Apendice 8 El Dios Vacio

Una Respuesta Bíblica y Teológica

a la Falsa Doctrina de Kenosis

Introducción

Una enseñanza cada vez más frecuente en círculos evangélicos, particularmente en círculos carismáticos, es la doctrina de Kenosis. Esta falsa enseñanza es sacada de lo impuro, es peligrosa por las otras doctrinas falsas a las que introduce, y se desenvuelve frente a la cara del corazón del cristianismo. ¿Qué es? La doctrina enseña que el Mesías, para poder tomar la forma de siervo, y ser encarnado, tuvo que dejar a un lado muchos o incluso todos sus poderes y atributos de Dios y que “vivió como simple hombre.” Los defensores de esta herejía, en un esfuerzo por asumir una postura ortodoxa, tratan de decir que de alguna manera el “siguió siendo Dios,” aunque dejó a un lado todas las partes de ese ser. Esta enseñanza, que niega tanto del corazón de la fe ortodoxa, viene de la mala interpretación y el mal uso de una palabra Griega.

Esta palabra, y la doctrina que describe, se refieren al versículo profundo, misterioso, pero importantemente vital de Filipenses 2:5-8, y especialmente en el versículo 7, donde dice Cristo “se rebajó voluntariamente,” o “se despojó.” La palabra en el original es ekenosen, de la palabra kenoo, que puede significar “despojar.” Las otras referencias a la palabra son Romanos 4:14, donde el significado es “vano,” 1 Corintios 1:17, donde significa “anular,” 1 Corintios 9:15, donde significa “privar de,” y 2 Corintios 9:3, donde significa “resultar vano.” Estas referencias tratan de principios abstractos, tal como la fe, predicación, o enorgullecerse—ninguna se refiere a una persona, o siquiera un objeto. Entonces, el uso de la palabra como es usado en Filipenses 2:7 es único. La pregunta, que debería ser repetida después es “¿de que se despojó Cristo?” Los maestros de Kenosis dicen que lo que hizo Cristo fue “despojarse de todo su poder.”

El área doctrinal con la que estamos tratando no es académica, involucra al corazón y el centro de nuestra fe. No es tampoco solo un tema para eruditos, sino para todos nosotros. La enseñanza de kenosis se ha hecho prominente en círculos carismáticos, y es la base de mucho de lo que promulgan. De hecho, mucho de la extraña teología que rodea al llamado “movimiento de fe” esta basado en el entendimiento kenotico de la encarnación, combinado con lógica de la nueva era que dice que si Jesús dejó Sus poderes y atributos a un lado y vivió como un simple hombre, nosotros, los cristianos nacidos de nuevo somos “…al igual que Jesús somos una encarnación de Dios” (Keneth Copeland)

En otro intento ser lógicos, estos maestros se acercan a la doctrina parecida al mormonismo llamada apoteosis (somos pequeños dioses). Esto preocupo tanto a Walter Martin que lo último que escribió antes de ir con el Señor fue la contribución a un libro que refutaba estos patrones teológicos entre los Tele evangelistas.¹ Este artículo sobre Kenosis no es un análisis detallado, sino un contorno ampliado con pies de página, cubriendo estas áreas:

La doctrina de Kenosis, esta parte del artículo incluye material de referencia que muestra que el origen de este punto de vista viene de los teólogos liberales alemanes del siglo 19. Estos promulgaron la enseñanza de Kenosis por primera vez, este artículo también la compara con la enseñanza de Kenosis moderna.

· La posición ortodoxa sobre la humillación de Cristo. También incluye declaraciones de eruditos Evangélicos sobre este tema.

· Una Refutación Critica de la doctrina de Kenosis.

· Un método alternativo de manejar los “versículos problemáticos” sin alejarse de la Cristología ortodoxa.

I. La Doctrina de Kenosis

A. Enseñanza Kenotica Clasica

1. “A la mitad del siglo diecinueve una nueva forma de Cristología apareció en medio de las teorías Kenoticas."² Así es como Berkhof introduce el tema. Luego delinea tres formas de enseñanza Kenotica – la primera, y menos ofensiva, parece acomodarse en el punto de vista general: “Thomasius hace distinción entre los atributos absolutos y esenciales de Dios… y Sus atributos relativos, que no son esenciales a la Deidad, como son omnipotencia, omnipresencia, y omnisciencia; y mantiene que el Logos, mientras mantuvo su divina consciencia de si mismo, puso a un lado los atributos antes mencionados, para fin de tomar una verdadera naturaleza humana.”³

2. “La esencia del punto de vista Kenotico original es declarado claramente por J. M. Creed. ‘El Logos Divino en Su encarnación Se privo a Si mismo de Sus atributos divinos como la omnisciencia y la omnipotencia, para que en su vida encarnada, la Persona divina es revelada y solamente revelada a través de una consciencia humana.’”⁴

3. Charles Hodge clasifica este punto de vista bajo Formas Modernas de Doctrina [Cristología], y lo incluye entre otras doctrinas llamadas Cristología Teística enseñadas por varios teólogos liberales alemanes de esa era.⁵ Una de estas formas lo explica así: “…que el Logos Eterno, en el proceso de limitarse a si mismo, se privo de todos sus atributos divinos. Dejó de ser omnipresente, omnisciente, y omnipotente. Se redujo a sí mismo, a las dimensiones de un hombre.”⁶

B. Comparación con el punto de vista de Kenneth Copeland (como representante del “Mensaje de Fe” escuela del pensamiento (School of thought)).

Este parece ser el punto de vista general del “mensaje de fe” escuela del pensamiento, y que además es cada vez más prominente en los círculos carismáticos.

1. “Jesús no vino a la tierra como Dios; El vino como hombre. Hizo a un lado sus poderes divinos y tomo la forma de un ser humano – con todas sus limitaciones."⁷

2. “Ellos [Los Cristianos Ortodoxos] erróneamente creen que Jesús pudo hacer maravillas, y hacer milagros, y vivir sin pecado porque Él tenia poderes divinos que nosotros no tenemos…No se dan cuenta que Jesús vino a la tierra, y voluntariamente dejó a un lado ese beneficio (la Deidad) y vivió aquí no como un Dios, sino como un hombre. No tenía poderes sobrenaturales innatos. No tenia la habilidad de hacer milagros hasta que fue ungido por el Espíritu Santo…Él ministró como un hombre ungido por el Espíritu Santo.”⁸

C. Comentario General

El autor de este articulo ha encontrado esta enseñanza en otros círculos teológicos, y por lo menos en un prominente Tele evangelista que no pertenece al campo de “mensaje de fe.”

II. Una Afirmación Positiva,
de la Escritura, de la Posición Ortodoxa
sobre la Humillación de Cristo en relación con Filipences 2:5-11

Incluye declaraciones de notorios Eruditos Evangélicos sobre el tema.

A. De lo que Cristo se despojó principalmente fué de atavíos externos y de la Gloria Divina.

El contexto de Filipenses 2:5-11 es que Cristo se despojo de sí mismo al tomar la forma de siervo. De hecho, el conflicto, desde 2:1 hasta el fin del versículo 15, trata con varias formas de expresiones externas, Cristo siendo el ejemplo para la vida de los santos en Filipi.

1. Pablo estaba insistiendo a los Filipenses que fueran sacrificios vivos, y que no tuvieran gloria personal en mente mientras vivían sus vidas. Luego, uso la encarnación como ejemplo. (2:1-5)

2. Cristo, dice Pablo, siendo en forma (morphe, una expresión externa de una realidad interna) de Dios,no estimó ser igual a Dios como cosa a que aferrarse (ver Juan 17:1-5, 24).

