If you ever get a chance, meet a friend of mine named Jerome Wernow. He pastors one of the churches I lead worship for and is a professor at Western Semnary here in Portland, OR, USA.

Here’s a link: http://www.gracepointfellowship.org/

I can appreciate your biblical struggle. In fact few people who confess the Judeo-Christian faith sometimes even care. So your search is a good one!

I think we have to first look at the historical situation and again reality, as best we can. The best history we have right now, tells us that nothing was written by the Church, that has become canonical for at least 30 years after the death of Christ. And as you express the Bible of the early Church was the OT, and that was the Greek Septuagint version. And the Jewish text of books was not decided till after the first century, that is someting else to remember. Also, when St. Paul quoted the OT in his Letters, he often does not use the Septuagint alone, but uses the Hebrew text, and is often quite free with the text, or does what we might call, paraphrases it. So we are left with the fact, that the early and Apostolic Church was itself, the authority in these matters, (Acts 2:42). And as we see in Galatians St. Paul was given his whole understanding by personal revelation from God (Gal.1:12…see also Eph.3:1-4). Also, it needs to be noted that the Wisdom Books, from what is called the Apocrypha. These books: Wisdom of Solomon, and Wisdom of Ben Sira, seem to be books that both Jesus and Paul must have read. The whole nature and understanding of Wisdom, was much more personal and even personified, and appears again to be in the mind of their quotes. You should also note that for the Anglican Church, and the E. Orthodox Church, their use of these books, and the whole so-called deutero-canonical books, is quite different than the Protestant and evangelical churches.

So for both the Jews (and the Diaspora Jews), and the Christian Church, the use of the OT included the so-called Apocrypha books. So the issue of what is the Word of God, and how it is to be understood? Becomes even more important. And as I see, cannot be understood without the nature and reality of the historic and Apostolic Church itself. In the end, we simply must have the aspect of historical theology! If I did not recommend it yet? You should read JND Kelly’s classic book: Early Christian Doctrines, simply a must read!

In such a small place as the blog, one cannot express the full reality to all this, so this is just a surface statement. But if you read Kelly’s book, you will be helped greatly. Finally, the nature of NT exegesis appears to be that of the typological and typology…1 Cor.10:1-13.

Sincerely In Christ,
Fr. Robert

I like the thoughts C. S. Lewis wrote in “The Great Divorce” which indicated hell as being small enough to fit on the head of a pin…

One thing, Robert, that I have read though is that we are to take Scripture as a whole, Jesus even said it could not be broken. I’ve heard about the term “progressive revelation” and understood its explanation. But what I find fascinating is the complete dismissal of some verses which speak to this issue over others which agree with current trends in doctrinal teachings.

I grew up Seventh-day Adventist. Since the mid 80s I have been more or less just a Christian, yet the teachings they espouse on the judgment still makes sense to me–not their timeline or the 144k teachings but the fact that there will be a definite end as there was a beginning.

Take language exegesis if you want to play with the term: When we use opposites in language it’s usually to contrast. Light, dark; day, night; wet, dry, alive, dead.

Of the three examples mentioned, I find it rather odd that death doesn’t mean nothingness but another state of consciousness. It doesn’t bother me or offend my past understanding, it just seems like we can’t believe that we could come from nothing, become something then pass to nothing again. One theologian I knew in South Africa claimed that the soul was nothing more than God’s blueprint of the person’s identity (he happened to be SDA so you’ll understand his preference).

I’m not partial to a view on death right now nor am I looking to accept one, rather I just want to understand the whole of Scripture on the judgment itself. From what I’ve read of the NT, it quotes and regurgitates the OT constantly with a new twist of the new covenant in play. Yet Paul claims that all Scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3: 16), and if we take that exegetically, it points completely at the time of the writing to the OT without inclusion of any of the NT volumes which were in the process of being written at the time. In fact, there was no NT writings canonized just letters and a few copies of the gospels floating around.

I guess my point is that with that being the case, their only “Bible” at the time were the Jewish Scriptures of Genesis through Malachi. This being the case, Paul is speaking about the revelation of the Law and Prophets bringing about the clear understanding of Christ’s mission. Thus, the progressive revelation must include anything written before the cross as well all that was written after as having a piece of the riddle.

Does this make sense? I hope so.

Indeed you are right, we must try very hard. I taught philosophy and theology in Jerusalem for several years. We must always honor the biblical text. Exegesis first! On this subject you might like one EW Bullinger. Died 1913 I think, he was a low church biblical Anglican.

Fr. Robert
D. Phil., Th.D.

Robert, our “presuppositions” have to come from the Bible. Yet if we don’t read it correctly or the translation limits our view, we could hold “truth” with error in it. I’m not questioning the validity of Scripture as much as I’m questioning our interpretation of it.

Take the word “consume” as applied to hellfire and those in it. In the current theology it doesn’t mean anything because the word means to completely use up or destroy. And there’s another word used for those who go against God: Destroy. If something is destroyed, it ceases to exist. But in the doctrine of hell as it stands, destroy doesn’t mean what it usually means but something more vague and unending.

Malachi 4: 1-3 makes it sound like it will have a beginning and an end. Revelation 20: 7-15 makes it sound like it has no end. So my question still stands: If God is a God of mercy, grace and justice, how can He do something which on earth we term as madness? And, again, can we negotiate for the lost?

Father Robert

Fr. Robert