On the Book of Enoch and New Revelations

A reply to a question about the Book of Enoch, the canon, and new revelation.

Thank you for sending me this. I must confess, I've been reading over them and still have been unable to see any reference to the Book of Enoch in Jesus's words, though I freely admit that there is a lot in common with the world of the Book of Enoch in Jesus's words--that is, Jesus lived in a context that shared much of the ideology of that document. That much is clear, and so to see a shared way of thinking and speaking is unsurprising. But I can't see direct reference. All the sayings are conventional enough to make a claim of dependence unwarranted. Example: to say that Enoch's "all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom" is the background to Jesus's "the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" is quite a stretch, considering how ubiquitous water/thirst language is in all religion, let alone Judaism. So, I don't buy it!

As for Jude's quote of Enoch, that is definitely more compelling. I am much more intrigued by the Book of Enoch on account of this piece of evidence. Jude clearly thinks the saying came from Enoch the seventh from Adam. My conviction, therefore, is that the pseudopigraphical Book of Enoch preserves the true words of Enoch in that passage. Does this mean we ought to accept the entire Book of Enoch? Not necessarily. There are various things to consider. Perhaps the pseudopigraphical book was constructed upon that genuine prophetic saying (it is found in the first part of the book). Perhaps Jude and earlier Israelites had access to a document or tradition that we no longer possess, which they were confident preserved the saying of Enoch. Through this connection the saying may have ended up in the pseudopigraphical book. I don't know. But I don't think it is wise to jump at the entire Book of Enoch with unquestioned acceptance simply on account of Jude 1:14-15.

Your question about the canon in class was a good and important one, and I'm sorry we had no time and that I wasn't prepared to discuss it. I would recommend for your study Michael Kruger's works on the canon. That being said, I do sense that you are antsy about this issue of the canon, and you want to be open to more revelation than what is found in the Bible. I get this strong vibe from Mormons and people affected by Mormonism--it's one of the defining marks of Mormonism, I think, one of the keys to understanding the religion and what makes LDS people tick. They don't want to feel limited (bounded, straitjacketed, confined?) by ancient Scripture; they fear there's more truth out there and an exclusive reliance upon the Bible keeps us from knowing that truth. Better to be open then closed lest we miss the way, right?

Well... yes and no. I don't believe the Bible is anywhere against new revelations, the idea that God can speak to us now and can say new things. But it is everywhere against tampering with, ignoring, or nullifying old revelations. You don't mess with holy Scripture. Period. I say again, you don't mess with holy Scripture. God is a God truth, and always speaks the truth. The apostolic Christians were at pains to show that what they were teaching about the Christ and the law was in accordance with the Scriptures, not against them (Acts 17:2, 11, 24:13-14, 28:23, Romans 1:2, 3:21, 16:26, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, et al. See especially Acts 24:13-14). They never dared suggest that the Scriptures had somehow been corrupted. In Christianity, all is in accordance with the Scriptures, or else it is not true Christianity nor of God (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 5;17-19). If an apparent new revelation contradicts or undermines what is written, that revelation is not and cannot be holy. Thus, from where I sit, Joseph Smith's prophesies were false, not because prophesying per se is false, but because his prophecies patronizingly patted Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul on the head while throwing their words into the shredder. A bad man, and one for whom the solemn curse of Revelation 22:18-29 justly applies. "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." If this doesn't apply to Joseph Smith, it has no meaning and can apply to no one. And let me be clear and answer a common objection: I don't believe this verse is referring to the whole Bible, nor to adding to the canon (as it is sometimes interpreted to mean). It's talking only about the Book of Revelation. It is saying that you don't tamper with the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. Why? Because they are the very words of God (Revelation 1:1-3). And behold! Joseph Smith fiddled with the prophecies of the Book of Revelation (there's JST surgery). He is guilty and therefore cursed. Yet the greater point is that the principle of this curse applies to all of the Bible (to all the words that came to down from heaven in the manner of Revelation 1:1-3), for the one who tampers with any holy Scripture is tampering with the inspired, holy words of God. The principle of the thing is present everywhere; it is simply made explicit here in Revelation 22 (a fitting place, too, no doubt).

Thus, I think we should be open to new revelation, sure. But we should be more concerned about past revelation, revelation that we know is revelation, making sure that we hear and obey it. Isn't that the flavor of the Old and the New Testaments: hearing and obeying? God has spoken. Shouldn't we be heeding what has been spoken more than searching for more? If we aren't taking seriously and obeying past revelation, our lust for new revelation will be dangerous, and will probably contribute to our damnation.

Spoken in love. I hope to see you again soon!

