Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum

Eystein

Jun 24, 07 - 4:55 PM

Need some interpretation help

There are two passages that have troubled me, since I cannot find a way to interpret it in light of what we know of Christ's character. These are Matthew 10:32-33 and 2 Timothy 2:12:

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

“If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us.”

Prima facie they seem retributive, especially if denial is understood as utter rejection, and it also seems contrary to His character. We know that Peter denied Him, but He did not seem to deny him. And Paul denied Him when he was Saul, yet Christ choose him.

Have we misunderstood the meaning of denial? In Greek it is arnomai and has a range of meaning, from refusal to negative praises. It seems from the context of Matthew 10:32 that it is the opposite of confession, from the Greek homologeô, meaning acknowledgment, recognition or confession. Does it simply mean that those who do not acknowledge Christ, Christ in return does not acknowledge as the persons they then would be? It has nothing to do with retribution, since Christ does not abandon or work evil against such people, but it has to do with Christ recognising their denial as worthy of denial?

Or maybe these passages show the reality of a temporal condition? Those who denied Christ was (is and will be) in return denied by Him for a time appointed?

Other difficult passages that can be compared to these are Matthew 7:21-23; 25:1-13 and Luke 13:22-30 about those who try to get into the kingdom of heaven and Christ answering them that he does not know them.
“I never knew you/I know not whence ye are; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Does Christ not know them because he has given up on them and does not desire fellowship with them, or because they are unrepentant, wearing masks of self-righteousness?

Christ is the good shepherd, who seeks out those who deny him to bring them back, and God is the good Father who welcomes home those who have worked iniquity; how should we understand these passages in this light? My own attempts above are only meagre and do not fully explain them, so I would appreciate some help.

God bless

Mike Burke

Jun 25th, 2007 - 11:46 AM

Re: Need some interpretation help

[Quote] There are two passages that have troubled me, since I cannot find a way to interpret it in light of what we know of Christ's character. These are Matthew 10:32-33 and 2 Timothy 2:12 [unquote]

I looked up both passages.

"Shall deny" (in Matt. 10:33) seems to be in the aorist tense.

My understanding of this tense is that it's a kind of a default tense that views the action as a whole (whether it occurred in a moment, or over a lifetime.)

The Gospel of Luke contains the account of Peter's denial, and yet the 22nd chapter has Jesus saying:

...I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. (Luke 22:32.)

"Fail" is in the aorist here too, and if Jesus' prayer was answered, it must mean more than a momentary failure.

Peter's faith did fail on the night Jesus was arrested, which is why he denied him, and had to "turn back."

Had Peter continued to deny him, he would not have been a saint, and he would have been denied before the angels in heaven.

2 Tim. 2:12 reads:

If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us.

"Deny" here is in the future tense, and I don't believe it's talking about a momentary denial that is later repented of here either.

I believe it's talking about those who's lifestyle was one of crucifying Christ afresh, and holding Him up to public disgrace (as Jewish believers who publicly renounced Christ, returned to Judaism, and lived out the remainder of their lives denying Christ.)

Even during the tribulation, the third angel's fearful warning is to anyone who "worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand," and I'm not sure that's entirely literal.

The forehead speaks of the mind, and the hand speaks of actions, and those who live at that time will have to choose between being persecuted, or persecuting.

Nazi collaborators often had to be more brutal than the Nazis just to survive, and for those who take that route, Jesus said:

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. (Matt. 16:25.)

[Quote] Prima facie they seem retributive...and it also seems contrary to His character. [unquote]

I don't think so.

[Quote] Or maybe these passages show the reality of a temporal condition? Those who denied Christ was (is and will be) in return denied by Him for a time appointed? [unquote]

I think you're on the right track here.

I also think you answered your own question regarding Matthew 7:21-23; 25:1-13 and Luke 13:22-30.

[Quote]Does Christ not know them because he has given up on them and does not desire fellowship with them, or because they are unrepentant, wearing masks of self-righteousness? [unquote]

I would say because they're unrepentant, and I'd say they're unrepentant because God has not yet begun to work in their lives.

