First Corinthians 6: The People's Court? (Briefly)

The New American Standard Bible

First Corinthians 6: 1-8

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
---

My mentor at Columbia Bible College ('Uncle Gerry', that has a theory) quoted this section of First Corinthians 6 to me, during my time as an undergraduate.

The theology being, that when one is wronged by another Christian within the Church, it is the moral and ethical act/action to at least, on one's part, settle the issue within the Church, and not within the civil/secular courts.

Better to suffer loss, than not do so, and defraud the Church and the Gospel, is what the Scripture implies and what my mentor taught.

Courson opines that the Corinthians, and by implication, the Universal Church, was to judge themselves. Courson (2005: 1037). There was also an aspect here of suffering loss for the sake of the gospel. Courson connects it to what Jesus Christ stated in regard to turning the other cheek in Mathew 5.

Fee explains here that for the author, the Apostle Paul, theology was not just an abstraction, but the application of the Gospel in this realm, this world. Fee (1987: 248). In other words, applying the Gospel for disciples, is to apply Gospel morality, ethics and theology to disputes as opposed to seeking, as alternative, civil law and secular law.

This is in the context of disputes. I am not implying here that I theologically, favour a form of Christian theocracy (rule) or theonomy (law) in this realm...

I absolutely do not.

Bible Study Tools

4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια

In this life indeed therefore a law court... 

Overall, I find his work fantastically helpful, but Greek scholar Bauer, is not what I would consider, crystal clear on this section on his conclusion, perhaps this is the correct approach. Bauer (1979: 453). It could be that the Apostle considers those he is writing to as acting incompetent to judge as even with the most insignificant courts (Bauer (1979: 453); or that the these men at Corinth have preferred insignificant non-Church, secular, judges. Bauer (1979: 453).

It seems to me that both senses fit here. The moral/ethical failure of the men in the Church at Corinth, led to the shameful use of civil/secular, judges/courts.

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

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

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

The Seventy Weeks (sermon)

Yesterday

July 25 2004 I

July 25 2004 II

Continuing my reviews from the Grace Baptist Church website, within the sermon archives.

The Seventy Weeks is a subject I have not thoroughly investigated, but the modern dispensational and related views have struck me as highly speculative.

Cited from Pastor Michael Phillips, sermon

These things should be studied and discussed, but they should not divide us. We need open minds to hear out other believers and warm hearts to love them-even when they're wrong.

Agreed.

Within Christian theology and dogma, secondary doctrines should not be elevated to primary (Gospel) doctrines. We are all limited by finite, sinful minds (mind-spirit), in this era, even when guided by the Holy Spirit, to varying degrees, so we have limited knowledge and do not always deal with knowledge correctly or very effectively.

In the everlasting future era, those in Jesus Christ shall remain finite, but be sinless (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22 in biblical language). As well as immortal in body and soul.

Cited

All believers agree on the principal teachings of the chapter. We all say,

The Seventy Weeks are an End Time Prophecy. 

The Seventy Weeks concern the fate of Israel. 

The Seventy Weeks end with the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Jesus Christ is the Leading Man in the Seventy Weeks.

Cited

THE SEVENTY WEEKS 

The salvation will come to Israel at the end of seventy weeks. What are these weeks? Most scholars take them for weeks of years. In other words, one week equals seven years, and therefore, seventy weeks amount to seventy times seven or 490 years. This brings up a question. Are the 490 years to be taken precisely or more loosely? If the events took place in 487 years, maybe, or 495, would the prophecy be a lie?

Some say it would be. If it's not accurate to the day (or to the year at least), it is a false prophecy. I don't agree with them. The people of that time were not fussy about their numbers. They often rounded them off, and when it suited them, they chose numbers for symbolic purposes. It is not their job to conform to our patterns of thought, but it is our job to understand the way they used numbers. 

Agreed, biblically numbers are often presented in not absolutely plain literal terms.

Bible Study Tool.com

The above acknowledges the trend in scholarship but adds a caution...

