Questions: Matthew 21: 28-32

Greek Islands: Facebook

Questions with my finalized copy for Easter church devotional series

In regards to Matthew 21: 28-32 

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV) 28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

Questions 

1. How does conflicting Kingdoms impact us?

(We embrace the gospel Kingdom through Christ, but we are only part of the true Kingdom of God because God has regenerated us (Titus 3), as we are born again (John 3).)

(We are citizen of the Kingdom of God by grace through faith by the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, for good works, but not by our own works. (Ephesians 1-2))

(We embrace salvation, given to us by God.)

2. What do we practically do with knowledge of conflicting Kingdoms? 

(We prayerfully ask that God will guide us to be humble, obedient citizens that can assist in the growth of other citizens (Christians) and be good witnesses to non-citizens.)

3. Who are we in this story? 

(If we become too judgmental and arrogant in looking down on others that do not confess Jesus, we can be like persons with a false view of God. When we prayerfully, in humility, being saved by grace through faith, act Christ-like, we can be effective Christians with gospel witness.)

4. How should we treat others that are within the false Kingdom?

(We should treat others with love and respect. Living the gospel and presenting it where good situations arise.)

5. How should we act when we are hated for our Kingdom citizenship?

(We can be relatable as human beings that are finite and sinful, as are all human beings that live today. When reasonably possible, we can lovingly explain that we relate with our non-Christian fellow human beings, but that the gospel provides us with forgiveness of sins, through Christ.)  

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MEYER, HEINRICH, AUGUST, WILHELM (1884-1887) Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, New York, Funk and Wagnalls.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional III

Las Vegas

Thank you to Mr. James Zombie Clarke

Finalized copy for Easter church series

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV) 28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

MEYER, HEINRICH, AUGUST, WILHELM (1884-1887) Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, New York, Funk and Wagnalls.

Meyer cited:

'The publicans and harlots are represented by the first mentioned son; for previous to the days of John they refused to obey the divine call in answer to the command to serve Him, which God addressed to them through the law and the prophets, they practically said: ('I will not' translated from Greek), but when John appeared they accorded him the faith of their hearts, so that, in conformity with his preaching, they were now amending their ways, and devoting themselves to the service of God.

The members of the Sanhedrin are represented by the second son; for, while pretending to yield obedience to the law of God revealed in the Scriptures by the submissive airs which they assumed, they practically uttered the insincere ('I will go, Lord' translated from the Greek), they in reality disregarded it, and, unlike the publicans and the harlots, they would not allow themselves to be influenced by the movement that followed the preaching of the Baptist, so that neither the efforts of John nor the example of the publicans and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of producing conversion.'

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

Courson cited:

'Jesus likened the prostitutes and publicans (tax-collectors, from the ESV) to the first son. They seemed unlikely candidates to receive John's message, but receive it they did.' On the other hand, like the second son, the pseudo-religious scribes and Pharisees gave only lip service to the preaching of John.' Courson (158).

Devotional

Conflicting Kingdoms 

The first group of tax-collectors and prostitutes were within the actual Kingdom of God, as although their fallen and corrupted nature led to disobedience to God, eventually God was trusted and obeyed in faith. Therefore, these people were covered by the applied righteousness of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Practically these social outcasts grew in godliness as new members of the Kingdom of God. They now also had everlasting life, by grace through faith, within the future culminated Kingdom.

The second group of Hebrew religious leaders were excluded from the actual Kingdom of God, because although they claimed to worship in divine truth and righteousness, the God of the Old Testament, and used the Old Testament within their form of Judaism, these religious leaders depended on their own religious system, religious righteousness and spirituality. This was a false representation of whom God actually is. These religious leaders claimed allegiance and obedience to God, but in actuality rejected the God of the Old Testament by rejecting progressive divine revelation from the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ and the actual, divine righteousness they represent.

The Judaism of these leaders fused the teachings of the Old Testament and Mosaic Law with religious rules and social norms which made the divine work of God, void in their lives. Therefore, they naturally rejected the forerunner of the Messiah and the Messiah, himself. Practically, these people were ungodly and part of a false Kingdom of God.

