Sunday, 10 December 2023
Against reductionism?
Against the Tide: John Lennox and Stephen Meyer
Can one person push back against the strong currents of atheism, materialism, and naturalism so evident in academia and the public square today? On a classic episode of ID the Future, philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer begins a three-part conversation with Oxford University mathematician and philosopher Dr. John Lennox about his recent documentary film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science. Lennox shows that one person can indeed push back when armed with knowledge, wisdom, and respect.
As Lennox explains, he grew up as the child of a uniquely non-sectarian Christian family in Northern Ireland, with parents who encouraged him to question broadly, read widely, and respect every person as a creature made in the image of God. Lennox tells of his encounters with C. S. Lewis at Cambridge University, relates a humorous story in which atheist Peter Atkins gave him the title of one of his books, and describes his front-row seat as he watched the scientific atheism of the 1960s transform into the aggressive and contemptuous New Atheism of more recent years — a story that includes Lennox’s own debate with Richard Dawkins.
Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Saturday, 9 December 2023
Mapping the limits of evolution?
William Whewell: Statesman of Science
Are there natural limits to biological change? Is the evidence for design in nature well founded? On a new episode of ID the Future, concludes a conversation with historian of science Michael Keas about Christianity’s influence on the development of modern scientific inquiry.
Keas discusses the legacy of pioneering 19th century philosopher of science William Whewell. Considered the greatest methodologist of science during his lifetime, Whewell helped other scientists think through the implications of their work and was highly regarded by his contemporaries, including Charles Darwin. Keas contrasts Whewell’s perspective of the evidence for design with that of Darwin and discusses the importance of embracing a healthy form of methodological naturalism and methodological pluralism in scientific inquiry.
Whewell “is a great example of an earlier leading figure in science doing something that today, the majority of scientists would not look too kindly on and maybe would even try to ostracize as being anti-science,” says Keas. Whewell demonstrated methodological pluralism, a view of scientific inquiry that allows for both intelligent and unintelligent causes and a plurality of causal agents, as long as the evidence supports it. Keas argues that we can adopt the same approach today.
Download the podcast or listen to it here
James Tour vs. The sphinx : post game commentary
A Few Thoughts on the Cronin-Tour Debate
Recently, the Cambridge Faculty Roundtable hosted a very interesting debate at Harvard about science and the origin of life. The main participants were chemistry professors Dr. James Tour and Dr. Lee Cronin. Tour is an organic chemist at Rice University and an outspoken critic of the current state of origin-of-life research, while Cronin is a British chemist and a prominent researcher in the field of chemical self-organization and abiogenesis. Cronin wants to reverse-engineer life from the bottom up and create artificial life, rather than explain the historically contingent event of the actual origin of the first living cell.
Unlike James Tour’s earlier debate with YouTuber Dave Farina, this event was a very civil and respectful interaction between two distinguished scientists, who both have interesting and important things to say. Therefore, I want to use this opportunity to offer some personal thoughts. Since biochemistry, molecular biology, and information theory are outside my field of expertise, I will restrict my commentary to a more general issue that I found quite revealing. It is very much relevant to the status of intelligent design theory.
“False Claims by Cronin and His Group”
In the debate, Tour insisted on precise chemistry, while Cronin elaborated on vague ideas of Assembly Theory and selection doing its thing. Cronin proposed Assembly Theory in 2017. But it was only the recent publication on the subject in the prestigious journal Nature (Sharma et al. 2023) that made a real splash, generating headlines around the world. Tour quite correctly pointed out that Assembly Theory does not bring us a single step closer to understanding how a first cell, a first replicator, or even just the main building blocks of life could form under the conditions of the early Earth. Tour’s critique is echoed by other scientists including Dr. Hector Zenil at Oxford University. As Zenil wrote in an update to his article for Medium, “The 8 fallacies of Assembly Theory”:
While I may not share all of Prof. Tour’s set of beliefs regarding religion (he did not use any religious arguments to refute Cronin’s claims), I think he did a service to science and scientific practice by pointing out the many false claims by Cronin and his group.
A Precise Level of Complexity
Nevertheless, Assembly Theory has some interesting aspects. The most intriguing is that it provides an objective measure of the complexity of parts that arguably allows for a reliable empirical detection of life and its products, distinguishing it from any results of abiotic processes. This has important implications — for example, in the search for extraterrestrial life on exoplanets. However, this measure raises a question that was not addressed by Cronin: under the theory of an unguided process of chemical and biological evolution, should such a threshold of complexity, clearly identifying life and its activities, even be expected?
I submit that it should not be expected at all. On the contrary, we should expect a smooth grade of complexity between abiotic and biotic processes, that does not allow for a clear distinction in the fuzzy transitional region. The fact that there seems to be a precise level of complexity, above which there is only life and its products and below which there is not, indicates to me a saltational phase transition. Such a transition does not fit with Cronin’s suggestion of an origin through unguided selection mechanisms.
Cronin’s Core Fallacy
A similar intuition seems to have pushed Cronin to commit the core fallacy that struck me in his presentation. I would call it the “If it were not” fallacy, or the fallacy of a ”naturalism of the gaps.” The fallacy admits that we have no clue how life originated. But it suggests that we will just have to wait, maybe for decades more of research, to see the problems solved. These twin fallacies are of course rooted in Cronin’s preferred worldview, which is explicitly one of materialist naturalism.
Cronin does not reason from the evidence with an unbiased inference to the best explanation. Instead, he excludes a priori the alternative of intelligent causation and restricts his search to material causes alone. Here is what Cronin said in his opening statement (timecode 1.04.30-1.04:50): “If we weren’t invented by some, … hmmm …well, if we are not in Elon Musk’s simulation and we are not some other fictitious creation, then there are other processes going on …”. This “If it were not” fallacy is a combination of the fallacy of the excluded middle and the fallacy of begging the question. But Cronin cannot justify his a priori exclusion of design with an appeal to methodological naturalism or to the scientific method. That is because Cronin himself mentioned in his talk fully naturalistic alternatives for intelligent causation such as the simulation hypothesis.
His fallacy is therefore not rooted in a mere methodological naturalism but rather in a full-fledged ontological naturalism. He explicitly thinks that meaning, purpose, life, consciousness, memory, etc., are all emergent from material processes. In a previous conversation with James Tour he even made the absurd statement, “I don’t think consciousness exists” (see this episode of Unbelievable? with host Justin Brierley at timecode 1:11:28). In the recent debate, Cronin explicitly and unequivocally identified as a materialist, which fully explains his “If it were not“ fallacy and his “naturalism of the gaps.”