Francis Schaeffer on Doctrinal Over-Reaction

An all-important lesson that we ever need to hear.

--------------------------

"It is interesting to see how heresies function and how the devil wins out. Let us say that the complete body of Christian teaching consists of points 1-100. Now, then, we must realize that this Christian teaching is not just dogmatic but meets the needs of man as God has made him and as man now is since the Fall. So, in order for the whole man to find fulfillment, he must have teaching from points 1-100. If you study church history, I think you will find that heresies arise like this: the church begins to fail to preach, or preaches very weakly, say, points 40-50. Of course, we live in a fallen world and none of us hold our Christianity in a perfectly balanced form, but we must help each other to try to do so.

Let us say, therefore, that points 40-50 are unstressed. Two things follow. First, the situation is unbiblical. True Christianity is a balanced whole. Second, Satan takes points 40-50 out of the total Christian framework and encourages someone to over-emphasize them. And this becomes heresy. In other words, points 40-50, instead of being kept in line and in relationship to the rest of Christian doctrine, are moved out and away from the whole system. Being out of place, they somehow become inverted or reversed.

But why does Satan win? He wins because there is a longing and a need in the human heart and mind; points 40-50 are needed because the whole of Christian teaching is needed, not only to give one the right Christian system, but to meet the needs of total man as he is in the fallen world. Satan wins because, when people recognize the weakness and the lack of points 40-50 and suddenly see someone overstressing them, they are caught in a net. One group is stressing points 40-50, but in an over-emphasized way, out of relationship to the whole of Christian doctrine. Another group, on the other hand, tends to see this over-emphasis on points 40-50 as a heresy and so they retreat in the opposite direction. They preach points 40-50 even less than they did before in order to be safe, in order to be seen clearly as not being a part of a heresy or wrong teaching. Satan fishes equally on both sides and he wins on both sides.

The proper Christian response to such wrong teaching is not to avoid the doctrine but to see it in the proper Christian framework. The real Christian within the form of Scripture and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit has to restore the proper balance, even if it would at first seem to bring the church closer to heresy. When a group of people begin to over-emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit at the expense of the full content of Scripture or to under-emphasize the status of the intellect or cultural responsibility, the danger is to talk less and less about the Holy Spirit for fear someone will confuse us with this other group. Instead, a Christian must have the courage to say that we have not sufficiently stressed points 40-50 (whatever those points may be) and to begin to stress them in their proper relationship to the whole of Scripture."

-- Francis Schaeffer, The New Super-Spirituality (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973), pp. 41-43.

Hell and Annihilationism

The following is a response to a friend about the idea of annihilationism.

Thank you R----, I appreciate your thoughts. You argued your points very well.

I have heard many of these arguments before (not everything you raised, but I've gotten the idea). It is true that many, if not most, of the verses in the Bible about the punishment of the afterlife can be interpreted as annihilation, but they can also be interpreted as eternal conscious punishment. In the last analysis, many of the passages are ambiguous and can go either way. I think both sides should admit this.

What keeps me believing in the traditional view of hell are the following considerations:

1) Clear evidence that the Jewish people in Jesus' day believed in eternal conscious punishment, and Jesus doesn't go out of His way to correct them. They would have interpreted His words as eternal conscious punishment. To this I would again add the witness of the early church (see here).

2) Annihilation arguments tend to make the Scripture contradictory. There are statements that a thing will be forever, yet it is argued that a later verse shows this is not the case. For example, "the worm doesn't die and the fire is not quenched." You argue this is referring solely to the corpses of the ungodly. But you also believe the earth will be renewed and perfected. Are we to believe that these corpses will continue to burn forever in the new Jerusalem? I don't think anyone would say that. But then "forever" is controverted.

3) I think we can all concede that the lake of fire exists forever, and the devil, the man of sin, and the false prophet will be tormented in it forever (to this we can also add those who take the mark of the beast, Rev. 14:11). Therefore even annihilationists believe in eternal conscious punishment and have to reckon with it theologically like the rest of us. But Revelation 20 says that all the unrighteous dead are thrown into the lake of fire where these are, and the natural implication is that they will suffer the same eternal punishment there with them. It seems forced and unnatural to say that they are thrown in to join those who are there, but then are annihilated while the others are not. Why the disparity? Is one group made up of worse sinners than the other? On the contrary, I think when sin is rightly understood, it will be seen that the sin of the devil, the angels, the man of sin, and the false prophet is all of a piece with the sin of the whole world (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8, 5:19). The most natural reading of Revelation 20 is eternal conscious punishment.

4) The theological point that there is such a crime that merits the traditional punishment of hell: hatred of God (see here). There is a being in the world who is that worthy. Minimize the punishment, minimize God.