We can grant that some in Judaism were true to the Old Testament, in true faith and are in the Kingdom. These people would have accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah if they existed in his time or later.

True faith in God, through Jesus Christ, is equated with true imputed (attributed) divine righteousness and salvation, and not necessarily religiosity.

Brief on Bible contradictions

Thanks to James Zombie Clarke
from Las Vegas.

Sermon

The Lord Has Risen Indeed - by Michael Phillips Apr 12, 2009 am - Easter, 2009

Grace Baptist Church

Cited

The most serious thing he brought up was the conflicting reports of the Resurrection. All four Gospel say Mary Magdalene and her friends were the first to see the empty tomb. But just what was it they saw? Matthew says they saw an angel; Mark said they saw a young man; Luke says it was two men they saw; and John says they saw two angels. So, which is it? Angels or men, one or two? 

If you read the Bible and apply common sense, you see no conflict at all. Since angels are spirits and spirits are invisible, angels cannot appear to us in their true form, for if they did, we could not see them! Most of the time, therefore, they spoke to humans in a human form. As to the difference in number, it seems only one of the angel/men spoke, and he's the only one Matthew and Mark mention-not because the other one's not there, but because the other one had nothing to say. 

Cited 

We speak this way all the time. My wife and I invite a family to dinner. We both come up to them, and I say, 'If you're free for dinner on Saturday, come over at six'. The husband might say, 'Michael asked us to dinner'; the wife, 'Michael and Gladys asked us to dinner'; the son would say, 'Gladys invited to dinner'. Who's lying? Where's the contradiction? Nobody would find fault in these discrepancies-unless he wanted to. 

Can I straighten out every crooked place in the Bible? Of course not; nobody can do that...

Based on four academic degrees in both Christian and secular, (varying degrees of) conservative and liberal, academic institutions, I agree with Pastor Phillips' explanation for bible difficulties.

Research of biblical manuscript evidence does find variant readings. These are attributed to scribal errors and perhaps in some cases, harmonization and clarification.

From

Bible.org: Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary

Cited

Ancient scribes who copied the handwritten texts of the New Testament frequently changed the text intentionally. Although unintentional changes account for the vast majority of textual corruption, intentional alterations also account for thousands of corruptions. In some cases, to be sure, it does seem that the scribes were being malicious. But these instances are few and far between. The majority of the intentional changes to the text were done by scribes who either thought that the text they were copying had errors in it or by scribes who were clarifying the meaning, especially for liturgical reasons.

Cited

Some of the commonest intentional changes involve parallel passages. This is where the passage that the scribe is copying out has a parallel to it of which the scribe is aware. For example, about 90% of the pericopes (or stories) in Mark’s Gospel are found in Matthew. When a scribe was copying Mark, after he had just finished copying Matthew, he would frequently remember the parallel in Matthew and make adjustments to the wording of Mark so that it would conform to the wording of Matthew. This alteration is known as harmonization.

Cited

Scribes also were prone to clarify passages, especially for liturgical reasons.

Cited

Scribes also were prone to clarify what they thought the text meant. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. There could be theological issues involved, or issues of mere orthopraxy (proper conduct in the church). 

Cited

Some have attempted this as a primary explanation for the apparent theological changes in the NT, but what they haven’t done is sufficiently anchor a particular reading to a particular time and place in which such a reading would probably arise. Thus, the theological argument must give way to the textual evidence, since the textual variants are capable of being explained by several different factors.

My brief time at the University of Manchester, before I completed MPhil/PhD work at the University of Wales, had me discuss bible and theology with a world-class, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar that told me that the New Testament featured different 'theologies.' Fair enough, writers can present revelation from different perspectives, but in basic agreement with Dr. Wallace, the manuscript evidence and textual variants provide evidence to work through possible theological interpretations. As I did recently:

2 Peter 3: 10

Wallace again

Cited

...we can have a great deal of confidence that the essential message of the original text can be recovered, for there is always a witness to it.

