4]

Paul begins to conclude his argument by using Abraham as the greatest example of justification by faith. Chapter four lays out how Abraham trusted the Lord and in doing so showed his faithfulness and it was credited to him as righteousness. But in doing so, many people will say that there is a contradiction in the Bible, because Paul says that justification is from faith alone while James say that faith without works is dead. How can this be? R.C. Sproul explains that when James is referencing Abraham he is quoting from Genesis 22 and Paul is referring to Genesis 15.[5] They are both arguing for justification, and they are each referring to different aspects. Wayne Grudem explains, “Here we must realize that James is using the word justified in a different sense from the way Paul uses it. In the beginning of this chapter we noted that the word justify has a range of meanings, and that one significant sense was “declare to be righteous,” but we should also notice that the Greek word δικαιόω (G1467) can also mean “demonstrate or show to be righteous.”^[6]

Understanding these things should allow us to live out our faith with a greater enjoyment knowing that there is nothing we can do to merit our justification.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ro 3:21.

^[2] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ro 3:23.

[3] Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. (Grand Rapids: Edermans, 1988), 177.

[4] Moo, Douglas J. The NIV Application Commentary- Romans. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 139.

[5] Sproul, R.C. St. Andrew's Expositional Commentary-Romans. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009),111.

^[6] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 731.

Anthropology: Marriage and Divorce

Its funny how in our society marriage has become a hot button issue or a so called “touchy subject”. Just a few generations ago you knew what a married couple looked like; it was one man and one woman. Did you know that in pre-exilic times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side according to Genesis 20:12?[1] Also in ancient Israel girls could be betrothed from around the ages of twelve to seventeen and boys around the ages of fourteen to eighteen. According to Elwell, “Betrothal” (Exod. 22:16; Deut. 20:7) was a legally binding contract between the parents of the bride and groom. It had the legal status of marriage (Deut. 28:30; 2 Sam 3:14)…”[2] Marriage was based on a husband and wife, the husband would provide financially for his family and security and the wife would take care of the home and family (this consisted of getting water, gathering straw, preparing meals, etc.). The husband took care of the finances and assumed responsibility of teaching the boys around five years of age.

Did you know that there are some people who believe that the first person you ever had sex with you are married to? They base their belief off of 1 Cor. 6:16. While some believe, “… marriage is brought about as the result of a declaration of desire to be married, accompanied by the expression of mutual intentions of sole and enduring fidelity and responsibility toward the other, preferably undergirded by self-giving love, in the presence of accredited witnesses.”[3] The first view of marriage is especially denounced by our culture nowadays, with promiscuity running rampant and no one caring who they have sex with. The second view is closer to what we see in marriage practices currently (at least for the most part in the USA). However, in the Bible a couple had to live together for a week after their wedding ceremony then they would be considered a legitimate married couple (Gen 29:27). One of the most often used verses for the sanctity of marriage is Genesis 2:24, a paraphrase is “a man should leave his parents, cling to his wife and become one flesh.” The idea of one flesh shows the unity of the couple and the way they are to complete each other.

In our current society divorce has hit epidemic proportions. People getting divorces left and right because they no longer feel a certain way about their spouse or other trivial grounds. The Bible would allow a man to get divorced in the Old Testament if his wife cheated on him, he would be allowed to issue her a “bill of divorce”. “The word “divorce” in the phrase “bill of divorcement” is related to the word for hewing down trees, even cutting off heads. It indicates the severing of what was once a living union.”[4] By the time of Jesus the nation of Israel had perverted the right of divorce; it was beginning to look like our society, and the Pharisees asked him if it were permissible to divorce over anything? Jesus in Matt. 19:9 gives the ground for which a person may get a divorce which is sexual immorality, any other reason is unacceptable. Later in some of Paul’s writings he does come to include if your spouse abandons you after a certain period of time you may get a writ of divorce.