Excluding Intelligent Design
In my view this perfectly exemplifies the dynamic in modern science and its mainstream opposition against intelligent design theory: intelligent causation is a priori excluded from the set of allowed hypotheses under the false pretense of methodological naturalism. But this exclusion is actually rooted in ontological naturalism and crude materialism. The latter is an unfalsifiable metaphysical belief that has no justification for serving as an underlying paradigm for science.
Even worse: the growing consensus in theoretical physics holds that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent from quantum entanglement. This implies an ultimate reality of quantum information beyond space and time. And that clearly contradicts materialism and reveals it to be an obsolete and anachronistic worldview, rooted in a 19th-century picture of a clockwork universe with billiard-ball-like elementary particles. Even if we were to grant for the sake of the argument that methodological naturalism is a core tenet of the scientific method, intelligent design is a valid form of causation that should and ultimately will return to the mainstream of science. When it does, we will be permitted to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without worldview blinders.
Friday, 8 December 2023
Thursday, 7 December 2023
Specified complexity squared?
The Interactome Multiplies Specified Complexity
One aspect of the “Unknome” is starting to become clearer: the interactome. If the Unknome refers to the set of components in a cell we know nothing about, the Interactome refers to “the whole set of molecular interactions in a particular cell.” A recent paper has created a “wow moment” about the interactome. It found that there are far more interactions between proteins than previously thought.
A New Method
Publishing in Nature, seven researchers from Germany and Denmark explored the “social and structural architecture” of proteins in a eukaryotic organism. Michaelis et al. created a new method for investigating interactions between proteins. The interactome, they say, has been studied for two decades, but work has been tediously slow due to procedural challenges.
The large-scale study of cellular interactomes using mass spectrometry-based proteomics dates back over 20 years, culminating in 2 studies in which nearly half the expressed yeast proteome was successfully purified with identified interactors. These datasets have been mined extensively, leading to a network-based view of the cellular proteome. Given the importance of the interactome for functional understanding and the substantial improvements in mass spectrometry technology during the past decade, we set out to generate a substantially complete interactome of all proteins present in an organism in a given state. We made use of an endogenously GFP-tagged yeast library containing the 4,159 proteins that are detectable by fluorescence under standard growth conditions.
They used a refined “pull-down” method to “bait” known proteins tagged with green fluorescent protein (GFP) and then observe what other “prey” proteins connected to them.
Miniaturization and standardization of the workflow in combination with an ultra-robust liquid chromatography system with minimal overhead time coupled to a sensitive trapped ion mobility mass spectrometer utilizing the PASEF scan mode resulted in very high data completeness across pull-downs. This workflow required only 1.5 ml instead of litres of yeast culture, provided a constant throughput of 60 pull-downs per day and enabled the use of the same conditions for soluble or membrane proteins of vastly different abundances
The new work doubles the number of proteins studied and triples the number of interactions found “compared with existing interactome maps.” They checked and cross-checked the data for accuracy. The results were startling.
The replicate GFP pull-down measurement in the 4,147 yeast strains resulted in the enrichment of 82% of the baits (Extended Data Fig. 1). Our mass spectrometry data provided statistically significant evidence for more than 30,000 physical interactions, corresponding to an average of 15.8 interactions per protein. Most were supported by forward pull-down (35%), followed by forward pull-down and significant prey correlation (29%), whereas nearly all interactions with both forward and reverse evidence also had significant correlation z-scores (95%)
More than two-thirds of the interactions discovered were novel, they said, not previously reported. While a small percentage of the baits did not retrieve “prey” proteins, that doesn’t mean they do not interact.
Altogether, based on the total of 4,403 identified yeast proteins, with 74.1% having at least two interactors, 15.1% had one and only 10.8% had no discernable interaction partner. To investigate whether the latter set is truly ‘non-social’ or is an artefact of expression level or its tag position, we performed our workflow on a subset of the proteins using N-terminal tagged strains with identical promoters (Extended Data Fig. 5). This yielded additional interactors for about half of the proteins. Notably, the overall average of identified interactors in this set was around 2, compared with 16 in the main dataset, indicating that this set of proteins was indeed poorly connected (Supplementary Fig. 2). Although reciprocal tagging was beneficial, complexes with higher numbers of interactions would already be picked up by the redundancy effect of our screen. Given that some of our baits will have context-dependent interactions that are not captured here, our estimates are conservative and we conclude that almost all yeast proteins are ‘social’.
Remember, This Is Just Yeast
Keep in mind that all these 30,000+ interactions between 4,159 proteins are taking place in yeast — the smallest and simplest of eukaryotes! One can only imagine the enormous number of interactions taking place in the cells of higher organisms possessing tens of thousands of proteins. In complex multicellular organisms like us, furthermore, interactions extend upward into additional dimensions: between cells, between tissues, between organs, and between organisms.
This nearly saturated interactome reveals that the vast majority of yeast proteins are highly connected, with an average of 16 interactors. Similar to social networks between humans, the average shortest distance between proteins is 4.2 interactions.
The findings from Michaelis et al. blow the lid off any notion of “simple” cells. Stationary diagrams of cells tend to depict the parts as loners: a mitochondrion here, a ribosome there, a vacuole over yonder. This work shows that the parts are in a buzzing hive of activity, with everything communicating, touching, releasing, migrating, and reconnecting. By analogy, think of a still picture of a city compared to a time-lapse video of the scene, with cars and people moving about in a multitude of ways to talk, work and accomplish individual and collective goals.
The Social Network
This paper also blows the lid off notions of cellular “junk.” If so-called “junk DNA” were generating “junk proteins,” much of the cell would be like hordes of the jobless on the streets taking up space and wasting resources. Instead, these proteins all have places to go and things to do. Everyone is contributing to the success of the social network. The unemployment rate in a cell is so low, it may not even be measurable. “The high connectivity of most proteins organizes almost all of them (3,839) into a single giant connected component,” the authors state, “accompanied by 41 small components (88 proteins)” acting, we might portray, like subcontractors.
If so, there are no unemployed proteins. The situation recalls to mind the ENCODE project that found over 80 percent of the genome was transcribed. And the closer they looked, the more they found function in what was considered genetic junk.
The Design Inference
The interactome can be added to the huge list of biological phenomena exhibiting the two requirements for the design inference: specification and low probability. Explained in the newly expanded and revised edition of The Design Inference by William Dembski and Winston Ewert, those two qualities in every phenomenon — as evidenced by each case in which we have access to its history — rule out chance and natural law, leaving intelligent design as the inference to the best explanation. The “interactome” in a large company making jets or cars, for instance, would never come about by the law of electrodynamics or by random groups of people finding themselves in the same building. The purpose preceded the parts and actors.