Looking at biblical manuscripts extant, especially New Testament ones, in my case, there are scribal errors and likely scribal harmonization and clarifications at parts. But, biblical theology is logically consistent. It is also without theological or philosophical error, in my view, in the original documents.

This based on a view of divine revelation through human agents.

Primary doctrines, theology (theologies from various biblical writers, prophets, apostles, associates and their scribes) are consistent with the gospel message, and secondary doctrines and theology can be reasoned out and debated with the use of textual variants, when needed.

(Such as with my 2 Peter 3: 10 example)

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional II

Winter: Windows

Previous related entry:

Matthew 21: 28-32 Devotional from January 16 2020

Preparation

This is further preparation work for a writing project at church in the Spring, that I am contributing to.

This will feature more of a devotional focus than most of my work.

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV)

28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional II

Meyer opines

Cited

Matthew 21:28-32. Peculiar to Matthew, and doubtless taken from the collection of the sayings of the Lord. Jesus now assumes the offensive in order to convince His adversaries of their own baseness. 

Cited

The publicans and harlots are represented by the first mentioned son; for previous to the days of John they refused to obey the divine call (in answer to the command to serve Him, which God addressed to them through the law and the prophets, they practically said: οὐ θέλω),('I will not' translation from Marshall, my add) but when John appeared they accorded him the faith of their hearts, so that, in conformity with his preaching, they were now amending their ways, and devoting themselves to the service of God. 

The members of the Sanhedrim (Sanhedrin my correction) are represented by the second son; for, while pretending to yield obedience to the law of God revealed in the Scriptures (by the submissive airs which they assumed, they practically uttered the insincere ἐγὼ, κύριε), ('I go, Lord' translation from Marshall, my add) they in reality disregarded it, and, unlike the publicans and the harlots, they would not allow themselves to be influenced by the movement that followed the preaching of the Baptist, so that neither the efforts of John nor the example of the publicans and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of producing conversion. To understand by the two sons the Gentiles and the Jews, is entirely against the context.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MEYER, HEINRICH, AUGUST, WILHELM (1884-1887) Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, New York, Funk and Wagnalls.

Bible Hub

Devotional 

Conflicting Kingdoms

Again, as I noted in the previous article, using other words, these two categories are generally true. But, not all followers of Judaism, prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ, were outside of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, some within Judaism have accepted the gospel from Jesus Christ's time until now.

I do not understand the text as a ticket to villainize all within Judaism, or all leaders within.

At the same time, not all publicans/tax-collectors and harlots/prostitutes would accept the ministry of Jesus Christ and the gospel. Not all were eventually divinely persuaded and regenerated (John 3, Titus 3) to be within the Kingdom of God.

In my many years of studying the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, admitting via manuscripts extant that there are scribal errors and likely scribal harmonization, at parts; biblical theology is logically consistent. It is also without theological or philosophical error, in my view, in the original documents.

The example from Matthew 21, like others in the Scripture is noting what is generally true in regard to human nature via story, in the New Testament era that Jesus Christ lived in.

At the same time, there are essential New Testament doctrines that are always true such as (non-exhaustively) that there is only one God, the triune nature of God, and that human salvation is by grace through faith, alone, in the applied atoning and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional

Facebook

Preparation

This is preparation work for a writing project at church in the Spring, that I am contributing to. This will feature more of a devotional focus than most of my work.

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV) 

28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

Courson 

'Jesus likened the prostitutes and publicans (tax-collectors, from the ESV quoted, my add) to the first son. They seemed  unlikely candidates to receive John's message, but receive it they did.' On the other hand, like the second son, the pseudo-religious scribes and Pharisees gave only lip service to the preaching of John.' Courson (158).

Ellison 

This is a parable that teaches the 'unworthiness of the religious leaders'. Ellison (1142). Ellison opines 'they must not be transferred from them to the Jews generally.' Ellison (1142).

(These are two general categories, there will be exceptions in each group)

Ellison continues and explains that there are some textual difficulties with 21: 28-32. 'There is good evidence for placing first the son who said 'Yes' and did not go. Ellison (1142-1143). 'Then , a small but significant group of MSS (Manuscripts, my add), which follow the NIV order, have in v. 31 'the second. (1143).