5) The personal experience of people throughout history and today. Many believers can say that God brought them to Christ by opening their eyes to the fact they were heading to hell, in the traditional sense. And such Christians find Christ and His love exceedingly precious because of it. Also, there are unbelievers who have experienced terror thinking about the wrath of God that is coming. As they should (Ps. 90:11). I believe all of this is of God. Because the wages of sin is death, when you get a sense of sin, as the old theologians used to call it, you also get a sense of dread regarding what it deserves.

In any group you will always find a variety of views, the Jews notwithstanding. You're always going to find people everywhere on the spectrum. This can be said of Evangelical Christianity... the fact that some evangelicals believe in annihilation (ex. John Stott) doesn't affect the fact that Evangelicalism as a whole does not. The Sadducees certainly represented an important 1st century Jewish group that didn't believe in an afterlife at all. But they were a tiny minority. What's important is that mainstream Judaism, as represented by the Pharisees, believed in a traditional form of hell. That was Jewish orthodoxy at the time of Jesus.

Josephus wrote this about the Pharisees:

"Now for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the contract of reason: and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do: and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years: nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced. And when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit: since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament; whereby what he wills is done; but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them: and that under the earth there will be rewards, or punishments; according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life: and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison; but that the former shall have power to revive and live again. On account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people: and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction. Insomuch, that the cities give great attestations to them, on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives, and their discourses also. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them. For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. But this doctrine is received but by a few: yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves. For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them." (Antiquities, Book 18.1.3-4)

This shows clearly that the Pharisees 1) were traditionalists, 2) were followed by the majority of people in Israel, 3) believed in the immortality of the soul, 4) believed in the eternal imprisonment of the wicked.

Thanks for sharing that article. Instone-Brewer's comments on Yohanan ben Zakkai confirm Josephus's account, that eternal conscious punishment was the view of the Jews in Jesus' day. He wrote, "...though before 70 CE (i.e. during Yohanan's earlier career) it [eternal conscious punishment] was an acceptable point of view that would have been regarded as traditional or already old fashioned by most hearers."

I grant that the Jewish view is not identical to the Christian view. Unlike Evangelicals, the Jews believe there are generally three categories of mankind, the good, the bad, and those in the middle. So they believed those in the middle will suffer for a time and then attain eternal life. But the bad go to hell forever, which is the traditional idea of eternal conscious punishment. The only difference is that Evangelicals don't believe there are three groups, but only two, the good and the bad. So the idea of hell is the same, but the anthropology is different. Actually, the Jewish view is very similar to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but we wouldn't say these don't believe in eternal punishment.

I would add to my above reasons that the concept of annihilation is actually a comforting doctrine for many sinners. They can snub God now and face a RIP eternity. It's a shortcut to nirvana. It's the same disturbing logic of suicide... to die and end it all is better than to continue in pain. Annihilation can thus be seen as a refuge from the wrath of God. In fact, that's the very impression I get from Isaiah 2, Luke 23 and the Book of Revelation.

"Men will go into caves of the rocks and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty, when He arises to make the earth tremble." (Is. 2:19)

"Then they will say to the mountains, "Cover us!" And to the hills, "Fall on us!"" (Hosea 10:8, Luke 23:30)

"Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev. 6:15-17)

"And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them." (Rev. 9:6)

When people face the wrath of God, and see what God does to Satan, the man of sin, the false prophet, and all those who follow him, annihilation will seem like a gospel!

But there's only one gospel and one refuge from the wrath of God, that is Jesus, "who delivers us from the wrath to come." (1 Thess. 1:10)

Of course, I understand that the punishment of limited torment and then annihilation is both horrific and "eternal" (...in the sense of irreversible). It's not a good thing, and people are rightly repulsed by it. My point is not that annihilation is good; it isn't. My point is that compared to the traditional view of hell (or, compared to the fate of Satan, the man of sin, the false prophet, and those that followed them) it is a dream come true. On its own, an enemy. Relative to that, it becomes a friend. and that's a biblical strike against annihilationism.

In Defense of the Doctrine of Justification Through Faith Alone

I wrote this for a group of Roman Catholics who were discussing Martin Luther and his translation of Romans 3:28.

--------------

Hello everyone,

I am a Protestant, a believer in justification through faith alone. I believe Luther and Protestants are getting unfair treatment here. Please bear with me as I seek to explain our view.