For them (the non-elect), being shut out of the kingdom is the beginning of God's consuming fire, and except for it being too late for them to be saved "in the day of the Lord Jesus," they're much like the man in Corinth:

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved... (1 Cor. 5:4-5.)

G-d Bless.

Eystein

Jun 25th, 2007 - 11:48 AM

Re: Need some interpretation help

Thank you, I understand that there must be some loving purpose to this denial, but I still have problems understanding the meaning of and nature of it.

I agree with the defenders of eternal damnation that without the constant help of God no one can come to repentance, and if God had abandoned people the gates of hell would be locked from the inside. Our own rationality would not by itself eventually teach us that we were in need of salvation but we would only continue in sin forever.
I have read that arneomai is composed of the Greek negative and the middle voice of reô and literally means to say no to a person, thing or event; to reject, disown and deny. If we look at how the word is used in the scriptures it always signifies the choice of doing without and make a complete brake with. If Christ disowns a person, and cut them away from himself into the outer darkness, how can they then come to repentance? And if the saving grace as a consuming fire still works within them as I must believe as a Universalist, will it still make sense to say that Christ has denied them and departed from them?
I speak as a fool, but an honest fool.

Mike Burke

Jun 25th, 2007 - 4:04 PM

Re: Need some interpretation help

[Quote] If we look at how the word is used in the scriptures it always signifies the choice of doing without and make a complete brake with. [unquote]

The same word is used of Peter's denial, did he "make a complete brake"?

Why did he follow afar off?

Why was he hanging around in the courtyard of the high priest's palace?

Why did he weep bitterly?

If we look at how the word is used in the scriptures, I don't believe it really signifies all that you've been told it does.

[Quote] I agree with the defenders of eternal damnation that without the constant help of God no one can come to repentance, and if God had abandoned people the gates of hell would be locked from the inside. [unquote]

Let's not forget the fire, the torment, or the gnashing of teeth.

IMO, these "defenders of eternal damnation" have taken the torment out of hell.

Hell is more than the loss of heaven, and God does not abandon people to a comfortable self-imposed exile.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I doubt anyone in hell will really want to lock the door from their side.

In the imagery of scripture, they're in fact pictured knocking on a door that's been locked from the other side:

`Be striving to go in through the straight gate, because many, I say to you, will seek to go in, and shall not be able; from the time the master of the house may have risen up, and may have shut the door, and ye may begin without to stand, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, lord, open to us (Luke 13:24-25.)

I don't believe they'll be left there forever, but they wont be able to open the door when they want to (and I certainly don't believe they'll settle down and get comfortable.)

And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. (Isa. 24:22.)

I think they'll want out the whole time they're there, and I believe this punishment will be an expression of God's mercy.

As Prof. Tom Talbott put it:

God's severity, no less than his kindness, is itself a means of his saving grace.

http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/freewill.html

And as George MacDonald wrote:

The Spirit of God is the Spirit whose influence is known by it's witnessing with our spirit. But may there not be other powers and means of the Spirit preparatory to this it's highest office with man? God who has made us can never be far from any man who draws the breath of life—nay, must be in him; not necessarily in his heart, as we say, but still in him. May not then one day some terrible convulsion from the center of his being, some fearful earthquake from the hidden gulfs of his nature, shake such a man so that through all the deafness of his death, the voice of the Spirit may be faintly heard, the still small voice that comes after the tempest and the earthquake? May there not be a fire that even such can feel? Who shall set bounds to the consuming of the fire of our God, and the purifying that dwells therein?

http://afirstnewssource.net/sermons/MacDonald/ItShallNotBeForgiven.htm

G-d Bless.

Eystein

Jun 25th, 2007 - 9:07 PM

Re: Need some interpretation help

I do not believe we have an argument here and my intentions are of course not to draw into question the character of Christ or the intention of God's judgments. It is the usage of the word ‘deny’ that troubled me, although I admit that I was a bit categorical in my definition. In its complete sense I believe it does signify making a complete break with, but as has been shown Peter did not completely deny Christ. He denied him in words, but not fully in heart and actions. What exactly did Christ mean when he said that he would deny those who denied Him? In what sense is His denial different in kind to their denial of Him? I understand that it does not necessarily have to signify anything other than temporarily denying personal fellowship with those who all their lives had denied fellowship with Him; a chance to let them reap what they have sown for their own good so that they learn the dire consequences of their choices; how life truly is without fellowship with the light and life of men. I kind of wish that He had clarified that the denial was for their own good, but perhaps this would have killed the desired effect.