In studying the book of Revelation, one is immediately struck by the prevailing bias of many commentators against understanding numbers in their normative, literal way. For example, the length of half of Daniel’s seventieth week is described in a number of related passages (Dan. Dan. 7:25; Dan. Dan. 9:27; Dan. 12:7; Rev. Rev. 11:2-3+; Rev. 12:6+, Rev. 12:14+; Rev. 13:5+). This obvious strong witness to understanding this period in a literal way is simply set aside for another meaning: 

We cannot insist on a literal meaning for the three and a half years of the tribulation period or the thousand years of the millennium. They could be literal, but the numbers function symbolically in the book and probably signify a lengthy period of time that is under God’s control.1 

We are being asked to trade gold for fool’s gold! Rather than understand three and a half as denoting a specific period of time specified by God,2 we are asked to accept the alternate meaning which our interpreter says is probably correct!

Then cited again

The existence of symbols and categorization of writing as apocalyptic genre are not license for jettisoning the primary literal meaning of numbers.

Accepting the caution here, it is well-established that eschatological, biblical literature often uses degrees of literalness. Numbers could be included.

Mounce reasons that most scholars allow for varying levels of literal interpretation in regard to the new creation. (369). This would be a key eschatological subject, as example. Mounce further demonstrates the rather figurative literal (not mythological) nature of this eschatological language in Revelation, which is the key New Testament, eschatological text.

In other words, eschatological biblical texts, both Hebrew Bible and New Testament, at times use degrees of literalness.

Back to the sermon, cited

The great B.H. Carroll made the numbers fit perfectly. But reading him left me with the feeling that he fudged the facts to fit his theory. We have to be careful of that ourselves. In any event, the seventy weeks are divided into three, unequal parts.

Cited

THE SEVEN WEEKS

First we have seven weeks. They start with The going forth of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, v.25. Scholars have split on what command this was and who issued it. Some say Cyrus the Great, others say King Artaxerxes, and still others say it is the Lord who issued the decree.

THE SIXTY TWO WEEKS 

Next we have sixty two weeks (or 434 years) 

THE SEVENTIETH WEEK

Then we have the seventieth week, vv.26-27. If the former weeks were on the dull side, this one was the most exciting and eventful week in the history of the world! What happened? Messiah [was] cut off! Who is the Messiah? It the Lord Jesus Christ. When was He cut off? About 30 AD. How was He cut off? By the crucifixion. Why was He cut off? Not for Himself. In other words, He was not crucified because He was a sinner because He was not a sinner. He died in the place of sinners. 

Cited

Note carefully: The Crucifixion occurred in the Seventieth Week. So? This means it is in our past and not in our future. The prophecy, therefore, is not predicting events in the modern world. It has nothing to do with the rebuilding of the Temple in our future or with the coming of a great dictator. The Temple could be rebuilt some day and history is full of Great Dictators, but they have nothing to do with the Seventieth Week of Daniel. 

Again, as with a previous sermon I reviewed in regard to the Antichrist, this view on The Seventy Weeks is more preterist than futurist, at least preterist in the sense that it took place within the New Testament era, or just after it.

Scholarship debates whether or not all of the New Testament was written prior to 70  AD and the Roman destruction of the temple.

Cited

What do the Seventy Weeks of Daniel mean to us? They mean the Temple of God has been rebuilt. But it is not in Jerusalem. The Temple is our Lord Jesus Christ. In coming to Him, we have our sins forgiven. In coming to Him, we have our prayers answered. In coming to Him, we come to God.

This reads as reasonable biblical theology.

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

Different evil entities? (sermon)

Ernest Hepnar via Facebook

April 25 2004

Another excellent sermon from Michael Phillips and Grace Baptist Church. I appreciate the scholarship in preaching. I appreciate his humility.

I am going to limit my comments in regard to this complex subject to just as aspect of the sermon.

This article has new content and edited content from archives (unapologetically!).

Cited

Men possessed by the spirit of Antichrist don't know the truth and wouldn't preach it if they did. But what about God-fearing men? Why have they gotten it so wrong so long? I can tell you why. They confuse words that sound alike with ideas that are alike.

If the Antichrist is the enemy of God and the Man of Sin is the enemy of God and the Beast is the enemy of God and the False Prophet is the enemy of God and the Little Horn is the enemy of God then.the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Little Horn are all the same man!

Wrong! 