(I present this as scholarly information. Again, my task for this passage and article is largely devotional)

I reason that Ellison is not stating that the NIV follows this order.

Bible Gateway NIV

Cited

29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

Cited

31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered.

France

Matthew 21: 28-32 places a major emphasis on what 'we do.' France (306). The Hebrew religious leaders (chief priest and elders, verse 23) are contrasted with the tax collectors and prostitutes. France (306). France comments that the tax collectors and prostitutes were the most despised people in that society. (306). These people are considered farthest from the Kingdom of God. (306).

These despised ones (the first) received a 'scandalized reaction' (306) from the religious leaders (the second) by Jesus' association with 'such outcasts' (306). The religious leaders were excluded from the Kingdom of God as they rejected the messages of John the Baptist and more importantly, the ministry works and message of Jesus Christ.

The religious leaders rejected the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and his gospel message, even though they observed how this righteousness changed the tax collectors and prostitutes to the better. (306).

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

Devotional

Conflicting Kingdoms

The first group of tax-collectors and prostitutes were within the actual Kingdom of God, as although their fallen and corrupted nature led to disobedience to God as represented in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible); eventually God was trusted and obeyed in faith, and these people were covered by the applied righteousness of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.

Practically these people became godly, and part of the Kingdom of God.

The second group of Hebrew religious leaders were excluded from the actual Kingdom of God, because although they claimed to worship in divine truth and righteousness, the God of the Old Testament, these religious leaders depended on their own religious righteousness and spirituality which was a false representation (fatally corrupted version) of whom God actually is.

These religious leaders claimed allegiance and obedience to God, but in actuality rejected the God of the Old Testament by rejecting progressive divine revelation from the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ and the actual, divine righteousness they represent.

The Judaism of these leaders fused the teachings of the Old Testament and Mosaic Law and with religious rules and social norms which made the divine work of God, void in their lives. Therefore, they naturally rejected the forerunner of the Messiah and the Messiah, himself.

Practically, these people were ungodly and part of a false Kingdom of God.

(We can grant that some in Judaism were true to the Old Testament, in true faith and are in the Kingdom. These people would have accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah if they existed in his time or later.)

True faith in God is equated with salvation and not necessarily religiosity.

Logic is included in truth

Gyro Park in Nelson:
 Masa Vossy Suza Instagram
and Facebook

Logic is included in truth

Slight edits on April 7 2023 for an entry on academia.edu

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

The review continues...

Me learning symbolic logic continues:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition : = Equal (s) ε = Epsilon and means is ⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails ˜ = Not ∃ = There exists ∃! = There exists ∴ = Therefore . = Therefore < = Is included v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). x = variable . = Conjunction meaning And 0 = Null class cls = Class int = Interpretation
---

From back in April, 2019 (please see archives for my previous work and reviews):

Importantly, philosopher Langer explains that there is no guarantee that there is truth in a logical system. (189). Logic does not necessarily promote a fact, rather 'it stands for the conceptual possibility of a system'. (189). Logic documents with the deduction of premises. It stands for 'the consistency of all propositions'. (189). It is standing for logical validity. (189), not factual certainty or truth. (189). This is standard from philosophy, logic, texts. Certainly not something Langer or I manufactured as original.

Langer demonstrates the following as logical:

Napoleon discovered America

Napoleon died before 1500 A.D. (189).

Conclusion

America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

These two premises imply that America was discovered before 1500 and Langer opines that a third proposition that would be derived (a conclusion, my add) would also be logical and valid. (189). 

Indeed the first two premises are historically false. (189). They are still logically consistent, while the consequent is true that America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

Also logical, but a true premise: n= Napoleon d= Discover a= America

n ˜ (d+a)

Napoleon did not discover America.

January 13 2020

Langer mentions that the text shows that for every proposition there is also an analogous one (221). If there is an entity that when multiplied with any term, leaves that term unchanged, then there is also one that can be added to that term without altering it (221).

Langer's theorem:

-(a + b) = -a x -b (221)

She notes that this theorem is the complement of a + b. (221).