3. La mayoría de las traducciones modernas dicen en el versículo 7 “se despojo,” pero la versión Reina Valera Antigua dice “se anonadó a sí mismo.” Un erudito evangélico escribió sobre esta diferencia “aunque no es una traducción exacta, esta versión va mas allá para expresar el acto del Señor.”⁹ Luego dice, “tomando la forma de siervo.” Como hemos venido hablando sobre la expresión externa, la vanagloria, la forma externa, etc. y como este es el tema de aquí hasta el versículo 15, el sentido simple de la escritura aquí es que el auto despojo de Cristo fue de la gloria externa y majestad de la Deidad, y que logró eso al tomar la forma de siervo. Esto, por supuesto, es lo que Pablo esta pidiendo a los Filipenses que hagan. El contexto es vital aquí—Pablo no les esta diciendo a los Filipenses que hagan a un lado, despojen o ignoren sus habilidades naturales y talentos, (atributos y poderes), él les estaba diciendo que los entregaran a la voluntad de Dios para el beneficio de la iglesia.

a. Posiblemente por el trasfondo teológico negativo, B.B. Waterfield ha llamado la traducción literal de kenoo “se despojó de si mismo” una “mala traducción”¹⁰

b. “Nada en este pasaje nos enseña que el Verbo Eterno (Juan 1.1) se despojó de Su naturaleza divina, o de Sus atributos, sino solo de su manifestación visible y externa de la Deidad.”¹¹

c. "Él se despojó, hizo a un lado la insignia de Majestad."¹²

d. "Cuando fue necesario, Él ejercitó Sus atributos divinos."¹³

4. Los versículos 8-11 continúa con este pensamiento—Cristo es “…hecho semejante a los hombres…”, y continuó su humillación voluntaria hasta la Cruz, luego fue exaltado por El Padre (como lo discutió con El Padre en Juan 17).

5. Otras referencias de la Escritura que establecen el mismo principio:

a. Juan 1:1-14. Después de explicar Sus perfecciones, [(1) “El Verbo era Dios”—Deidad; (2) “Este era en el principio con Dios,” Eternidad; (3) “Todas las cosas por él fueron hechas…” Creador; (4) “En Él estaba la vida…” Auto existencia;] Juan dice “Y aquel Verbo fue hecho carne.” El hijo de Dios no hizo nada a un lado, más bien agregó algo – Tomó la humanidad para si mismo.

b. 2 Corintios 8:9 “Porque ya conocéis la gracia de nuestro Señor Jesucristo, que por amor a vosotros se hizo pobre, siendo rico, para que vosotros con su pobreza fueseis enriquecidos.” Él hizo a un lado la gloria externa de Sus riquezas, ¿pero realmente dejo de ser dueño de ella? No—en Su ministerio terrenal, Él declaró ser el Señor del día de reposo, y ejercitó dominio sobre fenómenos naturales, enfermedades y fuerzas demoníacas, y hasta demostró que poseía poder sobre la vida y la muerte. Su pobreza no consistió en lo que tuvo que hacer a un lado (porque aún mantuvo el titulo) tanto como de lo que tomó – nuestra naturaleza.

c. 2 Corintios 5:21 “Al que no conoció pecado, por nosotros lo hizo pecado, para que nosotros fuésemos hechos justicia de Dios en él.” En su acto de expiación, ¿a caso hizo a un lado Su Santidad? No, no es que se haya despojado de nada, más bien agrego algo—Él tomo nuestros pecados.

B. ¿ Muestran las Escrituras que Él mantuvo sus atributos de Deidad mientras estuvo en la tierra?

La primera, y la más obvia referencia es Su conversación personal con el Padre en Juan 17—Él pide (de “hombre a hombre, entre iguales”) por el regreso de Su Gloria. Nunca menciona el regreso de su poder o sus atributos—¡porque siempre los tuvo!

1. Omnisciencia—Juan 11:11-14 (“…cuando Jesús estaba a 80 kilómetros de distancia…”)¹⁴ Juan 2:24-25, 6:64, 70-71. Y las ocasiones en las que parece ignorar, son porque estaba hablando desde su naturaleza humana, tomando nuestro lugar, estas envuelven un completo entendimiento de la enseñanza ortodoxa que tiene que ver con la relación entre el Cristo Divino y el humano, la cual será discutida en la sección IV.

2. Omnipotencia: (demostrada de una forma vívida en el poder sobre la vida y la muerte) Juan 10:17-18, 5:21-23, Lucas 7:14, Juan 11:43-44, Mateo 28:18-20, Juan 18:5-6.

3. Omnipresencia: Mateo 18:20, Juan 1:48 (Salmo 139, Génesis 16:13), Juan 3:13 (MAJ…Texto)

4. Providencia: Hebreos 1:1-3—Notar que “heredero de todo” fue afirmado de Él en el contexto de su ministerio terrenal declarando la verdad de Dios, y antes de su expiación, resurrección, y exaltación. Colosenses 1:17—“y todas las cosas en Él subsisten [se mantienen unidas]” El universo es mantenido por Su palabra de poder—Él lo mantiene unido—esa es en una parte esencial de quién Él es. No hay ninguna insinuación en la Escritura de que Él dejó a un lado esta función en la encarnación.

5. Soveranía: Marcos 2:28, Mateo 11:27, Juan 17:2, Juan 3:35

C. Habiendo visto este tema parte por parte, ahora podemos concluir con un poderoso testimonio del libro de Colosences.

1. Pablo dice que en Cristo “…están escondidos todos los tesoros de la sabiduría y del conocimiento,” (2:3) y “…Mirad que nadie os engañe por medio de filosofías y huecas sutilezas, según las tradiciones de los hombres, conforme a los rudimentos del mundo, y no según Cristo. Porque en él habita corporalmente toda la plenitud de la Deidad.” (2:8-9, énfasis agregado)

2. El argumento podría ser (y ha sido) de que esos versículos aplican a Cristo solo en Su exaltación, y no en Su humillación. Primero, esa lógica se apega a la idea agnóstica de “progresión,” de que el Verbo después de Su exaltación fue materialmente y esencialmente diferente (mejorado) como persona de lo que fue durante su humillación. ¡Esta es exactamente la misma idea con la que Pablo estaba peleando en el libro de los Colosenses! El argumento final, sin embargo, se encuentra en el capitulo 1: “…por cuanto agradó al Padre que en él habitase toda plenitud,y por medio de él reconciliar consigo todas las cosas, así las que están en la tierra como las que están en los cielos, haciendo la paz mediante la sangre de su cruz.” (1:19-20) ¡Toda la plenitud del Padre habitó en Él durante su ministerio terrenal!

III. Una Refutación Critica,
de parte de las Escrituras y Eruditos Evangélicos,
sobre las cosas que implica y enseña la Doctrina de Kenosis

Los teólogos que elaboraron la doctrina kenotica estaban tratando con dos problemas. El primer problema era como tratar esos textos de la Escritura (como en las sectas) que parecen indicar que Cristo fue menos que Dios, pero sin disminuir lo que de forma muy obvia enseña la Biblia, que Cristo fue “tan Dios como el mismo Dios.” El segundo problema surgió de su entendimiento de que Cristo vivió su vida en sumisión total a la voluntad del Padre, y en gran parte como un hombre en quien habitaba plenamente el Espíritu Santo. No podían armonizar eso en sus mentes con la plenitud de Su deidad. El problema con estos maestros es que eran teólogos liberales—no aceptaban la verbal y plena inspiración de la Biblia. Debido a esto, elaboraron una respuesta teológica y filosófica equivocada, e ignoraron el hecho de que los problemas ya habían sido resueltos por la Escritura, y habían sido arreglados por los maestros y líderes de la iglesia primitiva durante el periodo de D.C. 250-451. En un esfuerzo por mejorar el concilio de Calcedon, crearon más problemas que los que trataron de resolver—y ni siquiera resolvieron los que originalmente percibieron como problemas en la fe ortodoxa.

A. Las Bases filosóficas y teológicas de Kenosis son altamente cuestionables.

Este proceso comenzó con un concepto incorrecto de Dios como el Absoluto Dios Todopoderoso.