It is a little too late for me to explain this eloquently, but much of the difficulties disappear if we put the ‘outer darkness-judgments’ within the millennial kingdom (and in a weaker sense in this life). This way the unbeliever is rejected and thrust out of the kingdom for the millennium, but is brought back through the light of the judgment and the consuming fire afterwards. This does not necessarily mean that they suffer for a thousand years, a truly terrible vision. Since the millennial kingdom is on earth the experience of outer darkness may be while they are still alive, just as some are living in darkness now. Their post mortem experience of rejection, whether conscious or not, is unknown to us.

I find your answers satisfying and comfortable. It was also a good point that no descriptions of the outer darkness describe it's inhabitants as being comfortable or at home. Some have used this in support of the idea of the point of no return; when you have made that final choice of rejecting Christ and Christ has in return rejected you, it is for ever too late to repent, but I find the support for such pessimistic interpretations of these passages lacking.

I do not believe we have all the answers yet, but I trust that He does.

God bless.

Mike Burke

Jun 25th, 2007 - 10:08 PM

Re: Need some interpretation help

[Quote] I do not believe we have an argument here and my intentions are of course not to draw into question the character of Christ or the intention of God's judgments. [unquote]

I didn't think we had an argument, and I knew it wasn't your intention to call God's character into question.

I knew it was the usage of that word that troubled you, and I hope my comments have been helpful.

As you said "it does not necessarily have to signify anything other than temporarily denying personal fellowship with those who all their lives had denied fellowship with Him; a chance to let them reap what they have sown for their own good..."

[Quote] It is a little too late for me to explain this eloquently [unquote]

I actually think you did rather well

.

[Quote] I do not believe we have all the answers yet, but I trust that He does. [unquote]

AMEN!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here Eystein.

Good night (and G-d Bless.)