Critics of ID try to carve out biology as a special case due to the presumed stepwise gains of natural selection. In the Introduction their book, Dembski and Ewert face the claim that natural selection is a designer substitute, a blind watchmaker that can climb Mount Improbable
Since the publication of the first edition of this book, the debate over the design inference and its applicability to evolution has centered on whether such gradual winding paths exist and how their existence or non-existence would affect the probabilities by which Darwinian processes could originate living forms. Design theorists have identified a variety of biological systems that resist Darwinian explanations and argued that the probability of such systems evolving by Darwinian means is vanishingly small. They thus conclude that these systems are effectively unevolvable by Darwinian means and that their existence warrants a design inference. In this book, we recap that debate and contend that intelligent design has the stronger argument.
The interactome adds more real-world evidence for the stronger argument.
Wednesday, 6 December 2023
21st Century alchemy.
Maybe if We Throw Enough Models at the Origin of Life..
So one and a half centuries of research have not yet turned up a single entity that, like Thomas Huxley's hoped-for Bathybius haeckelii, is on its way to becoming life? Hardly for lack of trying! Here is a whirlwind tour of the waterfront:
Arsenic world: In December 2010, NASA researchers reported that they had taught microbes to metabolize arsenic instead of phosphorus, demonstrating that life could arise from unexpected chemicals, perhaps elsewhere in the galaxy. (Some researchers have suggested chlorine life instead.) Most researchers were unconvinced. In 2011, Science published eight articles questioning NASA's study in a single edition and arsenic-based life featured as one of The Scientist's top ten scandals of 2011.
Clay world: Some theorists argue that clay (or clay hydrogels)
can select for molecules that can self-organize. The Scriptural
associations of clay were a gift to science writers; the details did not
impress researchers. Information theorist Hubert Yockey pointed out
that clay crystal structures just repeat the same information
indefinitely. By contrast, life's minimum information density
is somewhere around the level of DNA. OOL theorist Leslie Orgel
(1927-2007) said it wouldn't work for RNA either: If clay had the
structural irregularities needed to enable RNA to emerge, it probably
wouldn't reproduce it accurately.
Lagoons on the early Earth: Stanley Miller (1930-2007) of the textbooks' Miller-Urey experiment believed
that the conditions on early Earth's beaches could foster pre-life
reactions because chemicals would concentrate more there than out at
sea. But Robert Shapiro, proponent of the "metabolism first" model,
complained that "a large lagoon would have to be evaporated to the size
of a puddle, without loss of its contents, to achieve that
concentration. This process is not thought to occur today." He added, with an apparent touch of impatience,
The drying lagoon claim is not unique. In a similar spirit, other prebiotic chemists have invoked freezing glacial lakes, mountainside freshwater ponds, flowing streams, beaches, dry deserts, volcanic aquifers and the entire global ocean (frozen or warm as needed) to support their requirement that the "nucleotide soup" necessary for RNA synthesis would somehow have come into existence on the early Earth.
Metabolism first: Robert Shapiro (1935-2011) questioned Leslie Orgel's RNA world because of "the extreme improbability" that such a long, complex molecule as RNA would spontaneously arise and initiate life. His doubts earned him the title, Dr. No. Aspiring to somehow become Dr. Yes, he offered a model that life began via small molecules with a simple metabolism and progressed from there, hence "metabolism first." He hoped, among other things, to vindicatethe idea that "There's nothing freaky about life; it's a normal consequence of the laws of the universe."
Researcher Eric Smith, a physicist at the Santa Fe Institute, offers a more recent model
of early metabolism: "It seems likely that the earliest cells were
rickety assemblies whose parts were constantly malfunctioning and
breaking down. ... How can any metabolism be sustained with such shaky
support? The key is concurrent and constant redundancy." Or "millions of years of a poor replicator", as a summary article in Science put it, leaving unclear how hits could have mattered in those days but misses didn't.
"RNA first" proponent Leslie Orgel responded
irritably to Shapiro's metabolism first model, "solutions ... dependent
on 'if pigs could fly' hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Near the end of his life, Orgel had perhaps forgotten that he himself once co-authored a paper with Francis Crick speculating that extraterrestrials might have started life.
Numerous less publicized models wallop through the science press, on
the hope, perhaps, of a lucky strike: For example,
not-obviously-promising substances such as hydrogen, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, or peptides, possibly kick started life. Maybe metals acted as catalysts. Or mica sheets. Otherwise, cold temperatures or ice helped life get started, despite the fact that cold reduces chemical reaction speed. Or a high salt environment. Or hot springs. No surprise that science writer Colin Barras observes that origin of life is "a highly polarised field of research." Most fields have only two poles, not twenty.
One model is noteworthy for the fact that it is the closest that
origin of life theorists have come so far to an ancient pagan creation
myth. Yet it was published in a popular science magazine (New Scientist):
Once upon a time, 3 billion years ago, there lived a single organism called LUCA. It was enormous: a mega-organism like none seen since, it filled the planet's oceans before splitting into three and giving birth to the ancestors of all living things on Earth today. ... LUCA was the result of early life's fight to survive, attempts at which turned the ocean into a global genetic swap shop for hundreds of millions of years. Cells struggling to survive on their own exchanged useful parts with each other without competition -- effectively creating a global mega-organism.
How did it all work? "It was more important to keep the living system in place than to compete with other systems."
Really? More important for whom? Who then existed for life to be more important to?
The mega-organism itself? But that would imply selfhood and purpose. If
selfhood and purpose were present at the origin of life, why is design a
problem and not a solution?
Monday, 4 December 2023
Acts chapter 17 New King James version.
17.Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
5But the Jews [a]who were not persuaded, [b]becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. 6But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too. 7Jason has [c]harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king—Jesus.” 8And they troubled the crowd and the rulers of the city when they heard these things. 9So when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
10Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more [d]fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. 13But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds. 14Then immediately the brethren sent Paul away, to go to the sea; but both Silas and Timothy remained there. 15So those who conducted Paul brought him to Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him with all speed, they departed.
16Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was [e]given over to idols. 17Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. 18[f]Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this [g]babbler want to say?”
Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.
19And they took him and brought him to the [h]Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? 20For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.” 21For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.
22Then Paul stood in the midst of the [i]Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26And He has made from one [j]blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
32And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” 33So Paul departed from among them. 34However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
In our own words.
JEHOVAH ’s Witnesses—Who Are We?