1. Thomasius de Erlangen, uno de los primeros autores, “…Él distingue entre los atributos absolutos y esenciales de Dios,” y enseñó que la omnisciencia, omnipresencia, y omnipotencia “…no son esenciales para la Deidad…”¹⁵

Esto es realmente ridículo, y no hay absolutamente ninguna base Bíblica para clasificar los tres atributos como no esenciales para la Deidad. Los teólogos filósofos podrían encontrar alguna forma de agregar esto, pero en las palabras de un gran maestro de Biblia en este siglo, “…No hay otra posible alternativa entre un Dios absolutamente supremo, y ningún Dios.”¹⁶ Es imposible imaginar algún ser digno del titulo YO SOY quien no posee los atributos esenciales continuamente postulados a Dios por la Biblia. La Biblia jamás menciona a Dios siendo algo menos que Absoluto. Los tres atributos cuestionados, Conocimiento absoluto, Poder, y Presencia, son fundamentales a lo que Jehová es. Las declaraciones sarcásticas hechas por Jehová contra falsos “dioses” usualmente se centran en la ignorancia, impotencia, e inmovilidad de estos dioses (Deuteronomio 4:28, Isaías 45:20, Jeremías 10:5, 15). En comparación con ídolos, Jeremías dice “No es así la porción de Jacob; porque él es el Hacedor de todo, e Israel es la vara de su heredad; Jehová de los ejércitos es su nombre.” (10:16) De hecho, si uno lee los impresionantes pasajes como Isaías 40, Job 38:1-42:6, Salmo 90, Romanos 11:33-36, etc., al igual que otros incontables versículos y pasajes que aclaman y se maravillan ante la grandeza del Todopoderoso Jehová, no puede haber otra conclusión mas que Dios es Absoluto. No hay ninguna manera Bíblica en la que el Hijo pudiera hacer a un lado Su conocimiento divino, su poder, y presencia, y seguir siendo Dios “en esencia.” La distinción es estrictamente resultado de la filosofía humana. Al tratar Kenosis, Charles Hodge, el erudito evangélico Norteamericano del siglo pasado escribió:

2. “La teoría en cuestión es contraria a la clara doctrina de religión revelada y natural al tratar de la naturaleza de Dios. Él es Espíritu, Infinito, Eterno, e Inmutable. Cualquier teoría, entonces, que asume que Dios hace a un lado Su omnipotencia, omnisciencia, y omnipresencia, y se hace tan débil, ignorante y limitada como un chiquillo, contradice el primer principio de toda la religión…”¹⁷

3. Debemos tomar en cuenta que Hodge acepto totalmente la doctrina de encarnación, que Dios se hizo carne, como niño y como hombre. Sin embargo, lo vio a la luz de la Cristología histórica, como discutimos en sección IV, que mientras todo eso era verdad, Cristo no fue limitado a esa forma de siervo, y que no fue limitado por ello, excepto que Él voluntariamente dejó de ejercer Su Gloria, y algunas veces, decidió no usar Sus otros poderes, aunque los mantuvo plenamente.

4. Berkhof trae más luz a los antecedentes filosóficos de Kenosis cuando escribe: “La teoría es basada en la idea panteísta de que Dios y el hombre no son absolutamente tan diferentes, pero que uno puede transformarse en el otro. La idea Hegélica de transformación es aplicada a Dios, y la línea absoluta de demarcación es borrada.”¹⁸ Los teólogos que inventaron esta herejía eran eruditos alemanes empapados en la filosofía insidiosa de Hegel, el precursor del comunismo y el fascismo.

B. La vital doctrina de Inmutabilidad es completamente destruida por la enseñanza Kenotica

(Cf. Malachi 3:6; Santiago 1:17; Hebreos 13:8)

1. Bíblicamente, no hubo ningún cambio esencial en la naturaleza de la Segunda Persona de la Trinidad en Su Encarnación, porque Él no perdió los atributos esenciales de la deidad, Él tomó la carne y naturaleza humana. En su propia esencia, no cambió (Hebreos 13:8)

2. Más aya del efecto que tiene sobre la inmutabilidad del Hijo, también destruiría la integridad del Dios Trino si dejara de ser plenamente y totalmente el Dios Absoluto durante Su Encarnación. “Significa una destrucción virtual de la Trinidad, y por ello reduce a nuestro Dios. El Hijo humanizado, despojado de sus atributos divinos, no podría ser una subsistencia divina en la vida Trinitaria.”¹⁹

C. Si el Dios-Hombre que murió en la cruz no fue completamente Dios y completamente Hombre, entonces la integridad de la expiación es destruida.

La sangre que redimió a la Iglesia fue la “Sangre de Dios.” Hechos 20:28 Si Él fue menos que Dios, entonces Su sacrificio de sangre no fue infinitamente poderosa ni capaz de redimir a todos los que creyeron, a los que creen y a los que creerán.

IV. Un método alternativo de manejar los “versiculos problematicos” sin alejarse de la Cristología ortodoxa.

Hay tres conceptos Bíblicos que son el corazón de este método: (A) Entendiendo la doctrina Bíblica de las dos naturalezas de Cristo. (B) Entendiendo Su rol como nuestro padre redentor y substituto, y (C) Entendiendo y admitiendo la existencia del concepto Bíblico de “misterio”—el hecho de que haya algunas cosas que simplemente deben ser creídas, porque no hay una manera posible de entenderlas.

A. Entendiendo la doctrina Bíblica de las dos naturalezas de Cristo.

La Controversia Trinitaria (D.C. 320-381) llevó directamente hacia la controversia sobre la Naturaleza de la Persona de Cristo. Entender las dimensiones doctrinales de esta pelea, y entender las conclusiones alcanzadas por la iglesia es vital para entender como combatir las sectas en esta área, pues las sectas de hoy son simplemente las herejías de ayer; refritas. Durante este periodo de la Historia de la Iglesia, se hicieron muchas cosas malvadas en el nombre de una doctrina u otra, pero milagrosamente, la verdad triunfó.

1. Mientras la iglesia primitiva intentaba entender la enseñanza Bíblica sobre Cristo, hubo tres puntos de vista que se hicieron prominentes. Trataré de explicar estos tres puntos de vista asignando diferentes maneras de escribir el término, “Dios-Hombre” a cada punto de vista.

a. Los Monofisistas enseñaban que Cristo era el Dios-hombre, o sea, no era totalmente Dios y totalmente hombre, sino una tercera entidad que resultaba de una fusión entre las dos naturalezas (La enseñanza Kenotica es la que más se acerca a esto entre las demás herejías de entonces.) Esta herejía era básicamente un residuo de las tendencias Origenistas del Arianismo, y se hizo fuerte en las áreas que habían sido las más fuertes del Arianismo. La batalla de este grupo era que María es la Theotokos, o Madre de Dios. Los Monofisistas llevaron esta enseñanza errónea (la cual sobrevivió, sin adherir las conclusiones Cristólogas) a los extremos, e hicieron de Cristo un ser de otra categoría, con una naturaleza, voluntad, y personalidad, cada una era una fusión entre Dios y Hombre.²⁰

b. Los Nestorianos enseñaron que Cristo era Dios, Hombre con dos naturalezas tan distantes como si tuviera doble personalidad. Esta enseñanza se desarrolló debido a las objeciones que la iglesia y la escuela teológica de Antioquia tenían acerca del creciente culto a María entre los creyentes Monofisistas.²¹
c. El punto de vista ortodoxo, el cual fue aprobado por el Concilio de Calcedonia en 451, y el cual ha sido aceptado y probado como totalmente Bíblico por los Cristianos evangélicos desde la Renovación, fue que Cristo era el Dios-Hombre, totalmente Dios y totalmente Hombre, una persona con dos naturalezas puras.²²

2. El concepto clave en la doctrina ortodoxa es que lo que sea que Cristo hizo, lo hizo como una persona completa. Por ejemplo, cuando Su cuerpo humano fue golpeado, torturado y muerto, Él sufrió como cualquier persona, y aunque Dios no puede ser muerto, se puede decir que Dios Murió por Nuestros Pecados.²³

3. Por la Verdad de las dos naturalezas, podemos Bíblicamente decir:²⁴

a. Cristo es infinito Y Cristo es finito
b. Él existió desde la eternidad Y Él nació en Belén
c. Él era omnisciente Y Él tuvo limitaciones de conocimiento
d. Él es el Señor de David Y Él es el hijo de David
e. Él es el mayor de los Días Y Él nació como un bebe
f. Él es Dios sobre todas las cosas Y Él Es el hijo de María
g. Él mantiene todas las cosas Y Él siente cansancio al caminar
h. Sin Él nada de lo creado fue creado Y Él no puede hacer nada sin el Padre
i. Su forma natural es la forma de Dios Y Él toma sobre Sí la forma de siervo
j. Él es el mismo ayer, hoy y siempre, Y Él es cada vez más grande
k. Él conoce al Padre perfectamente Y Él crece en sabiduría
l. En Su propio nombre, Él nos da una nueva y perfecta ley y se proclama el Rey del día de reposo y más grande que el templo, aunque Él haya nacido bajo la ley y estaba sujeto a la ley.
m. Él es el Príncipe de Paz Y su alma es afligida
n. Él es el Rey de Reyes y Señor de Señores, Y Él es llevado a la muerte por orden del gobernador romano
o. Él esta con nosotros hasta el fin del mundo, Y los discípulos Lo vieron ascender al cielo hasta perderlo de vista.