The complement is the amount added to something to make it whole. Each entity needs to complete the other is a universe of discourse. (143).

Langer writes (paraphrased) that she is not explicitly explaining her argument here. (222). She states in regards to breaking down the theorems...

'But this is left to the brave and ambitious reader.' (223).

But in philosophical terms, for the sake of logic, her theorems represent the law of duality. (223). The law of duality between + and x. (223). The theorems which explain the relation between sums (+) and products (x) express this law of duality. (223). The relation between addition and multiplication.

Webster

Definition of algebraic sum : the aggregate of two or more numbers or quantities taken with regard to their signs (as + or −) according to the rules of addition in algebra the algebraic sum of −2, 8, and −1 is 5

Study.com

What Is a Product? When speaking mathematically, the term product means the answer to a multiplication problem. For example: 5 * 3 = 15 

15 is the product The term product first showed up in England in the 1400s and comes from the Latin word productum, which means 'to produce.'

Philosophical relevance?

Philosopher (and Mathematician) Langer opines that everything she noted about sums is also true of products, (224). I am a philosopher and not a mathematician, but seems to me, she is demonstrating the logic and consistency of symbolic logic within algebra, mathematics and philosophy.

Overall, I reason, symbolic logic has minimal practical use, even within most philosophy. But I appreciate that Langer demonstrates the consistency of logic, and as well that the logical is not necessarily true. But, in my embraced philosophy and theology, the truth is always logical. In other words, the truth always can be made sense of with reasonable premises and conclusions.

l = Logic
t = Truth

l ˜ = t

(Logic does not equal truth, strictly philosophically speaking)

l < t

(Logic is included in truth)

(l < t) ˜ ⊨ (l = t)

(Logic is included in truth, does not entail logic equals truth)

Research and study within four academic degrees and years of academic website writing has shown me that I have read and researched many logically presented premises and conclusions, meaning, many logical arguments, that are not likely true.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

Langer's theorem: 

quote 

-(a + b) = -a x -b (221) She notes that this theorem is the complement of a + b. (221). 

Further 

-a + (a + b) = 1 (221) -1 + (1 + 1 = 2) = 1 (My add) -a x ab = 0 -1 x a-b (1-1 = 0) = 0 (With assist from 221) 

There is a law of absorption: a absorbs any sum of itself and any term multiplied with any other product. (217). a x (a + b) means the common part of a and (a + b) which is just a. (217). a + (a x b) means the class of a or a x b is also just a. (217-218). Not just b. Same with c, d, e, f, g, h, i, etcetera.

Brain wipe?

Conway Castle, Wales 2001

From

MPhil

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Statement thirty-nine: This statement stated: Christians are less affected by the problem of evil than non-Christians.

I think this is a tricky statement. I believe, in many ways, Christians are as affected by evil as non-Christian, for example by natural evils. However, on the other hand, a moral life of trusting in God does keep one away from certain evils. Proverbs 9 states that years will be added to a person’s life if they are wise and follow God. This is a general principle and, of course, some wise Christians die young, but I believe that a moral life tends to keep one away from immoral people and lifestyle choices which lead to all kinds of evil. With Anglicans 2% agreed with the statement, with 6% not certain, and 92% disagreed. With the Baptist denomination, 14% agreed, with 8% being not certain, and 78% being in disagreement.

Statement forty: The last statement stated: Eventually the Kingdom of God will be completely free from any evil.

I would contend that Revelation 21-22 describes a Kingdom of God free from evil. I believe that the work of Christ beginning with his death and resurrection will culminate with this Kingdom. With Anglicans, 78% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 8% disagreed. With the Baptists, 94% agreed, with 6% being not certain.

From

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

I deduce that since Revelation 21:4 describes a new creation free from death and suffering, that whatever the figurative nature of this portion of Revelation (20-22), a finalized state free from human rebellion is going to be established.