We come from hundreds of ethnic and language backgrounds, yet we are united by common goals. Above all, we want to honor JEHOVAH, the God of the Bible and the Creator of all things. We do our best to imitate Jesus Christ and are proud to be called Christians. Each of us regularly spends time helping people learn about the Bible and God’s Kingdom. Because we witness, or talk, about JEHOVAH God and his Kingdom, we are known as JEHOVAH'S Witnesses.
Sunday, 3 December 2023
Revelation20:10 and annihilationism.
A Primer on Revelation 20:10
by Joseph Dear
Of all the passages used to defend the traditional view of final punishment, one stands out as by far the most difficult for the conditionalist.1 As you might imagine, I don’t consider the challenge to be insurmountable. However, it is a challenge. This is the one passage in the entire Bible that actually says, on its face, that anyone will be tormented for eternity.2
The explanation I would give, which many other conditionalists would give (in varying forms), is itself simple: John sees a vision where three beings are thrown into a lake of fire to be tormented for ever and ever, but the vision itself symbolizes the destruction of the things the images represent in real life.
Of course, while this idea itself is fairly simple, to really give a satisfactory explanation of and defense of it would be lengthy. Fortunately, this has been done by myself and other Rethinking Hell contributors (for free!).345 The goal in this article is to set the stage for those who are interested in conditionalism and would want to read further about this passage.
For many traditionalists, I imagine this passage is a big reason to deny annihilation and hold to the traditional view of final punishment. This was certainly the case for me. And although this article is not meant to be the full explanation and defense of my conditionalist interpretation of Revelation 20:10, it will nonetheless present a number of points worth considering. After all, other than for its use in proving the doctrine of eternal torment, how often is Revelation 20:10 ever really cited or looked at for anything? A number of factors that you might not have ever even had reason to think of will come into play. This verse doesn’t stand alone, but is part of a larger scene, and remembering this can change everything.
Some (Largely Rhetorical) Questions to Consider
Why shouldn’t we take Revelation 20:10 as a straightforward text that teaches that, at the very least, the devil will be tormented day and night for ever and ever? Well, aside from the case that can be made from the rest of the Bible for annihilationism,6 there are a number of questions that one must ask, and a number of points to consider, about what is going on in this particular passage itself.
- How literally are we to take something that John sees in his vision? After all, earlier he saw a woman dressed with the sun and chased by a dragon (12:1-4), a monster with seven heads taking over the world and being worshiped by people (13:1-4), stars falling into multiple bodies of water (8:10-11), a resurrected lamb with seven eyes (5:6), and many more highly symbolic images.7
- How literal is the lake of fire? Presumably, a literal lake of burning sulfur couldn’t affect a spiritual being like the devil. Furthermore, how literal can we really expect this lake to be when the abstract entity of death is thrown in, as is the clearly symbolic beast?8
- If the lake of fire is symbolic, what is it symbolic for?
- If the lake of fire is symbolic, why must we assume that the statement “they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” is not also part of the symbolism? After all, the scene takes place in a symbolic lake of fire, so why must the reference to torment refer to a literal event to occur in real life?9
- What about when death is thrown into the lake of fire? What happens to death in real life? It is taken for granted that the devil, beast, and false prophet are tormented for eternity for real life because Revelation 20:10 shows the three being thrown into a lake of fire and condemned to eternal torment in John’s vision. But death is thrown into the same lake of fire just four verses later. Is death tormented for eternity? How could that even be? But if death is not tormented for eternity in real life, yet it is thrown into the lake of fire, what does that say about what it means in real life to be thrown into the lake of fire within John’s vision?10
- Does the beast even represent a person who can be tormented for eternity? Some argue that the beast really is symbolic not of a person or a demonic being, but an entire kingdom (or even an abstract entity).11 If the latter, how could eternal torment make sense in real life? Given the ubiquity of Old Testament imagery in the book of Revelation, Daniel 7 plays a big role in interpreting who/what the beast of Revelation is. And Daniel also shows us a fate that is not compatible with eternal torment.
- If the beast is not a person who can be tormented, but is shown as tormented in Revelation 20:10, what does that mean for the fate of the three beings seen in Revelation 20:10? The nature of the beast is especially important because if the beast represents something that cannot be subject to eternal torment in real life, then the whole case for traditionalism from this passage falls apart. Even though the devil is a real living being who could theoretically be tormented, it would not matter to understanding the passage. The beast is subject to eternal torment in the vision, but what it represents in real life is not an individual able to be tormented (and what could be its fate but destruction?). In the same words of the same sentence, the devil and false prophet are said to suffer the same exact symbolic fate. Why should their real-life fate be any different from whatever the beast represents?
- What is to be made of the connection between torment and destruction that we see with the symbolic whore of Babylon in Revelation 18? The city that she represents is destroyed, yet multiple mentions are made of the torment of the symbolic woman (18:7, 16).12
- Should the vision in Revelation 20:10 really define the angel’s earlier declaration in Revelation 17:11 that what the beast represents is headed for “destruction,” or should we take the opposite approach? In Revelation 17:11, an angel explains the meaning of the beast to John, and says that it is headed for destruction.13 Some could argue that in light of Revelation 20:10, “destruction” in Revelation 17:11 (and perhaps other parts of scripture) must be compatible with eternal torment. Traditionalist scholar Robert Peterson, for example, does just that.14 However, aside from the fact that the angel is not speaking of the beast that John sees in the vision but rather what that beast represents,15 one could argue that Peterson has it backwards. The vision that John sees in 20:10 is a symbolic vision. When the angel says that king(dom) that the beast represents is going to “destruction,” it is in an explanation of divine imagery (albeit a different vision). If anything, the explanation the angel gives, and its declaration of destruction, should influence how we interpret the symbolic vision of Revelation 20:10, and not the other way around. And what do we normally interpret “destruction” to mean? This is something we at least ought to consider.
- If being cast into the lake of fire is called “the second death,” and the lake of fire is symbolic, would it not make sense to see the lake of fire as symbolic of the humans cast into the fire suffering death a second time?16
- Being cast into the lake of fire is symbolic for ‘the second death“;17 what does this mean for all of the various things and beings that John sees thrown into the fire? Although only humans can properly be said to die a second time, if the lake of fire is symbolic of death for humans in real life, shouldn’t that shed some light on what being cast into the lake of fire really means for all involved?
Does This Sound Overly Complex?
I understand how this can all sound overly complex to a traditionalist. After all, in instances where one’s own view appears to be the simplest interpretation of Scripture, any attempt at giving an explanation by those who hold an opposing view is prone to sound like “verbal gymnastics” and avoiding a clear teaching. It’s a (twisted) theological variant of Occam’s razor that we all run up against at one time or another.