B. Entendiendo Su rol como nuestro Redentor y Substituto.

¿Por qué fue necesario que el Redentor fuera el Dios-Hombre? ¿Por qué es tan importante la doctrina de las dos naturalezas de Cristo? La respuesta es encontrada en la ley de Dios del goel, o redentor, (Levítico 25) preciosamente ilustrado por la historia de Ruth. Scofield resume el principio suscitado en su nota en Isaías 59:20.²⁵

1. La redención fue de personas, y fue una herencia (Levítico 25:48, 25:25; Gálatas 4:5; Efesios 1:7, 11, 14.).

2. El Redentor debe ser un familiar (Levítico 25:48-49; Ruth 3:12-13; Gálatas 4:4; Hebreos 2:14-15).

3. El Redentor debe tener la capacidad de redimir (Ruth 4:4-6; Jeremías 50:34; Juan 10:11, 18).

4. La redención es afectada por el goel (Redentor) al pagar la demanda justa en su totalidad (Levítico 25:27; 1 Pedro 1:18-19; Gálatas 3:13).

5. Entonces, lo que vemos en la humillación de Cristo es algo que Él hizo como nuestro goel, nuestro redentor, nuestro substituto. Cuando Él vivía, actuaba, hablaba, sufría, y negaba el conocimiento total de los eventos, declarando dependencia total del Espíritu, etc. como un hombre, Él hacia estas cosas desde Su naturaleza humana, y en nuestro lugar. Pero, como Él también era Dios, podía pagar el precio total—Él vivió, actuó, habló, y sufrió como ningún otro hombre, como nadie hubiera podido.

C. Entendiendo y admitiendo la existencia del concepto Bíblico de “misterio.”

Hay ciertas cosas que simplemente deben ser creídas, por que no hay manera de entenderlas.

1. Dios es insondable (Eclesiastés 3:11, Isaías 40:28, Romanos 11:33-36, Job 5:9, Job 11:7)

2. Hay muchos misterios en el evangelio (1 Timoteo 3:16, Efesios 5:25, 1 Col 15:51)

3. Cristo mismo es un misterio (Romanos 16:25, 1 Corintios 2:7, Efesios 1:9, 3:4, 3:9, Colosenses 1:27)

D. Los tres conceptos centrales relatados arriba deberían ayudarnos a entender como Cristo vivió Su vida en la tierra.

Él vivió con apariencia humana (Isaías 53:3, Filipenses 2:8), y entregó su voluntad al Padre, y vivió su vida como un hombre ungido por le Espíritu (Lucas 4:16-21). Pero Él mantuvo todos Sus poderes, y demostró repetidamente sus habilidades como una justificación de ser Él Mesías y como prueba de Su autoridad (Marcos 2:1-11). En el versículo misterioso de Juan 5:17, “...Pero Jesús les respondía: Mi Padre aún hoy está trabajando, y yo también trabajo.” Se nos da una idea de que Él hizo muchas de sus obras “por su propia voluntad,” aunque estas siempre iban de acuerdo con la voluntad del Padre. En una ocasión, levantó el velo de su carne, se quitó la naturaleza de siervo, para que sus tres discípulos más cercanos pudieran verlo como verdaderamente Él era (Mateo 17:2). En otra ocasión, “levantó el dobladillo de su velo un poco”—cuando vinieron a arrestarlo, Él dijo “YO SOY,” y dieron un paso atrás y se desplomaron. (Juan 18:4-6).

Si hiciéramos una ilustración de Jesús como un policía encubierto en un vecindario malo, la doctrina de Kenosis mostraría al policía dejando su arma en casa, junto con su insignia y los otros símbolos de autoridad. Puede llamar al centro de control para pedir ayuda, pero por sí solo, esta desamparado e indefenso. La enseñanza ortodoxa muestra al policía como un “arma letal,” es un experto en artes marciales que puede matar de un solo golpe—Él es experto a tal nivel que puede alcanzar las entrañas de un hombre y sacar su corazón aún latiendo—puede derrotar oponentes múltiples. Puede dejar Su Identificación, uniforme, etc. en casa como el policía numero uno, pero no puede dejar de ser el arma andando que es. Parece normal, tiene la apariencia de desamparado como el primer policía, pero tiene la habilidad dentro de sí para defenderse. Él puede pedir ayuda cuando así lo desea, puede permitir ser atado, herido o muerto para el bien de su misión—pero tiene la habilidad dentro de sí de derrotar a sus enemigos. Cambia esta ilustración, y los poderes del segundo policía al infinito, y la ilustración muestra las diferencias entre las dos doctrinas.

Una de las bellezas y misterios gloriosos de la cruz es que Aquel que estuvo colgado allí sostenía en ese momento al universo—incluyendo el respirar de los soldados romanos. Él pudo haber destruido al imperio romano con un simple parpadeo, con un pensamiento, pero Él voluntariamente frenó Su gran poder, y se entregó al plan que Él y el Padre habían acordado aún antes de que el mundo fuera creado, y entregó su vida. La Trinidad en Su totalidad está involucrada aquí—El padre dejando caer su ira, el Hijo apaciguando la ira (Romanos 1:18, 3:25-2, 5:8-11), y el Espíritu se involucra de una manera que no es especificada en la Biblia (Hebreos 9:14). Este es un gran misterio, pero no puede ser resuelto reduciendo al Hijo a algo menos que Dios.

E. Es aplicando estos conceptos centrales de arriba que podemos obtener respuestas significativas y ortodoxas a las preguntas de aquellos que se niegan a creer en el Dios de la Biblia.

La respuesta no es desviarnos de la Verdad por medio de teología poco precisa sino presentar en su totalidad la Verdad, sin la capa de barniz.

J.I. Packer, el decano de Living Evangelical Theologians, rechaza completamente la doctrina de Kenosis, como es ilustrado en su libro “Conociendo a Dios” (Knowing God). Él simplemente dice, (La teoría de Kenosis no perdurará.”²⁶ Yo animo al lector, a ver lo que este líder Cristiano tiene que decir sobre este tema. Espero que mi estudio sea de ayuda, y si has sido infectado con esta clase de Doctrina, oro al Señor para consideres seriamente modificar tus puntos de vista en esta área tan vital.

¹Los últimos escritos de Walter Martin fueron una refutación de la apoteosis en el libro La Agonía del Engaño, (Moody press, 1990). Incluido en el mismo libro esta un artículo del Dr. Rod Rosendbladt titulado ¿Quien dicen los predicadores de televisión que Soy? El cual refuta, entre otras cosas la enseñanza de Kenosis.

²L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1940) pg 327.

³Ibid.

⁴Ralph P. Martin, Kenosis, The New Bible Dictionary (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), pg 6.89

⁵Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. II/III, (Reprint by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) pp 428-440.

⁶Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, Who Do TV Preachers Say That I Am? The Agony of Deceit, (Moody Press, 1990) pp 114-115.

⁷Ibid.

⁸Ibid.

⁹W. E. Vine, (Edited by F. F. Bruce) Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981) N. T. Vol. 2, pg 25.

¹⁰Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.

¹¹C. I. Scofied, The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford University Press, 1917), pg 1258.

¹²Lightfoot, cited by Scofield, ibid.

¹³Moorehead, cited by Scofield, ibid.

¹⁴Scofield, op. cit. pg 1145.

¹⁵Berkhof, op. cit. 327.