Author	Comment
Eystein Jun 24, 07 - 4:55 PM	Need some interpretation help There are two passages that have troubled me, since I cannot find a way to interpret it in light of what we know of Christ's character. These are Matthew 10:32-33 and 2 Timothy 2:12: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” “If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us.” Prima facie they seem retributive, especially if denial is understood as utter rejection, and it also seems contrary to His character. We know that Peter denied Him, but He did not seem to deny him. And Paul denied Him when he was Saul, yet Christ choose him. Have we misunderstood the meaning of denial? In Greek it is arnomai and has a range of meaning, from refusal to negative praises. It seems from the context of Matthew 10:32 that it is the opposite of confession, from the Greek homologeô, meaning acknowledgment, recognition or confession. Does it simply mean that those who do not acknowledge Christ, Christ in return does not acknowledge as the persons they then would be? It has nothing to do with retribution, since Christ does not abandon or work evil against such people, but it has to do with Christ recognising their denial as worthy of denial? Or maybe these passages show the reality of a temporal condition? Those who denied Christ was (is and will be) in return denied by Him for a time appointed? Other difficult passages that can be compared to these are Matthew 7:21-23; 25:1-13 and Luke 13:22-30 about those who try to get into the kingdom of heaven and Christ answering them that he does not know them. “I never knew you/I know not whence ye are; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Does Christ not know them because he has given up on them and does not desire fellowship with them, or because they are unrepentant, wearing masks of self-righteousness? Christ is the good shepherd, who seeks out those who deny him to bring them back, and God is the good Father who welcomes home those who have worked iniquity; how should we understand these passages in this light? My own attempts above are only meagre and do not fully explain them, so I would appreciate some help. God bless Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Mike Burke Jun 25th, 2007 - 11:46 AM	Re: Need some interpretation help [Quote] There are two passages that have troubled me, since I cannot find a way to interpret it in light of what we know of Christ's character. These are Matthew 10:32-33 and 2 Timothy 2:12 [unquote] I looked up both passages. "Shall deny" (in Matt. 10:33) seems to be in the aorist tense. My understanding of this tense is that it's a kind of a default tense that views the action as a whole (whether it occurred in a moment, or over a lifetime.) The Gospel of Luke contains the account of Peter's denial, and yet the 22nd chapter has Jesus saying: ...I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. (Luke 22:32.) "Fail" is in the aorist here too, and if Jesus' prayer was answered, it must mean more than a momentary failure. Peter's faith did fail on the night Jesus was arrested, which is why he denied him, and had to "turn back." Had Peter continued to deny him, he would not have been a saint, and he would have been denied before the angels in heaven. 2 Tim. 2:12 reads: If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us. "Deny" here is in the future tense, and I don't believe it's talking about a momentary denial that is later repented of here either. I believe it's talking about those who's lifestyle was one of crucifying Christ afresh, and holding Him up to public disgrace (as Jewish believers who publicly renounced Christ, returned to Judaism, and lived out the remainder of their lives denying Christ.) Even during the tribulation, the third angel's fearful warning is to anyone who "worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand," and I'm not sure that's entirely literal. The forehead speaks of the mind, and the hand speaks of actions, and those who live at that time will have to choose between being persecuted, or persecuting. Nazi collaborators often had to be more brutal than the Nazis just to survive, and for those who take that route, Jesus said: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. (Matt. 16:25.) [Quote] Prima facie they seem retributive...and it also seems contrary to His character. [unquote] I don't think so. [Quote] Or maybe these passages show the reality of a temporal condition? Those who denied Christ was (is and will be) in return denied by Him for a time appointed? [unquote] I think you're on the right track here. I also think you answered your own question regarding Matthew 7:21-23; 25:1-13 and Luke 13:22-30. [Quote]Does Christ not know them because he has given up on them and does not desire fellowship with them, or because they are unrepentant, wearing masks of self-righteousness? [unquote] I would say because they're unrepentant, and I'd say they're unrepentant because God has not yet begun to work in their lives. For them (the non-elect), being shut out of the kingdom is the beginning of God's consuming fire, and except for it being too late for them to be saved "in the day of the Lord Jesus," they're much like the man in Corinth: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved... (1 Cor. 5:4-5.) G-d Bless. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Eystein Jun 25th, 2007 - 11:48 AM	Re: Need some interpretation help Thank you, I understand that there must be some loving purpose to this denial, but I still have problems understanding the meaning of and nature of it. I agree with the defenders of eternal damnation that without the constant help of God no one can come to repentance, and if God had abandoned people the gates of hell would be locked from the inside. Our own rationality would not by itself eventually teach us that we were in need of salvation but we would only continue in sin forever. I have read that arneomai is composed of the Greek negative and the middle voice of reô and literally means to say no to a person, thing or event; to reject, disown and deny. If we look at how the word is used in the scriptures it always signifies the choice of doing without and make a complete brake with. If Christ disowns a person, and cut them away from himself into the outer darkness, how can they then come to repentance? And if the saving grace as a consuming fire still works within them as I must believe as a Universalist, will it still make sense to say that Christ has denied them and departed from them? I speak as a fool, but an honest fool. Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Mike Burke Jun 25th, 2007 - 4:04 PM	Re: Need some interpretation help [Quote] If we look at how the word is used in the scriptures it always signifies the choice of doing without and make a complete brake with. [unquote] The same word is used of Peter's denial, did he "make a complete brake"? Why did he follow afar off? Why was he hanging around in the courtyard of the high priest's palace? Why did he weep bitterly? If we look at how the word is used in the scriptures, I don't believe it really signifies all that you've been told it does. [Quote] I agree with the defenders of eternal damnation that without the constant help of God no one can come to repentance, and if God had abandoned people the gates of hell would be locked from the inside. [unquote] Let's not forget the fire, the torment, or the gnashing of teeth. IMO, these "defenders of eternal damnation" have taken the torment out of hell. Hell is more than the loss of heaven, and God does not abandon people to a comfortable self-imposed exile. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I doubt anyone in hell will really want to lock the door from their side. In the imagery of scripture, they're in fact pictured knocking on a door that's been locked from the other side: `Be striving to go in through the straight gate, because many, I say to you, will seek to go in, and shall not be able; from the time the master of the house may have risen up, and may have shut the door, and ye may begin without to stand, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, lord, open to us (Luke 13:24-25.) I don't believe they'll be left there forever, but they wont be able to open the door when they want to (and I certainly don't believe they'll settle down and get comfortable.) And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. (Isa. 24:22.) I think they'll want out the whole time they're there, and I believe this punishment will be an expression of God's mercy. As Prof. Tom Talbott put it: God's severity, no less than his kindness, is itself a means of his saving grace. http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/freewill.html And as George MacDonald wrote: The Spirit of God is the Spirit whose influence is known by it's witnessing with our spirit. But may there not be other powers and means of the Spirit preparatory to this it's highest office with man? God who has made us can never be far from any man who draws the breath of life—nay, must be in him; not necessarily in his heart, as we say, but still in him. May not then one day some terrible convulsion from the center of his being, some fearful earthquake from the hidden gulfs of his nature, shake such a man so that through all the deafness of his death, the voice of the Spirit may be faintly heard, the still small voice that comes after the tempest and the earthquake? May there not be a fire that even such can feel? Who shall set bounds to the consuming of the fire of our God, and the purifying that dwells therein? http://afirstnewssource.net/sermons/MacDonald/ItShallNotBeForgiven.htm G-d Bless. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Eystein Jun 25th, 2007 - 9:07 PM	Re: Need some interpretation help I do not believe we have an argument here and my intentions are of course not to draw into question the character of Christ or the intention of God's judgments. It is the usage of the word ‘deny’ that troubled me, although I admit that I was a bit categorical in my definition. In its complete sense I believe it does signify making a complete break with, but as has been shown Peter did not completely deny Christ. He denied him in words, but not fully in heart and actions. What exactly did Christ mean when he said that he would deny those who denied Him? In what sense is His denial different in kind to their denial of Him? I understand that it does not necessarily have to signify anything other than temporarily denying personal fellowship with those who all their lives had denied fellowship with Him; a chance to let them reap what they have sown for their own good so that they learn the dire consequences of their choices; how life truly is without fellowship with the light and life of men. I kind of wish that He had clarified that the denial was for their own good, but perhaps this would have killed the desired effect. It is a little too late for me to explain this eloquently, but much of the difficulties disappear if we put the ‘outer darkness-judgments’ within the millennial kingdom (and in a weaker sense in this life). This way the unbeliever is rejected and thrust out of the kingdom for the millennium, but is brought back through the light of the judgment and the consuming fire afterwards. This does not necessarily mean that they suffer for a thousand years, a truly terrible vision. Since the millennial kingdom is on earth the experience of outer darkness may be while they are still alive, just as some are living in darkness now. Their post mortem experience of rejection, whether conscious or not, is unknown to us. I find your answers satisfying and comfortable. It was also a good point that no descriptions of the outer darkness describe it's inhabitants as being comfortable or at home. Some have used this in support of the idea of the point of no return; when you have made that final choice of rejecting Christ and Christ has in return rejected you, it is for ever too late to repent, but I find the support for such pessimistic interpretations of these passages lacking. I do not believe we have all the answers yet, but I trust that He does. God bless. Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Mike Burke Jun 25th, 2007 - 10:08 PM	Re: Need some interpretation help [Quote] I do not believe we have an argument here and my intentions are of course not to draw into question the character of Christ or the intention of God's judgments. [unquote] I didn't think we had an argument, and I knew it wasn't your intention to call God's character into question. I knew it was the usage of that word that troubled you, and I hope my comments have been helpful. As you said "it does not necessarily have to signify anything other than temporarily denying personal fellowship with those who all their lives had denied fellowship with Him; a chance to let them reap what they have sown for their own good..." [Quote] It is a little too late for me to explain this eloquently [unquote] I actually think you did rather well . [Quote] I do not believe we have all the answers yet, but I trust that He does. [unquote] AMEN! Thanks for sharing your thoughts here Eystein. Good night (and G-d Bless.) Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalst.com

	Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
Return to Website