However, the points I have raised and the questions I have asked above should make a fair-minded reader question just how clear and simple any traditionalist view of this verse is. There is a lot of messy stuff happening in this passage. You have symbolic entities like the beast and false prophet. You have images of a real, personal entities (the devil, as well as the people cast into the lake of fire in verse 15). You also have the abstract entities of death and hades. And all of these entities are shown thrown into the same lake of fire! Beyond that, all of this is wrapped up in apocalyptic symbolism and the Old Testament imagery and prophecies which it draws from. And all of this is then wrapped up in what is, at least for us today, the most complex and difficult book of the Bible to interpret with any certainty.
Both the traditionalist interpretation and the conditionalist interpetation require the interpreter to put all the pieces together like a puzzle, and as I have only hinted above, putting all the pieces together for the traditional view is hardly simple and straightforward.
Does It Seem Absurd to Say that Eternal Torment Could Represent Annihilation?
If it seems absurd to suggest that eternal torment in a vision might be symbolic of destruction in real life, then I must counter with the following: why is it not absurd to see the many passages that warn of death and destruction and burning up as actually symbolizing eternal torment?
Traditionalists in glass houses should not throw stones.
Conditionalists have this one problem passage. In one passage, describing an unabashedly symbolic vision of monsters in a lake of molten sulfur, we have to deal with a symbolic description of final punishment that seems contradictory to what we believe actually happens. But if it is absurd that in one passage, in the book of Revelation of all places, the Bible would use eternal torment to symbolize destruction, then why is the traditionalist view not all the more ridiculous for saying that in many passages, death and destruction symbolize eternal torment?
Every traditionalist, for example, has to reconcile Isaiah 66:24 with eternal torment. Taken literally, it cannot be referring to eternal torment because it is speaking of corpses.18 Many traditionalists outright admit that they are taking it as symbolic imagery meant to convey eternal torment.192021 Even those who don’t say so in as many words nonetheless ultimately take the scene as symbolic by nature of them interpreting this passage as speaking of eternal torment of sentient beings.222324 Anyone who says that this passage is describing eternal torment needs to explain how a scene of corpses, being eaten by worms and fires (which are normally consuming agents), is somehow symbolic of sentient beings (the opposite of corpses) living in a state of suffering but never actually being consumed by anything. Just think about that.
Aside from numerous passages that are translated as “destruction” and “destroy” (and use words that mean those very things), imagery and even straightforward descriptions of the unsaved are given that are contrary to the doctrine of eternal torment. Malachi describes the end of the world where God consumes the wicked in fire (Malachi 4:1-3), leaving neither root nor branch but only ashes under the feet of the redeemed. Peter describes the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of what comes to the ungodly (2 Peter 2:6). Jesus, in explaining the meaning of a parable (and not in the parable itself), describes the fate of the unsaved as being burned up like weeds (Matthew 13:40) – not unlike John the Baptist in Matthew 3:12.25
Furthermore, the unsaved are repeatedly described as facing death, in contrast to life. The contrast is made especially clear in one of the most popular passages in evangelism, Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (NASB, emphasis mine). James 5:20 notably tells us that the soul is in danger of death for sin.26 In Luke 20:36, Jesus tells us that the saved (i.e. the “sons of the resurrection”) do not die because they are like angels (implying that in contrast, the unsaved do die again).27 Even when death is not mentioned per se, the repeated references to “life” for the saved leave an obvious implication: not everyone lives forever.28
And despite the unfortunate and counterintuitive idea of “spiritual death” as a conscious, living state of separation from God, death on its face certainly isn’t anything like eternal torment. We know what death is and what it looks like. If using eternal torment in one highly symbolic place to symbolize death and destruction is absurd, why does no one bat an eyelash at the traditionalist claim that the Bible authors warn of “death” in numerous non-symbolic places as a Bible-specific metaphor for a state where one never actually dies?293031
I am not necessarily saying that this all disproves the doctrine of eternal torment; that would be a much more extensive discussion. But if it is unreasonable to suggest that in one passage, in the context of apocalyptic imagery and vivid symbols, eternal torment might be symbolic of annihilation, how is it reasonable to say that every passage that speaks of things we would normally associate with annihilation actually means eternal torment?
If in didactic teachings “death” really means “being alive,” if being reduced to ash is symbolic of a totally conscious state, if burning like weeds that immediately disintegrate means being in fire in pain but never actually burning up,32 and if “destruction” means ruin but in a state of not actually having been destroyed, then it is hardly a worthy response to my conditionalist interpretation that it is grasping at straws to say that eternal torment in a symbolic vision might ultimately mean annihilation!
At some point, both traditionalists and conditionalists have to interpret some descriptions of hell as speaking of a fate that is very different from what is immediately presented to the reader. In our case, conditionalists just have to do it less often.
Concluding Thoughts
In all areas of theology, not just the topic of hell, things can seem so simple and clear until one looks deeper. It seems to me that the more deeply entrenched a tradition is, the more this seems to be the case. And the traditional view of hell, as a place of eternal life in a state of misery for the unsaved is, in the twenty-first century, one of the most deeply entrenched traditions of all.
And so we see this principle play out in this discussion. It seems easy to point to “tormented day and night for ever and ever” as proof of eternal torment – until one starts looking deeper and sees all the challenging factors of Revelation 20:10 (of which we have only scratched the surface). It seems so easy to write off the idea that scripture would ever use eternal torment to symbolize the contradictory fate of annihilation – until one starts looking deeper and thinks about what words and images traditionalists must interpret as not literal or not straight-forward.
I certainly can’t blame someone for finding Revelation 20:10 to be quite convincing upon first glance. For me, it was possibly the most significant stumbling block to accepting annihilationism – until someone pointed out that it wasn’t so simple.
Theology, even when it is true and correct, is not always straightforward. This is especially true when it comes to a doctrine that many of us were taught as far back as we can remember. And that is okay. It can be a bit scary, but it is okay. You don’t have to give up your entire sense of orthodoxy in order to keep an open mind and to understand that not everything that seems so simple really is. You just have to be willing to sometimes rethink things – even if that means rethinking hell.