¹⁶A. W. Pink, Los Atributos de Dios (Baker Book House, 1975) pg 29.

¹⁷Hodge, op cit, pg 439.

¹⁸Berkhof, op. cit. pg 328.

¹⁹Ibid. 329

²⁰Phillip Schaff, Historia de la Iglesia Cristiana, Vol. III (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977) p705-783.

²¹Ibid

²²Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp 195-203.

²³Hodge, op. cit.

²⁴Boettner, op. cit. 197.

²⁵Scofield, op. cit. pg 765.

²⁶J. I. Packer, Conociendo a Dios, (InterVarsity Press, 1973) pg. 52.

Related Topics: Christology, Basics for Christians, Trinity

English

Trinitarianism Book Recommendations

Suggested for Further Reading: Theology Proper

Bray, Gerald. The Doctrine of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him. Wheaton, IL: Crossways Books, 2001.

Frame, John. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2002.

Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume Two, God, Creation. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003.

Helm, Paul. The Providence of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1973.

Suggested for Further Reading: Worldviews

Moreland, J.P. and Craig, William Lane. Philosophical Foundations for a Biblical

Worldview. Downers Gove, IL: IVP, 2003. (Advanced)

A fairly technical textbook that covers Christian philosophy in general. Has great sections on logic, epistimology, and worldviews in general. Not for the faint-hearted.

Nash, Ronald. Worldviews in Conflict. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992. (Beginners-Intermediate)

A great basic introduction to worldviews from the unique perspective and teaching style that Ron Nash brings to all his work.

___________. Life’s Ultimate Questions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999. (Christian philosophy and worldviews)

Sire, James. The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004. (Intermediate)

Suggested for Further Reading: Theistic Apologetics

*Boa, Kenneth and Bowman, Robert. Twenty Compelling Evidences the God Exists. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communication, 2005.

Craig, William. Reasonable Faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1984. (Apologetics and the existence of God)

John Frame. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Pittsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994. (Intermediate)

A defense of the Christian worldview based upon presuppositional apologetics.

Geisler, Norman. Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999. (Apologetics, worldviews, existence of God)

Montgomery, John Warwick. Evidence for Faith. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991. (Existence of God: man teleological arguments)

Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987. (Apologetics and Existence of God)

Nash, Ronald. Faith and Reason. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. (Apologetics and Existence of God)

Suggested for Further Reading: The Doctrine of the Trinity

Augusting, On The Trinity

A classic formulation and defense of the doctrine of the Trinity.

*Bowman, Robert Jr. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989.

A defense of the doctrine of the Trinity against the arianism of Jehovah's witnesses.

Olson, Roger and Christopher Hall. The Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.

Great historical approach to the doctrine of the Trinity, giving people a brief overview of the development of the doctrine throughout the history of the church.

*White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House, 1998.

A basic introduction and defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. Great for new believers or those who have never been taught about the Trinity beyond the mere confession of their church or tradition.

Suggested for Further Reading: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

Ferguson, Sinclair B. The Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Wallace, Dan and James Sawyer, Eds. Who is Afraid of the Holy Spirit. Dallas, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2005.

A forthright challenge for those who may have the tendency to neglect the ministry of the Holy Spirit due to abuses from sensationalists. This book brings needed balace and clarity to contemporary issues regarding the this important doctrine.

Suggested for Further Reading: The Doctrine of Christ

Macleod, Donald. The Person of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: IVP 1998.

Bloesch, Donald G. Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1997.

Suggested for Further Reading: Openness Theolgoy

*Geisler, Norman and Wayne House. Battle for God. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001. (Defense of the traditional view of God against Open Theism)

Hall, Christopher A. and John Sanders. Does God Have a Future? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Huffman, Douglas and Johnson, Eric. God Under Fire. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. (Defense of the traditional view of God against Open Theism)

John Frame. No Other God. Pittsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001. (Defense of the traditional view of God against Open Theism)

Pinnock, Clark, ed. The Openness of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994. (Defense of Open Theology)

Sanders, John. The God Who Risks. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1998. (Defense of Open Theology)

Schreiner, Thomas and Ware, Bruce ed. Still Sovereign. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000. (Defense of the traditional view of God against Open Theism)

KROZ BIBLIJU NA GODINU DANA Plan za dnevno čitanje Biblije

Related Media

KROZ BIBLIJU NA GODINU DANA

Redoslijed knjiga u ovom planu za čitanje Biblije urađen je hronološki, dakle ne po redoslijedu koji nalazimo u Bibliji. Pjesničke i proročke knjige svrstane su među historijske tekstove, uz opise događaja za koje se vjeruje da su se dešavali u doba njihovog nastanka. Jednako tome, neke novozavjetne poslanice razvrstane su prema dešavanjima iz knjige Djela apostolskih. Iako postoje različita mišljenja o detaljima, hronološki redoslijed koji je ovdje primijenjen prihvaćen je od većine konzervativnih izučavatelja Biblije.