There of course may be some times divorce is inevitable because of hardness of heart and an unwillingness to repent. Divorce however should always be a last resort; there should possibly be some marital separation, along with counseling before divorce is ever considered. I and others use 1 Cor. 7:10-11 as a proof text for separation before divorce. Something that often goes hand-in-hand with divorce is remarriage, and whether or not Christians can remarry. I believe that they may remarry as long as the grounds of the separation from their spouse are death, adultery, or desertion. And should a person choose to remarry let there be some confession made by the couple to their sin (at least the party who is divorced outside of the previous stated grounds) showing their repentance and attempts to keep the covenant better.

If you divorce or attempt to remarry outside of the points listed above you are making a mockery of God. Divorce is dangerous to more than just the couple involved; it affects the family, community and the church. Divorce will always be ugly because marriage is the greatest image of the triune God we can have in flesh outside of Jesus. So when people see Christians divorcing they see God as weak and not whole.

So as a body of believers we should attempt to comfort those are in any stage of divorce and make sure we demonstrate God’s grace to the best of our abilities. If you believe God can fix anything then choose today to trust him to fix the problems you are facing (Rom 8:28).

Word Count: 849

Bibliography

Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, ,2001.

---

[1] Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. [Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, ,2001],740.

[2] Ibid, 741

[3] Ibid, 744

[4] Ibid, 346

Paradigms for reading Romans

How do you read your Bible? Did you know you could get so much more from it depending on how you read it? The same is especially true about the Book of Romans, the perspective you choose will dictate how much you get out of it. There are two major schools of thought when it comes to reading the Book of Romans, first there is the Reformation point of view, and the newer New Perspective.

The oldest and most widely adhered to point of view is the Reformation perspective. So coming from the reformation you can hear the battle cries of sola fide and sola gratia (by faith alone and by grace alone). This point of view believes that Paul was arguing against the legalism that had taken root in the nation of Israel, saying that justification is by faith alone. Carson and Moo elaborate by saying, “Against this legalism, Paul proclaimed that justification before God could be attained only by faith in the completed work of Christ, a faith that excluded, by its very nature, any deeds of obedience of any kind.”[1] Another point the Reformers took was that Paul was referring to the individual and not only the corporate understanding. One of the greatest strengths of this point of view is it shows us that there is nothing that we can do of our own merit to earn favor with God. On the other hand however, for some people knowing that there is nothing they can do to earn their justification they tend to do nothing at all. Please keep in mind that this is a brief overview of one of the things the reformation perspective comments on.

The newest point of view has been deemed the New Perspective on Paul. This new point of view has taken hold in several circles, but is denied in some of the more conservative congregations. One of the major ideas to this view is commonly referred to as “covenant nomism”- Moo defines it as, “Thus, Jews were “saved” by God’s grace in the Jewish covenant. To be sure, they understood that they had to obey the law God had given them. But they did not obey it to “get saved”; they obeyed to maintain the salvation God had already given them.”[2] This view also begins to focus on more toward a corporate understanding of Paul’s writings and less individualistic. One strength of this view is that it makes us consider the fact that Jews of ancient Israel may not have been as legalistic as we once considered. But one of its greatest weaknesses is stated by Carson and Moo, “But on Sanders’s own showing, it is also believed that if one “got in” by grace, one “stayed in” by obedience.”[3]

While Moo in his commentary has no explicit section titled the best way to read Romans he does say the way we have read Paul’s works is not far off the mark, and while it may need some adjustments they don’t need to be as extreme as those proposed by N.T. Wright and others of the New Perspective.[4]

I generally hold tightly to the Reformation perspective and still hold to it, but after studying the understanding behind convent nomism I have become a little (tiny bit) more open to understanding that Jews may not have been so legalistic. However we need to take each section of scripture and examine it as the Bereans did to find out what context we should view it in. It is my hope that after reading this you would get more out of your time in Romans and your Bible over all.

Bibliography

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids,, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Moo, Douglas J. The NIV Application Commentary- Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

---

[1] Carson, D. A., and Douglas J Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. [Grand Rapids,, MI: Zondervan, 2005], 375.

[2] Moo, Douglas J. The NIV Application Commentary- Romans. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000], 119.

[3] Carson and Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, 383.

[4] Moo, The NIV Application Commentary- Romans, 121.