Notes:
Some would point to Revelation 14:9-11 as being equally or more difficult. However, this is only true if one is not aware of Isaiah 34:9-10. Revelation 14:9-11 doesn’t actually say anyone is eternally tormented. Rather it is inferred that smoke rising forever means that the fire burns forever and thus everyone being burned is eternally tormented in an ever-burning fire. However, Isaiah 34:10 uses the idiom of smoke rising forever to speak of the destruction of a city, not of anyone or anything actually burning and producing smoke. The resources in the footnotes for Revelation 20:10 can also give more explanation of this passage.↩
Some passages mention torment (e.g. Luke 16:19-31), some mention eternity (e.g. Matthew 25:46), and some say things that one who has been told from childhood that hell is a place of eternal torment will understandably assume is referring to eternal torment (e.g. Mark 9:48). Revelation 20:10, however, actually outright says, of the devil, beast, and false prophet, that “they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”↩
Joseph Dear. The Bible Teaches Annihilationism (n.d.), http://www.3ringbinder.org/uploads/1/9/1/0/1910989/the_bible_teaches_annihilationism_1st_edition_pdf_version.pdf (accessed on December 19, 2015).↩
Glenn Peoples, “Why I Am an Annihilationist,” Right Reason, n.d., http://www.rightreason.org/articles/theology/annihilationist.pdf (accessed August 17th, 2015).↩
Rethinking Hell Podcast, Episode 7.↩
Some also argue that the fate of humans isn’t even separable from that of the devil, and that if this passage proves eternal torment for anyone, it proves it for all who oppose God.↩
For more on the ubiquitous use of symbolic imagery in Revelation, see Chris Date’s “Annihilation in Revelation” Part 1 and Part 2.↩
See Revelation 17:7-18 for more on the symbolism of the beast.↩
William Robert West (Westbow 2011), 439.↩
The one out a traditionalist would have here is to say that, in real life, death is a living creature that will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. That said, I can’t imagine most traditionalists would be willing to make that argument in any serious manner.↩
For example, see Peoples, “Why I Am an Annihilationist,” 41-42.↩
There is not a perfect correspondence to the whore of Babylon and the devil, beast, and false prophet, since they are said to be tormented forever, and there is reason to believe that the symbolic woman at some point dies, in light of Revelation 17:16. If this were not the case, and she were said to be eternally tormented, it would make my job a lot easier, but the Bible says what it says. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that in this highly symbolic context, we see a connection made between the torment of a personalized symbol and the destruction of the entity (in this case a city) that the symbol represents.↩
For an explanation of why calling the beast a “king” is still consistent with the beast representing a kingdom and not a tormentable individual, see Dear, Section XIII, Subsection J, Page 154.↩
Robert Peterson, “The Case for Traditionalism,” Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue, by Edward Fudge and Robert Peterson (Intervarsity, 2000), 425.↩
For the significance of this to related issues, see Dear, Section XL, Subsection I, Pages 425-427.↩
For more on the second death and problems with common traditionalist conceptions of it, see Chris Date’s article on the topic here.↩
Some argue that the lake of fire does not symbolize the second death, but rather, “second death” means being cast into the lake of fire. Of course, this assumes that there is a literal lake of fire for “second death” to describe, and I will let the reader decide if they still think there is going to be a literal lake of fire for people (and the devil and death and hades) to burn in…↩
For this reason, some traditionalists may argue that the passage is not speaking of hell at all, which is at least a valid option.↩
John Gill, “Commentary on Isaiah 66:24,” The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (1999), reproduced at Studylight.org Commentaries, n.d., http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?bk=22&ch=66 (accessed December 19, 2015).↩
“Some of the most harrowing of the Bible’s language about hell comes when it speaks of a worm constantly gnawing at those who are condemned to spend eternity there. In a passage that we noted earlier in this chapter God says of those in hell that ‘Their worm shall not die’ (Isaiah 66:24).”
John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell, (EP books, 2014), kindle edition, location 2507.↩
Robert Peterson, Hell on Trial (P&R, 1995), 32-33.↩
Christopher Morgan, “Biblical Theology: Three Pictures of Hell,” Hell under Fire (Zondervan, 2004), 137.↩
Bill Wiese, 23 minutes in Hell (Charisma house, 2006), 142.↩
John Gerstner has an especially novel take when defending the view that this passage speaks of eternal torment while apparently trying to (unsuccessfully) remain literal in his interpretation: “But when one looks at the scene Isaiah presents, the whole point is that these are no ordinary ‘carcasses,” but ‘carcasses’ that do not die.”
John Gerstner, Repent or Perish, (Soli deo Gloria, 1990), 121.↩
Although some do consider Matthew 3:12 as referring to the fall of Jerusalem and not final judgment.↩
Notwithstanding less literal translations that translate the Greek psuche as soul when convenient but do not do so here.↩
For more on why “angels” does not likely include the devil and demons in this context, see Dear, Section XXVIII, pages 328-331.↩
Examples: John 3:16, 5:28-29, Romans 2:7-8, Galatians 6:8, 2 Timothy 1:10, 1 John 2:17↩
I suppose one might argue that no metaphor or symbolism is being used when “death” is equated to separation from God, and that in the Bible, death just simply and literally means “separation.” Although addressing that claim would take up more space than we have (I have addressed it before, however), one must wonder how legitimate it is to say that you are not being symbolic or metaphorical when you say that a word has a special, Bible-specific meaning that literally contradicts how it is normally used. After all, if you said a person was dead, the idea that they were conscious and able to feel pain would hardly be what comes to mind!↩
For more on the twisting of language in regard to “death” and “life, see Chris Date’s article “Obfuscating Traditionalism: no Eternal Life in Hell?“↩
For an interesting look at how even traditionalists usually are aware that eternal torment requires one to continue living (as well as have immortality, not be destroyed, never die, etc.), see Episode 58 with guest contributor Ronnie Demler.↩
Or for many traditionalists today, if burning like weeds that immediately disintegrate means not burning and never disintegrating…I have written about that topic as well.↩
Henry Grew reasons from the scriptures on the trinity dogma
AN APPEAL TO PIOUS TRINITARIANS
By Henry Grew (1857)
DEAR BRETHREN, - We acknowledge our fallibility. Truth will endure the closest investigation. I bear you record that you have a zeal for God. Is it, or is it not according to knowledge? Is it in the holy word, which you declare is the ONLY rule of faith, that you have found the declaration, that the one God is three persons? Have you been taught it by Jesus Christ, or by fallible men?
You admit that it is a subject of vast importance to understand correctly, what person, or being in the universe, has the rightful claim to the supreme worship of all intelligences, and the glory of being, exclusively, the one great and infinite source, "OF whom are all things." If one person rightfully claims this unrivaled glory, it must certainly be an error of no ordinary magnitude to give it to another.
No proposition is to be rejected because it cannot be perfectly comprehended by a finite mind. Yet a revelation to the human mind of anything, necessarily implies some intelligent understanding of it. The first question, however, for our serious consideration, is, Is the doctrine that God exists in three equal and infinite persons, a doctrine of divine revelation, or of human imagination?