When Martin Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, he wasn’t corrupting the text, but emphasizing it. The Protestant conviction that justification is by faith alone doesn’t come from Luther inserting his own idea into the Bible, but it comes from the whole teaching of Romans 1-5 and many other places in Scripture. Luther came to this conviction regarding justification while studying Romans–when he realized that God provides the righteousness He requires of us (as Augustine taught), and that this gift of righteousness is received by faith apart from works, i.e., by faith alone.

In order to understand Luther and Protestants you must understand that to them faith and works are different principles, they aren’t just things among other things to do. Faith is a principle that is by nature different than the principle of works. Faith (pistis) means believing and trusting, while work (ergon) means expending energy to accomplish or procure results. These two principles encompass all things, and when the Bible rejects one category as the means of justification (as is explicitly done in the Book of Romans and elsewhere–works are excluded), that necessarily leaves “faith alone.” Thus faith alone is taught in Romans, and Luther simply was making explicit what is there in order to help others see. I don’t support adding additional words in your translation if your objective is to provide a word-for-word translation of the Bible, but if your translation is seeking to convey thought-for-thought–what is often called the “Dynamic Equivalent”–then doing so is more than legitimate. We have lots of paraphrase, thought-for-thought Bibles today which do the same thing.

By way of example, here’s Romans 4:4-5. Notice the two principles:

“Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.”

It’s all about the principle of the thing. If you work for X and get X on the basis of the work, X is not given to you by grace. If work must be done for justification, and having done work you receive justification, justification is not by grace (compare Romans 11:6). If work is anywhere in the condition, and that condition is met by you, the “reward” is owed to you by way of obligation, not grace. However, St. Paul states here that this is not how justification with God works at all. On the contrary, to the one who “worketh not yet believeth”–notice, faith is not a work, for we do not work but instead believe–God justifies that believer; and notice, even though that believer is “ungodly!” This, friends, is the very essence of the Protestant doctrine of justification. Even though we are sinners and are not godly, without work we believe in Christ and are justified. Apart from work. Work is not part of the condition, otherwise it wouldn’t be by grace. This, as Taylor mentioned in his video, is exciting and liberating for so many people (particularly those who feel themselves to be hopeless moral failures), and I believe God meant it to be such a glorious word of encouragement and hope for them. And as Paul says elsewhere, “saved by grace through faith… not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9). A careful reading of Romans 3 confirms what I’m saying, and shows that works are not a part of the condition of justification, otherwise 1) justification wouldn’t be by grace, and 2) we would be able to boast.

Because it’s a matter of two principles, they can’t be mixed. Protestants seldom object to anyone preaching “works alone”, but they object to anyone mixing works and faith, because once you mix them the principle of works destroys the principle of grace. Thus, we are justified through faith alone, or, apart from works.

And what do we do with James? It’s true that Luther and many Protestants struggled with James, but to their credit they all in the end opted to keep James, believing the contradiction to be only apparent, not real (and indeed there is no contradiction). Their struggle with James is only due to their firm conviction that the Bible teaches we are justified by faith apart from works, as indeed we just saw that it does. In fact, whoever doesn’t at first struggle with James has probably not firmly grasped and digested the Scripture’s teaching on “faith without works”. James’s language of course leads to what seems a contradiction–let’s be fair.

But Protestants do have an answer, and have had one for a long time: it is that our faith in Christ cannot but produce works, or to put it another way, what we believe inevitably affects how we behave. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. If you claim to believe something but your alleged faith does not produce the necessary and inevitable actions that corresponds to such a faith, then you really don’t have faith. James illustrates his doctrine so we cannot misunderstand: Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac and Rahab (the harlot) hiding the spies demonstrated that they believed God. And since they believed God they were justified. Their works still didn’t justify them, their faith did. The presence of works signaled the presence of faith, and the presence of faith justified. Luther and Protestants have never seen faith as static: “Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith,” said Luther. The classic Protestant dictum is “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone”; it produces works. And of course it does: how can a person believe that God loves him so much to save him by grace as a gift through faith, and not fall in love with such a beautiful God? That is the constant witness I hear from Protestant people. The grace of God, so understood, deeply affects them.

“Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee."

Most importantly, however (and let this not be missed), the works that are produced do not demonstrate that the person is good and moral, but that the person believes. Rahab’s action of hiding the spies didn’t make God say, “My what a good and moral person you are, Rahab”, but “You believe in Me”, and as an ungodly sinner she was therefore justified. This, I believe, is the clear teaching of James, and the only way Paul and James are reconciled. And it reconciles them nicely. If we were instead to say that works were in fact a condition of justification, alongside faith (rather than simply the evidence of faith), then we would have an unmistakable contradiction between Paul and James. Thank God we do not!

Thank you for listening and considering my words.
Humbly,
-Eli