LESLIE B. FLYNN

JANUAR	28. Pon. zakon 1-3
1. Postanak 1,2	MART
2. Postanak 3-5	1. Pon. zakon 4-6
3. Postanak 6-9	2. Pon. zakon 7-9
4. Postanak 10, 11	3. Pon. zakon 10-12
5. Postanak 12-15	4. Pon. zakon 13-16
6. Postanak 16-19	5. Pon. zakon 17-19
7. Postanak 20-22	6. Pon. zakon 20-22
8. Postanak 23-26	7. Pon. zakon 23-25
9. Postanak 27-29	8. Pon. zakon 26-28
10. Postanak 30-32	9. Pon. zakon 29-31
11. Postanak 33-36	10. Pon. zakon 32-34
12. Postanak 37-39	11. Jošua 1-3
13. Postanak 40-42	12. Jošua 4-6
14. Postanak 43-46	13. Jošua 7-9
15. Postanak 47-50	14. Jošua 10-12
16. Job 1-4	15. Jošua 13-15
17. Job 5-7	16. Jošua 16-18
18. Job 8-10	17. Jošua 19-21
19. Job 11-13	18. Jošua 22-24
20. Job 14-17	19. Suci 1-4
21. Job 18-20	20. Suci 5-8
22. Job 21-24	21. Suci 9-12
23. Job 25-27	22. Suci 13-15
24. Job 28-31	23. Suci 16-18
25. Job 32-34	24. Suci 19-21
26. Job 35-37	25. Ruta 1-4
27. Job 38-42	26. 1 Samuelova 1-3
28. Izlazak 1-4	27. 1 Samuelova 4-7
29. Izlazak 5-7	28. 1 Samuelova 8-10
30. Izlazak 8-10	29. 1 Samuelova 11-13
31. Izlazak 11-13	30. 1 Samuelova 14-16
FEBRUAR	31. 1 Samuelova 17-20
1. Izlazak 14-17	APRIL
2. Izlazak 18-20	1. 1 Samuelova 21-24
3. Izlazak 21-24	2. 1 Samuelova 25-28
4. Izlazak 25-27	3. 1 Samuelova 29-31
5. Izlazak 28-31	4. 2 Samuelova 1-4
6. Izlazak 32-34	5. 2 Samuelova 5-8
7. Izlazak 35-37	6. 2 Samuelova 9-12
8. Izlazak 38-40	7. 2 Samuelova 13-15
9. Levitski zak. 1-4	8. 2 Samuelova 16-18
10. Levitski zak. 5-7	9. 2 Samuelova 19-21
11. Levitski zak. 8-10	10. 2 Samuelova 22-24
12. Levitski zak. 11-13	11. Psalmi 1-3
13. Levitski zak. 14-16	12. Psalmi 4-6
14. Levitski zak. 17-19	13. Psalmi 7-9
15. Levitski zak. 20-23	14. Psalmi 10-12
16. Levitski zak. 24-27	15. Psalmi 13-15
17. Brojevi 1-3	16. Psalmi 16-18
18. Brojevi 4-6	17. Psalmi 19-21
19. Brojevi 7-10	18. Psalmi 22-24
20. Brojevi 11-14	19. Psalmi 25-27
21. Brojevi 15-17	20. Psalmi 28-30
22. Brojevi 18-20	21. Psalmi 31-33
23. Brojevi 21-24	22. Psalmi 34-36
24. Brojevi 25-27	23. Psalmi 37-39
25. Brojevi 28-30	24. Psalmi 40-42
26. Brojevi 31-33	25. Psalmi 43-45
27. Brojevi 34-36	26. Psalmi 46-48
27. Psalmi 49-51	15. Izaija 25-27
28. Psalmi 52-54	16. Izaija 28-30
29. Psalmi 55-57	17. Izaija 31-33
30. Psalmi 58-60	18. Izaija 34-36
MAJ	19. Izaija 37-39
1. Psalmi 61-63	20. Izaija 40-42
2. Psalmi 64-66	21. Izaija 43-45
3. Psalmi 67-69	22. Izaija 46-48
4. Psalmi 70-72	23. Izaija 49-51
5. Psalmi 73-75	24. Izaija 52-54
6. Psalmi 76-78	25. Izaija 55-57
7. Psalmi 79-81	26. Izaija 58-60
8. Psalmi 82-84	27. Izaija 61-63
9. Psalmi 85-87	28. Izaija 64-66
10. Psalmi 88-90	29. Mihej 1-4
11. Psalmi 91-93	30. Mihej 5-7
12. Psalmi 94-96	31. Nahum 1-3
13. Psalmi 97-99	AUGUST
14. Psalmi 100-102	1. 2 Kraljevima 20, 21
15. Psalmi 103-105	2. Sefanija 1-3
16. Psalmi 106-108	3. Habakuk 1-3
17. Psalmi 109-111	4. 2 Kraljevima 22-25
18. Psalmi 112-114	5. Obadija
19. Psalmi 115-118	Jeremija 1, 2
20. Psalam 119	6. Jeremija 3-5
21. Psalmi 120-123	7. Jeremija 6-8
22. Psalmi 124-126	8. Jeremija 9-12
23. Psalmi 127-129	9. Jeremija 13-16
24. Psalmi 130-132	10. Jeremija 17-20
25. Psalmi 133-135	11. Jeremija 21-23
26. Psalmi 136-138	12. Jeremija 24-26
27. Psalmi 139-141	13. Jeremija 27-29
28. Psalmi 142-144	14. Jeremija 30-32
29. Psalmi 145-147	15. Jeremija 33-36
30. Psalmi 148-150	16. Jeremija 37-39
31. 1 Kraljevima 1-4	17. Jeremija 40-42
JUNI	18. Jeremija 43-46
1. Izreke 1-3	19. Jeremija 47-49
2. Izreke 4-7	20. Jeremija 50-52
3. Izreke 8-11	21. Tužaljke 1-5
4. Izreke 12-14	22. 1 Ljetopisi 1-3
5. Izreke 15-18	23. 1 Ljetopisi 4-6
6. Izreke 19-21	24. 1 Ljetopisi 7-9
7. Izreke 22-24	25. 1 Ljetopisi 10-13
8. Izreke 25-28	26. 1 Ljetopisi 14-16
9. Izreke 29-31	27. 1 Ljetopisi 17-19
10. Propovjednik 1-3	28. 1 Ljetopisi 20-23
11. Propovjednik 4-6	29. 1 Ljetopisi 24-26
12. Propovjednik 7-9	30. 1 Ljetopisi 27-29
13. Propovjednik 10-12	31. 2 Ljetopisi 1-3
14. Pj. nad pjesmama 1-4	SEPTEMBAR
15. Pj. nad pjesmama 5-8	1. 2 Ljetopisi 4-6
16. 1 Kraljevima 5-7	2. 2 Ljetopisi 7-9
17. 1 Kraljevima 8-10	3. 2 Ljetopisi 10-13
18. 1 Kraljevima 11-13	4. 2 Ljetopisi 14-16
19. 1 Kraljevima 14-16	5. 2 Ljetopisi 17-19
20. 1 Kraljevima 17-19	6. 2 Ljetopisi 20-22
21. 1 Kraljevima 20-22	7. 2 Ljetopisi 23-25
22. 2 Kraljevima 1-3	8. 2 Ljetopisi 26-29
23. 2 Kraljevima 4-6	9. 2 Ljetopisi 30-32
24. 2 Kraljevima 7-10	10. 2 Ljetopisi 33-36
25. 2 Kraljevima 11–14:20	11. Ezekiel 1-3
26. Joel 1-3	12. Ezekiel 4-7
27. 2 Kraljevima 14:21-25	13. Ezekiel 8-11
Jona 1-4	14. Ezekiel 12-14
28. 2 Kraljevima 14:26-29	15. Ezekiel 15-18
Amos 1-3	16. Ezekiel 19-21
29. Amos 4-6	17. Ezekiel 22-24
30. Amos 7-9	18. Ezekiel 25-27
JULI	19. Ezekiel 28-30
1. 2 Kraljevima 15-17	20. Ezekiel 31-33
2. Hošea 1-4	21. Ezekiel 34-36
3. Hošea 5-7	22. Ezekiel 37-39
4. Hošea 8-10	23. Ezekiel 40-42
5. Hošea 11-14	24. Ezekiel 43-45
6. 2 Kraljevima 18, 19	25. Ezekiel 46-48
7. Izaija 1-3	26. Daniel 1-3
8. Izaija 4-6	27. Daniel 4-6
9. Izaija 7-9	28. Daniel 7-9
10. Izaija 10-12	29. Daniel 10-12
11. Izaija 13-15	30. Estera 1-3
12. Izaija 16-18	OKTOBAR
13. Izaija 19-21	1. Estera 4-7
14. Izaija 22-24	2. Estera 8-10
3. Ezra 1-4	20. 1 Solunjanima 1-5
4. Hagaj 1, 2	21. 2 Solunjanima 1-3
Zaharija 1, 2	Djela 18:12-19:10
5. Zaharija 3-6	22. 1 Korinćanima 1-4
6. Zaharija 7-10	23. 1 Korinćanima 5-8
7. Zaharija 11-14	24. 1 Korinćanima 9-12
8. Ezra 5-7	25. 1 Korinćanima 13-16
9. Ezra 8-10	26. Djela 19:11-20:1
10. Nehemija 1-3	2 Korinćanima 1-3
11. Nehemija 4-6	27. 2 Korinćanima 4-6
12. Nehemija 7-9	28. 2 Korinćanima 7-9
13. Nehemija 10-13	29. 2 Korinćanima 10-13
14. Malahija 1-4	30. Djela 20:2
15. Matej 1-4	Rimljanima 1-4
16. Matej 5-7	DECEMBAR
17. Matej 8-11	1. Rimljanima 5-8
18. Matej 12-15	2. Rimljanima 9-11
19. Matej 16-19	3. Rimljanima 12-16
20. Matej 20-22	4. Djela 20:3-22
21. Matej 23-25	5. Djela 23-25
22. Matej 26-28	6. Djela 26-28
23. Marko 1-3	7. Efežanima 1-3
24. Marko 4-6	8. Efežanima 4-6
25. Marko 7-10	9. Filipljanima 1-4
26. Marko 11-13	10. Kološanima 1-4
27. Marko 14-16	11. Hebrejima 1-4
28. Luka 1-3	12. Hebrejima 5-7
29. Luka 4-6	13. Hebrejima 8-10
30. Luka 7-9	14. Hebrejima 11-13
31. Luka 10-13	15. Filemonu
NOVEMBAR	1 Petrova 1, 2
1. Luka 14-17	16. 1 Petrova 3-5
2. Luka 18-21	17. 2 Petrova 1-3
3. Luka 22-24	18. 1 Timoteju 1-3
4. Ivan 1-3	19. 1 Timoteju 4-6
5. Ivan 4-6	20. Titu 1-3
6. Ivan 7-10	21. 2 Timoteju 1-4
7. Ivan 11-13	22. 1 Ivanova 1, 2
8. Ivan 14-17	23. 1 Ivanova 3-5
9. Ivan 18-21	24. 2 Ivanova
10. Djela 1, 2	3 Ivanova
11. Djela 3-5	Judina
12. Djela 6-9	25. Otkrivenje 1-3
13. Djela 10-12	26. Otkrivenje 4-6
14. Djela 13, 14	27. Otkrivenje 7-9
15. Jakovljeva 1, 2	28. Otkrivenje 10-12
16. Jakovljeva 3-5	29. Otkrivenje 13-15
17. Galaćanima 1-3	30. Otkrivenje 16-18
18. Galaćanima 4-6	31. Otkrivenje 19-22
19. Djela 15-18:11