Christian brother; can you open your bible and read, God is three; or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are one God; or any words of equivalent import? Even the interpolation of 1Jo 5:7, does not affirm that the three are one God. What do we read in the Word of the Lord on this important subject? "Hear, O Israel? The LORD our God is ONE LORD." De 6:4. "God is ONE." Ga 3:20. "There is but one God, the Father." 1Co 8:6.
What is the testimony of "The faithful Witness" of the Truth? Addressing his "Father," Joh 17:1-3, he plainly and positively declares THE FATHER TO BE "THE ONLY TRUE GOD." You believe that the Father is one person. If then you believe that "the only true God" is three persons, does not your faith stand in the wisdom of men," which denies the testimony of Jesus Christ, that ONE person is "the ONLY true God?" Please to consider the testimony of the inspired apostle, 1Co 8:6. It is not only that "there is but one God," but that this one God is "THE FATHER." He plainly distinguishes the Father as the "one God" "or whom are all things." The Father the PRINCIPAL, the Son the AGENT. Now behold the harmony of divine truth. "God created all things BY Jesus Christ." Eph 3:9. "By whom also he made the worlds." Heb 1:2. All his works of love and power, were what "God did BY him." Ac 2:22. "God our Saviour" SAVES US BY, or "through, Jesus Christ our Saviour." Tit 3:4-6. He "shall raise us up also (from the grave) BY Jesus." 2Co 4:14. "God will judge the world in righteousness BY" him. Ac 17:31. All this the Saviour confirms in his own declaration, "I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." Joh 6:38. The humanity did not come down from heaven. The divine and "only begotten Son of God" came down, and took the body "prepared" for him. Heb 10:5. Does not this prove the inferiority of his highest nature to the supreme God? Does not the supreme God seek to do the will of another rather than his own?
Please to observe in what character our blessed Mediator presented himself to a sinful and dying world as the object of faith. To the healed man he said, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" Joh 9:35. When he asked his disciples-"Whom say ye that I am?" what did the apostle reply, to whom our "Father in heaven" had revealed the truth one this important subject? Did he reply, thou art the second person in the adorable trinity, or thou art the supreme God? He replied, "Thou are the Christ, the SON of the living God." Mt 16:16,17. Is it a significant fact that our Lord never claimed any higher title than this? When the captious Jews charged him with making himself equal with God, did he not immediately repel the charge by the solemn asseveration, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do?" Joh 5:19. The omnipotent Jehovah cannot be thus dependent on another. "I live by the Father," Joh 6:57. "My Father is greater than I", Joh 14:28. The connection proves that this refers to his highest nature. His prayer, Joh 17:5, for the glory of his divine nature which he had with the Father "before the world was" proves the dependence of his nature.
The scriptural doctrine of the divine Sonship is essential to the true doctrine of atonement or reconciliation. The inspired testimony on this great doctrine is, that God gave HIS OWN SON to be a "sacrifice" or "propitiation" for the sins of the world. Joh 3:16,1Jo 2:2 4:10 Ro 3:25, &c. He made the "soul" of his son "an offering for sin." Isa 53. Trinitarianism admits of no such offering. It supposes that the human body only died, and that the union to supreme deity gave efficacy to the sufferings and death of humanity. It should be considered, that it is the dignity of the nature and character of the real sufferer and dying Lamb, as "the first" and "only begotten of the Father," which gives virtue to the offering. "We have a great High Priest, Jesus, THE SON OF GOD." His soul was in sheol [the grave in Hebrew] until "God raised him from the death state," and in sheol" there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge." Ec 9:10, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." "He offered HIMSELF without spot to God." Heb 9:14. It was not for the death of humanity only, that the sun withdrew its shining, the earth shook to its center, and the curtain of the Holy of Holies in the Temple was rent in twain. "Surely this was the Son of God."
Please to consider candidly, whether or not you can truthfully reconcile his constant declarations of dependence on the Father, with his supposed supreme deity, by referring those declarations to his human nature. If this nature was united to the second infinite person, how could it be dependent on the first? The dependence must necessarily have been on the second person and not on the Father.
You ask, Is not our dear Lord "the Word" which John declares "was with God and was God?" Certainly; but is not the term God, used (like the term Lord,) in different senses in the sacred scriptures? Is it not applied to the rulers of Israel, Ps 82:6?, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Moses was a god to Aaron, Ex 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.". Satan is "the god of this world." 2Co 4:4. The Son of the Blessed is "God over all." Is he God or ruler over all, independently, or by appointment of the Father, "the only true God?" Joh 17:1-3. Let the holy scriptures answer. 1Co 15:24-28, "God, even the Father-hath put all things under him." This is equivalent to his being "over all;" -"it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (not the Trinity, but "THE FATHER," as verse 24 proves) may be ALL in ALL." Is not this divine testimony fatal to trinitarianism? Our blessed Lord as God, has a GOD. Heb 1:8,9. The Father has no god above him. You believe that the God with whom the Word was, is the supreme God. If then the Word was also supreme God, is it not a truth of divine revelation, that there are two supreme Gods? Scripture is its own best interpreter. See the context (verse 14) where the Word is defined to be "the only begotten (Son) of the Father, full of grace and truth." Mr. Andrew Fuller has well observed, that "the glory of the Word, and the glory of the only begotten of the Father, is one and the same." The Word was "begotten" and not self-existent. Again we read, that he is "the first born of every creature." Col 1:15, which must refer to his pre-existent state; for the apostle argues that he is so, from the fact of all things being "created by him." He is "the beginning of the creating power, that the intelligent universe will ever behold; "being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person." The universe gains nothing, but sustains an inconceivable loss by substituting an infinite person for the matchless Son of God. To infinity you cannot add. One infinite person is equal to any number. The Father is "the alone (monou) God." Joh 5:44.
It is affirmed, that the same infinite attributes are ascribed to the Son as to the Father. Let us see. Peter said, "Lord, thou knowest all things." John said to his brethren, "ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things," 1Jo 2:20. Let us allow the sacred word to determine the source of the knowledge of our blessed Jesus. "God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure unto him," Joh 3:34. Will you not allow that, if thee is any thing unknown to the Son, in any nature, that he cannot be omniscient? He himself plainly declares that there is. He affirms that his "Father ONLY knows of the day of his second coming, Mt 24:30-36. He assures us that all the power he has "in heaven and in earth," "over all flesh," for the gracious purpose of giving eternal life to God’s elect, is GIVEN him by the Father, Mt 28:18 Joh 17:2. I ask, for Jehovah’s honor, if it is not contemning the divine wisdom, and charging God foolishly, if we say that an "given" power is inadequate for this purpose? Is it not the plainly revealed fact that "God our Saviour" hath "saved us, through (or by) Jesus Christ our Saviour?" Tit 3:4-6. The context of Re 1:8, does not require its application to the Son; it refers to the Father. -"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." See verses 4, 5, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood". If the spirit of Paul could be present with his absent brethren in their assembly, 1Co 5:4, cannot the spirit of Jesus Christ be present, in a more effective sense, with "two or three" who assemble in his name?