Who killed the Lord? Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Caiaphas, Annas, Judas Iscariot, the Roman soldiers, the Centurion, and the mob. Are Judas and Pilate the same man? Is Herod another name for Annas? They were all enemies of the Lord, but they were different persons. 

A concordance is like the law, "Good, if it is used lawfully". But comparing a word in Revelation to a word in Daniel to a word in Matthew to a word in I John is no way to study the Bible or to find the truth! 

Read the Bible in context, get the flow of thought, understand one passage before you go on to another. That's the way to keep your doctrine straight and your heart in the truth.
---

Interesting perspective, perhaps on preterist lines on some points. By the Pastor's take, the Antichrist, is not the Man of Sin, and yet again the Beast, False Prophet and Little Horn are all different persons.

(The Beast and False Prophet have often been distinguished in scholarship).

I am by no means dismissing this theology. It is reasonable theology, however, a trillion dollar question arises for me. If these persons, after separating the Beast from the False Prophet, are not the Antichrist, then who are they?

Robert Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. Mounce (1990: 42).

Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John. Phillips' sermon too ties these terms to John's within his letters.

Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον.

Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In contrast to a preterist position, he embraces at least aspects of a futurist position. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225).

Notice he states, 'may'.

David A. Hubbard writes that the term 'antichrist' is found only in the Johannine letters. Again in support of Phillips' sermon.

The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either.

Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55). The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist.

The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55). In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55).

Again, note the term 'may'.

In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56).

(The man of sin)

The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56).

So, this is in contrast to the sermon, reviewed.

John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56). If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system.

Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254).

The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard. To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following:

Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41).

Mounce explains that a major problem with this preterism is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).

The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Phillips acknowledges this in his sermon. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient.

The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context.

The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44). Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealistic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).

W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers. 

Further:

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12...

New American Standard Bible

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; 9 that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.

f 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence
g 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or presence
h 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or attesting miracles
i 2 Thessalonians 2:10 Or every deception
j 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit is sending
k 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit an activity of error
l 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Or the lie
m 2 Thessalonians 2:12 Or condemned
n 2 Thessalonians 2:12

Or approved I take it this event, the second coming of Jesus Christ, should be interpreted with a significant level of literalness. However, I admit that the Lord slaying the lawless one with the breath of His mouth is quite possibly significantly figurative language. But the second coming of Christ is a literal, biblical and theological event of the future.

In my mind, the potentially figurative nature of Christ's breath and the slaying of the opposition does not cancel out the literalness of the second advent. Actual (non-fiction, non-mythological) historical events can be described with degrees of literal and figurative language. Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. Possibly, it may also be quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way.

Regardless, it does not appear this event occurred in the New Testament era.

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

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

Brief comments on Heresies (sermon)

Facebook

Heresies August 11 2002

Another fine sermon from Pastor Michael Phillips from Grace Baptist Church...

Cited

It (the theology of the Judaizers, my add) would have changed and finally destroyed the Gospel. In Galatians 1 Paul says adding the Mosaic Law to the Gospel turns the Gospel into something else. In his commentary on Galatians, Scot McKnight explains:

"It is like telling a new convert that he or she must also become a Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., before the conversion process is truly complete and acceptable to God. When this sort of thing takes place, the message itself is changed; it is no longer `Surrender to Christ', but `Join our group'. The focus of salvation shifts from Christ to Movement".

Agreeing with Pastor Phillips and McKnight, in my words, when Christians, leaders, pastors, and churches elevate, based on New Testament (biblical) theology, and sometimes not so biblical theology, secondary doctrines to actual or virtual primary doctrines, there is a serious danger in some cases at least, that theologically salvation becomes dependent on those elevated secondary doctrines being accepted at the expense of core Gospel doctrines.

For example, a church states as core belief and dogma:

We believe in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation from sin and death; yet one must follow the dogmas and practices of our church (alone, or perhaps a few like churches) to be saved.

Following these dogmas and practices becomes the rule by which someone is a 'true Christian' or not, according to these movements.

By embracing theology that elevates works righteousness above the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to the chosen/elect that believe, alone (1-2 Ephesians) through regeneration (Titus 3), these churches and movements, therefore, risk cancelling the Gospel. As in Matthew 7 and the Lord, Lord, warning from Jesus Christ, for those with a false belief.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.