BTRT
(Biblijski i Teološki Resursi i Trening)
Poštanski Fah 32
Bosanskih Gazija 111,
71210 Ilidža
Bosna i Hercegovina
Tel/Fax: 387.33.628.533

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Devotionals

Life and Death in Biblical Perspective: An Examination of Genesis 5, Ecclesiastes 1, and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58

Related Media

Abstract¹

The major premise of this essay is that since the dawn of time, the human drive for life has been checkmated by death. A biblical-theological examination of Genesis 5 and Ecclesiastes 1 indicates that despite the efforts of people both individually and collectively to extend the realms of human existence, their efforts are ultimately ambushed (in a manner of speaking) by the end of life. Moreover, while each generation appears to be making incremental strides—sometimes even laudable gains—the reality of death neutralizes these advances and in some cases entirely wipes them out. An examination of 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 informs people of faith that only in Christ can work and leisure be enjoyable, beneficial, and fulfilling.

1. Introduction

Chess is a game in which two players begin with 16 pieces strategically placed on a checkered board. Both of them follow precise rules to capture each other’s pieces. The object of the game is to put the opponent’s king under a direct attack from which escape is impossible. As a matter of fact, the term “checkmate,” which is used to refer to this situation, comes from a Persian word that literally means “the king is left unable to escape.” More generally, “checkmate” denotes a circumstance in which someone or something has been thwarted or completely countered.

2. Life and Death from the Perspective of Genesis 5

2.1 The Toledot Sections of Genesis

Extensive scholarly activity has focused on the Hebrew noun toledot, which is rendered “account” in the TNIV² (Gen. 5:1). The noun is derived from a verb that means “to bear” or “to generate.” Accordingly, the phrase “this is the written account of” is more literally rendered “this is the book of the generations (or descendants) of.” However, in Genesis the noun introduces more than genealogies. Toledot can also point to biographical material as well as summarize a series of important events.

The literary importance of this Hebrew noun (which occurs 10 times in Genesis) should not be overlooked, for it’s repetition throughout the book can help the reader discern how the author organized and arranged his information (cf. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Particularly, toledot signals the beginning of a narrative sequence in which the history of an individual or entity is discussed, in some places briefly while in other places extensively. For instance, 5:1—6:8 contains the genealogy from Adam to Noah. This section also discusses how the presence of sin and death within the human race checkmated the efforts of each successive generation to fulfill the creation mandate.

As each toledot section unfolds, the focus of attention increasingly narrows. Genesis begins with God commanding the universe into existence and then zeros in on His creation of humankind. After the account of the worldwide Flood, the aperture closes in on the origins of the Hebrew race, giving particular attention to key events associated with the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This literary development makes sense, for God established His covenant with the patriarchs and their descendants.

2.2 Genesis 5 and the Human Drive for Life

Starting with Genesis 5:1, the question of what became of Adam’s descendants is addressed³. Fretheim suggests that “after the murder perpetrated by Cain and the vengeful response of Lamech, Genesis 5 may represent a fresh start, building upon the reference to the worship of Yahweh at the end of chapter 4.”⁴ Genesis 5:1-2 have clear thematic and linguistic links with the creation account recorded in 1:26-27⁵. Each set of verses reveals that God created both male and female genders of the human race in His image.

There is a longstanding debate concerning what this means, with the bulk of the views stressing either the nature or function of human life. Most likely, the biblical text affirms each emphasis. This implies the divine likeness is a special quality/character and a role/task entrusted to people⁶ . The ability of human beings to reason and make ethical decisions are noteworthy ways in which people give creative expression to the “likeness of God” (5:1) within them. Moreover, the divine “mandate for people to govern the world as benevolent vice-regents of the true and living God, is a reflection of His image in them.” By doing so “in a responsible fashion,” they “bear witness to the divine likeness placed within humanity.”⁷

As 1:26 states, the jurisdiction of human beings extended to the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and animals on the land (whether small or large, wild or domesticated). Also, as 1:28 and 5:2 reveal, the blessing of God on humankind was the key to them being able to fulfill the creation mandate.⁸ The Hebrew term rendered “blessed” (5:2) “conveys the idea of endowing something with productivity or fruitfulness.”⁹ With respect to the human race, the extent to which they enjoyed the favor of God on their lives determined the degree of their success in being able to actualize God’s will on earth.

The remainder of Genesis 5 records the efforts of humanity to “flourish and be successful in serving as [God’s] vice-regents.”¹⁰ Despite the continued and vigorous attempts on the part of people to fulfill the creation mandate, each generation is checkmated by death. This is indicated by the sad refrain “and then he died,” which appears throughout the chapter (vss. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31).¹¹ The “reign of death” contrasts sharply with the “desire of God” for human beings to flourish¹². Von Rad encourages the reader to “understand man’s slowly diminishing life span … as a gradual deterioration of his original, wonderful vitality, a deterioration corresponding to his increasing distance from his starting point at creation.”¹³

The pattern is only broken with the account of Enoch,¹⁴ in which the biblical text twice says he “walked faithfully with God” (vss. 22, 24). The idea is that throughout Enoch’s 365 years on earth, he stood out as someone who lived in close fellowship with God.¹⁵ Because Enoch’s life was one of superlative devotion and piety, he escaped the clutches of death.¹⁶ Expressed differently, when God removed Enoch from the face of the planet, death was overruled¹⁷ (cf. Heb. 11:5).

This oasis of grace is surrounded by a wasteland of death. There are 10 literary panels in Genesis 5, one for each generation of Adam’s descendants through Seth. According to Brueggemann, the “genealogy of ten generations is primarily for purposes of continuity, to show the linkage of humankind from its wholesome beginning to its shameful arrival at the flood.”¹⁸ A new biological group of fallen human beings appears for a span of time and procreates sons and daughters in their own imperfect image.¹⁹ Moreover, the duration of life is remarkable—at least by today’s standards.²⁰ Among these antediluvian centenarians, Methuselah lived the longest—969 years; and yet, even he eventually succumbed to death.

Back in the Garden of Eden, God warned Adam of the sobering prospect of death. The first man learned that if he violated the divine prohibition against eating from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:17), he would “certainly die.” Then, when he subsequently disobeyed the Creator, Adam’s transgression resulted in sin entering the world. Moreover, death entered the realm of human experience and “came to all people” (Rom. 5:12). Indeed, death became the payoff of sin (6:23).

The presence and reign of death extended beyond humankind to all of creation. In Genesis 3:17-19, God declared that because of Adam’s transgression, the ground from which he was created would be cursed. This means it would no longer be as fruitful in its yield as it could have been before sin entered creation. Furthermore, the specter of death would shunt the blessing of God on humankind.

In Romans 8:20, Paul said all of the creation was subjected to frustration. The Greek word rendered “frustration” carries the ideas of futility and decay. Adam had been assigned to a position of authority over creation as God’s representative (cf. Gen. 1:26-30; 2:8, 15). Hence, when God’s judgment came against humanity in the Garden of Eden, all of creation was affected. Indeed, creation was subjected as a result of the Lord’s judgment, “not by its own choice” (Rom. 8:20), but according to the righteous will of God.

Theologians generally believe that people would have been immortal if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit. This means that death was introduced as part of the judgment of sin. Physical death does not result in extinction; rather, the outcome is separation from the realm of the living. Likewise, spiritual death does not result in annihilation; instead, the consequence is eternal separation from the living God.