We have too little conception of the capacity of the Infinite to delegate "treasures of wisdom, and knowledge," and power, as he pleases. Infinite perfections are indeed incommunicable; but what a vast amount may be possessed within this boundary! It pleased the Father that in him (Jesus Christ) should all the fullness dwell," Col 1:19. "I and my Father are one." He did not say one God. He prayed that his disciples may be one with him and his Father," even as" he and the Father "are one," Joh 17:21-23 Php 2:5-11. "Christ Jesus-thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Doddridge and Macknight (both trinitarians) consider the word "equal" an incorrect translation, rendering the Greek word "like," or "as." As an example of humility, the apostle presents to the consideration of his brethren, a real and great change of condition of the pre-existing Son of God, which can never be predicated of immutable deity, being totally incompatible therewith.
Joh 5:22,23. "The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father." Observe the ground of this great honor; it is judgment committed to him by the Father. We honor the Father, not on the ground of any thing committed to him by another, but as the independent source of all things, 1Co 8:6. Joseph was honored "even as Pharaoh," Ge 44:18. Yet Pharaoh was greater "in the throne" then Jos#Eph 41:40. So our Saviour affirms, "my Father is greater than I" Isa 6:1-5, compared with Joh 12:41, is supposed to prove that Jesus is Jehovah. In the Hebrew the first word Adonai, and not Jehovah occurs. In the 5th it is Jehovah. Compare this passage with Ps 110:1, and it appears that Isaiah saw both Christ and Jehovah. Now it is declared that "no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," Joh 1:18. Must we not then understand that Isaiah saw the glory of God "in the face of Jesus Christ," who is "the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person," see 2Co 4:6. Jesus said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." How? "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," Joh 14:10. He doth not say the second person in the Trinity, of my own deity that dwelleth in me, doeth the works; but THE FATHER. In respect to his power to forgive sins, see Joh 20:23, " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." [Editor: I like the comparison someone used to express this thought: He said, "One cannot look at the sun with his eyes, but one can see the effects of the sun by looking at the world," likewise with God; one cannot look at Jehovah, but one can see the effects of Him by looking at the effects of Jesus.]
Re 5:13. "Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever." 1Ch 29:20. "And all the congregation worshiped the LORD (Jehovah) and the king," i.e., David. Jehovah is worshipped as "the only true God," Jesus Christ as "his first begotten" Son, as Heb 1:6 proves, and as the Lamb that was slain. Re 5:12. David was worshiped as the King of Israel. Each in his true station. It is in the highest sense only, that we are forbidden to worship any but the Supreme. See Lu 14:10, "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.".
Mr. MacWhorter of Yale College has published a volume, to prove two things. First, That the Hebrew word Jehovah signifying "I AM," should be Yahveh, signifying, "I will be." Second, that Yahveh or Jehovah is Christ.
To test the correctness of the term Jehovah, he proposes to "substitute the English I AM, as an equivalent for Lord" where "the latter occurs in the Old Testament." "This (he affirms) is a perfectly valid test, and should such a rendering seem unmeaning or unworthy, in any connection in which it is made to stand, this fact of itself, would afford a strong presumption that we have not arrived at the true significance of the term." Page 14.
Let us now apply this "perfectly valid test" to determine, whether or not the learned author is correct, in affirming that Yahweh or Jehovah is Christ, and substitute the word Christ where the word Lord in capitals occurs, which, in the Hebrew, is usually, Jehovah or Yahveh.
Ps 110:1 "The Christ said unto my Lord, (Adonai, i.e., Christ,) sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies they footstool." Here we see the rendering is "unmeaning and unworthy;" and that the Father, and not Christ, is Yahveh or Jehovah. The dying martyr saw Jesus Christ, "on the right hand of God." Ac 7:56. Did he see two Jehovah, or is the Father not Jehovah? Isa 42:6. "I the Christ have called thee in righteousness, -and will give thee (Christ) for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles."
Isa 53:6-10. The Christ hath laid on him (Christ) the iniquities of us all." Ps 40. "I (Christ) have preached righteousness in the great congregation, O Christ thou knowest." Isa 53:10. "It pleased the Christ to bruise him," i.e., Christ. Ps 2:2. "The rulers take counsel against the Christ and against his anointed" (Christ.) See also verse #6, Isa 61:1. "The Christ hath anointed me (Christ) to preach good tidings to the meek," &c. See also Mic 5:4. He of Bethlehem (i.e., Christ) "shall stand and feed in the name of the Christ HIS GOD." See also Isa 55:5, and other passages.
This we see is all "unmeaning and unworthy," according to the learned author’s own "perfectly valid test;" demonstrating that Christ is not Jehovah or Yahveh. Isa 63:16, positively declares; "O Jehovah (or Yahveh) thou art our Father."
The fallacious impression that we dishonor the Savior, if we withhold from him the highest possible divine nature, presents many from believing his testimony, that the Father is "the only true God." Joh 17:1,3. The writer was, for a tine, the subject of such an impression. Having found at the Cross that deliverance from the guilt and dominion of sin, which reading, prayer, and resolutions had failed to remove; his love abounded towards his precious Redeemer; but not "in all knowledge." Php 1:9. He has since learned, like Peter, that all regard for "the Son of the Blessed," (who delights to honor his Father) which is contrary to truth, will only meet his rebuke. Mt 16:22.
It plainly appears from 1Co 2:11, that "the Spirit of God" is no more a distinct person from God, than the spirit of a man is a distinct person from the man. It would be an anomaly of a most extraordinary character; if there was an infinite intelligent person in the universe, to whom no prophet, priest, apostle, or saint of the sacred Scriptures, ever offered any direct prayer or praise See the true doxology, Re 5:13. The Spirit of God is "poured out" or "shed forth," Ac 2:17,33; terms inapplicable to personality.
For the honor and glory of the ever blessed God, our Father; "the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ;" I submit this brief essay to your serious candid consideration.
Finally, "forbearing one another in love;" let our chief concern be to possess the holy, the humble, the benevolent spirit of Him who has loved us and given himself for us, walking daily in his imitable footsteps; "that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."
Yours for the truth, in Christian love.
HENRY GREW (1857)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)