January 9 2020

Concerning Revelation 21: 4, where it states that there shall be no more death, and no suffering:

Revelation 21:3-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will [a]dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” Footnotes: Revelation 21:3 Or tabernacle Revelation 21:3 One early ms reads, and be their God

Pastor Courson states in his often cited (and very helpful) commentary used on this website, in regard to the non-believers, (paraphrased) that they will not come to mind (Isaiah 65: 17) in the Kingdom of God. Courson (1789). Isaiah 65: 17 from the New American Standard Bible: "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

Courson reasons this means 'we will not have memory of those who aren't there.' Courson (1789).

I do not agree. (Non-exhaustive)

1) The language from Isaiah and Revelation in regards to new heavens (Isaiah), new heaven (Revelation) and new earth is using degrees of literalness. Indeed, there will be a new creation, but not necessarily described in plain literal language. Apocalyptic literature is well-known for the considerable use of less than plan literal language. Quote: 'Interpreters understand these figures with varying degrees of literalness.' Mounce (369).

2) My academic background with four academic degrees and website work informs me to hold to compatibilism. God's sovereignty is compatible with limited human free will, as opposed to incompatibilist, libertarian free will, where there is significantly limited or no compatibility. As with compatibilism there are various forms of incompatibilism.

Resurrected (Revelation 21-22, 1 Corinthians 15), regenerated (John 3 Titus 3) humanity in Jesus Christ will have greater spiritual knowledge and maturity than did fallen humanity.

As opposed to the 'brain wipe', I theologically propose that each believer will have a significant, mature understanding of the location and existence of the unregenerate and accept both God's nature and will and the nature and will of the unregenerate in the matter.  In my compatibilistic approach those outside of the Kingdom are without force or coercion, post-mortem, permitted to exist within their sinful human nature and choices and continue to reject God's gospel.

Those in Jesus Christ can remember the previous fallen realm and people within it, but shall not dwell on it.

For me a 'brain wipe' theology works against my Reformed theology and the sanctification work God does in the believer which does assist the Christian to see evil and problems of evil from God's holy perspective. Far superior to the understanding of evil that came to Adam and Eve (and humanity) through the fall. Human goodness in this present realm is tainted and as it is not perfect goodness, it is evil. Largely the cause of many problems of evil.

Mark 10:18

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Luke 18: 19

New American Standard Bible And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

In contrast to fallen humanity, regenerated, post-mortem, resurrected believers will understand evil in significant spiritual maturity, and reject it everlastingly.

No need for a 'brain wipe'.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

John 3: 19-20 -- Darkness continued

tourradardotsouthoffrance

Monday, April 22, 2019 The Orthodox Study Bible: John 3: 19-20

From above I stated last year...

From the New American Standard Bible (NASB):

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

From Strong's: 4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88). σκότος

Strong's page 88

Bauer explains that here is this context, darkness can be understood as 'religious and moral darkness, of darkening by sin, of the state of unbelievers and of the godless.' (757-758).

From my Reformed perspective, the corrupted, fallen nature of humanity (Genesis 3, Romans) prohibits a person in darkness from embracing the light to the point of salvation.

New American Standard Bible

Romans 5:10 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved [a]by His life. Footnotes: [a] Romans 5:10

Colossians 1: 21-24 21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. 

Human beings as enemies of God and being alienated from God with a hostile mind (s), in my opinion cancels out theology/philosophy of person's simply responding to the offer of salvation using libertarian free will (incompatibilism). In contrast, God, through the Holy Spirit, regenerates the persons (Titus 3, or same makes born again John 3) applying the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to those persons that simultaneously embrace, as secondary cause, with limited free will, what God has caused, choosing them (Ephesians 1-2) (compatibilism). This is neither libertarian free will, nor divine force of coercion.
---

January 8 2020 

Again from the NASB

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

As from the New Testament, human beings love darkness (evil) as opposed to the Light from the triune God (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) (good).

They embrace evil deeds, but these deeds can be exposed by the Light.

God the Son, Jesus Christ is the Light here. But, theologically, God's gospel and truth is also 'light.'

In his John commentary, David J. Ellis writes concerning 3: 19...'Christ as the world's true Light shows men what they essentially are.' Ellis (1239)

Here in my theological opinion, is a biblical reason why many non-believers have little or no interest in biblical studies, religious studies and theology, because any study risks his/her worldview and resulting choices, acts and actions being exposed as evil and sinful.

There are also others that reject the gospel and the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ by embracing counter premises and conclusions in contrast to what are the more evidentially clear biblical interpretations, and therefore support counter premises and conclusions, within biblical studies, religious studies and theology. This group would include some critics and scholars.

Based on New Testament theological concepts, human sinful nature (and demonic influences on humanity) is multifaceted. Disbelief in the biblical God occurs with both a human refusal to significantly study the bible, religion and theology, and disbelief occurs with some that study at various significant levels, but disagree.

I am using John 3 for a theological base with article. As for living in the democratic western world, I certainly support the rights of those to be non-Christians and am not hostile or unfriendly towards non-Christians. I am not being combative.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

Related links

Wednesday, June 05, 2019 Darkness: But not black and white

Monday, June 03, 2019 Darkness and lack of belief

The Orthodox Study Bible: Amen

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

This text review continues...

From the Glossary and Reverend John W. Morris, PhD

Amen

"So be it" in Hebrew. Amen is said or sung at the close of a prayer or hymn, showing the agreement of the people to what has been said (Deut. 27:15-26; 1 Cor. 14:16). (793).

In my view, this entry within that Orthodoxy text, explains the biblical definition, but also how the use of 'amen' fits within the practice and tradition of the Orthodox Church.

The Hebrew from Strong page 16; the Greek from Strong page 10.

---

Using the 1 Corinthians 14: 16 example, listed by the Orthodox Study Bible, from the Courson commentary:

"Amen' is one of the two words understood by every believer in every culture--the other is "Alleluia." Courson (1082).

Why should we say Amen? "Amen" literally means "So be it." (1082).

The Corinthians said 'amen' after prayers. (1082). Courson explains (paraphrased) that the Church should agree on prayer. (1082).

Hopefully, being in agreement in prayer through the God the Holy Spirit will lead the Church (and each individual Christian church that prays together) to reasonable, theological, certainty in prayer. There should be a reasonable, theological, certainty when praying that God's will shall be done, as in 'so be it'.

From the Browning, Oxford Dictionary, he explains that 'amen' in Hebrew means 'certainly'. Browning (14). The statement identifies the Church with the preceding prayer, and also notes 1 Corinthians 14: 16 as example (14). The Hebrews connects to ideas of truthfulness and steadfastness (14).

These concepts are transferred from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

The developing world

MPhil

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Statement thirty-eight: This statement stated: Evil is greater in the developing world. I am in agreement with the majority of responders with this statement. I think that evil is comparably great in the west, but often takes place in more subtle forms which are not as apparent as mass starvation for example. With the Anglican denomination, 2% were in agreement, with 10% being not certain, and 88% disagreeing. With the Baptist group, 2% agreed, with 20% being not certain, and 78% disagreeing.

From

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Western Christians need to examine the side they are on in many of the world’s social struggles, particularly in regard to the third world. Brown (1984: 160-161). Anderson (2001: 181). The third world is also known as the developing world. In my mind there is a danger that Christianity, whether conservative or liberal, becomes overly influenced by cultures where it exists. Christian thought must stay true to Biblical and theological principles at the expense of being led astray by societal movements that later in history may be deemed to have been corrupt. Any historical corruption of the Christian Church is, in the end, a poor witness of Christ and the gospel and weakens the credibility of Christian ministry in the minds of many critics. Anderson reasons the Church needs to repent for wrong doing in its existence. Anderson (2001: 180-181).

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

September 11 2015: Brown and the Developing World

January 1 2020

Quote

Statement thirty-eight: This statement stated: Evil is greater in the developing world.

In my mind, in 2002-2003, when I was preparing these statements, several of the questions really had no definitive right or wrong answer. This is such a question, but I was academically required to present questionnaires and surveys for the sake of thesis originality. The questions from both my MPhil and PhD theses questionnaires did allow for significantly theological reflection for myself and the readers, however.

Facebook: Granville Street, Vancouver, documented as 1901.