Along with Enoch, Noah is a ray of hope for the future against the dark backdrop of sin and death in Genesis 5. Verses 28 and 29 state that when Lamech was 182, he had a son, whom he named “Noah.” Though the etymology of this name remains a matter of debate,²¹ some think it is related the Hebrew verb nuakh, which means “to rest.” “Noah” is similar in sound to the Hebrew verb for “to comfort” and reflects Lamech’s belief that his son would bring humankind relief from the struggle of having to eek out an existence from the ground, which the Lord placed under a curse.²² Sailhamer notes that when Genesis 8:21 is considered, the comfort Noah provided included the deliverance of humankind by means of the ark, along with “the reinstitution of the sacrifice after the Flood.”²³ In this way, Noah “averted any future destruction” of the human race.²⁴

3. Life and Death from the Perspective of Ecclesiastes 1

3.1 The Inspired Perspective of Ecclesiastes

Like Genesis 5, Ecclesiastes 1 deals with the stark reality of death. On the surface, though, the frank, unvarnished perspective presented in latter can leave readers wondering why this book has been included in the canon of Scripture.²⁵ Moreover, some struggle to accept the author’s verdict that apart from God everything in life is absolutely futile and absurd, a declaration that appears throughout the author’s treatise (cf. 1:2, 14; 2:11, 17, 26; 12:8).²⁶ As a result, they conjecture that the sentiments of the author represent an inferior perspective, one that allegedly is supplanted by more inspired views, such as those found in the New Testament. This orientation is a grossly inaccurate misrepresentation of Ecclesiastes.²⁷ As the research of de Jong affirms, the theology of the book is “located within the mainstream of the Old Testament”.²⁸

Despite the brevity of Ecclesiastes, it explores a vast range of problems concerning human existence.²⁹ The author examined the activities and ambitions of human beings, including wisdom, pleasure, work, progress, and wealth. One finds that among the writers of the Old Testament, the author of Ecclesiastes was the “least comfortable with conventional wisdom, and the most willing to challenge unexamined assumptions.”³⁰ He was also willing to hold in dynamic tension the unresolved paradoxes of life.³¹ In point of fact, the book presents the reflections of a man who boldly faced the complex questions of existence and who “understood the reality of the curse of God placed upon life”.³²

Based on the analysis of his findings, the author of Ecclesiastes reported that no matter what people strive to attain in life, they all meet the same destiny; in other words, all people die and are forgotten by others. In this way, the author did not try to hide the futility that people face. Indeed, he taught that all goals of human beings have limitations—even wisdom. Thus, it is useless for them to pretend as if they are the masters of their own destinies. At the end of the author’s discourse, he concluded that true meaning and joy come solely from God. In response to the cry of despair found throughout the author’s essay, the writer declared that meaning and wisdom in life can only be found in fearing God and keeping His commandments (12:13).³³

The writer’s candid view of existence sets the stage for the underlying hope in Ecclesiastes. Although every human striving will eventually fail, God’s purposes will never be thwarted. Based on the author’s wide-ranging experiences and observations, he concluded that God has ordered life according to His purposes. Thus, the best approach to existence on earth as human beings is for people of faith to accept and enjoy the life God has given them. When Ecclesiastes is approached in this way, the book is seen to have the canon of Scripture as its theological mooring.³⁴ It truly is a brilliant and inspired discourse that should encourage believers to work diligently toward a God-centered view of life.³⁵

3.2 Ecclesiastes 1 and the Human Drive for Life

Ecclesiastes 1 can be divided into two main sections. In verses 1-2, the Teacher introduced himself and stated his main theme in the form of a preamble.³⁶ Then, in verses 3-18, he described the limitations of work and wisdom. This second section can be further divided as follows: verses 3 through 11 deal with the repetitive cycles of creation, while verses 12 through 18 discuss the futility of human labor and understanding. This introductory chapter of the book discloses that there is some value to human endeavors, including enjoyment, satisfaction, and security. In the end, however, the gains represented by such achievements are checkmated by death. This view is a theological affirmation of the mournful refrain “and then he died” that appears throughout Genesis 5.³⁷

“Teacher” (vs. 1) in the TNIV renders the Hebrew participle qohelet. The corresponding verb qahal means “to assemble” or “to summon” and is derived from the noun qahal, which means “assembly.” This suggests such meanings for qohelet as “member of the assembly,” “convener of the assembly,” or “leader of the assembly.” This might imply that the teachings recorded in Ecclesiastes were to be delivered publicly, perhaps in an outer court of the temple or a palace.³⁸ In other portions of Ecclesiastes where qohelet appears, the author identified himself as Israel’s king (vs. 12), attested to his status as a verbal and written source of wisdom (12:9-10), and made pronouncements about the meaning of life (1:2; 7:27; 12:8). Perhaps “sage” best captures the range of meanings for qohelet, implying that the writer was a profoundly wise philosopher, thinker, and scholar.³⁹

King Solomon, who reigned over Israel for 40 years (about 970–930 b.c.), traditionally has been identified as the author of Ecclesiastes. The strongest evidence is that the writer referred to himself as the “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (1:1). Again, after a poetic interlude about the futility of life, he made the same reference, this time adding that he was the reigning monarch over Israel (vs. 12). This person would seem to be no other than Solomon.⁴⁰

Others, however, argue that any king of Judah might have identified himself in this way. Supposedly there is evidence that the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes comes from a later time period than the tenth century b.c. Also, it is claimed that many of the opinions in the book could not have come from Solomon. Moreover, some experts conjecture that the book had as many as three authors: a pessimist who wrote an impious draft of the book; an orthodox Jewish believer, who added more religiously proper views to the writings of the first author; and a sage who added a series of proverbs to the final draft of the document.⁴¹

Despite the innovativeness of these theories, there are too many factors—such as the book’s unity of style, theme, and purpose—which indicate that Ecclesiastes had a single author who wrestled with various approaches to life. This person was a king and unparalleled in wisdom. Indeed, the bulk of the evidence conclusively points to Solomon as the sole author of the book and the person referred to in verse 1. It is also possible that a secretary wrote down the words of the Teacher as he presented to an assembly his philosophical treatise on the futility of life without God.

The Teacher apparently intended for his pronouncements to be read, not just by those people who were devoted to the Lord, but by a more general, secular audience as well. This would explain why Ecclesiastes is sometimes seen as more worldly than the other books in the Bible.⁴² It was meant to step outside of the place of worship and meet common people as they lived out their earthly existence. In many respects, this book is addressed to people who live selfishly for the moment, as if all that mattered in life were amassing possessions and mimicking the behavior and customs of the world.⁴³

Ecclesiastes begins by presenting the problem that will be addressed throughout the remainder of the book, namely, the issue of human existence in this fallen world. According to Fuerst, the Teacher “poses harder questions, raises graver doubts, and arrives at more despairing conclusions than any other book”⁴⁴ of the Old Testament. The trajectory of the sage’s essay shows how a life without God at its center is chaotic, meaningless, and discontented. Because existence detached from the Creator is absolutely futile, all forms of human arrogance are inappropriate.⁴⁵ Accordingly, the Teacher commended his hearers to a God-centered life by critiquing various lifestyles and life pursuits in which the Lord is left out.⁴⁶ The grimness connected with this latter alternative is vividly spelled out in verses 3 through 11.

Verse 2 serves as the gateway to the rest of the book and conveys the central premise of the author’s treatise.⁴⁷ He lamented that life for the godless “lacked profit and therefore was totally absurd.”⁴⁸ The Hebrew noun hebel, which the TNIV renders as “meaningless,” is pivotal to the author’s thesis. In more literal contexts, hebel is used to refer to the wind, a person’s breath, and vapor, all of which are fleeting in nature (cf. Ps. 144:4; Prov. 21:6; Isa. 57:13). Metaphorically, hebel can refer to whatever is temporary, incongruous, without substance, or utterly fruitless.⁴⁹

The Teacher argued in Ecclesiastes that the human drive for life apart from God is filled with anxiety and frustration and “amounts to a huge zero.”⁵⁰ They have no hope beyond this earthly existence because they have divorced themselves from their Creator. All they have is what they work for now, and soon every aspect of it will pass away. It would be incorrect to conclude from this declaration that absolutely everything in life is futile.⁵¹ As the “haunting and melancholy poem”⁵² recorded in verses 3-11 indicates, the focus is on profane human endeavor. This contrasts with the eternal value of revering God and appreciating the temporal blessings of life He gives (2:24-26; 11:9-10; 12:13-14).⁵³

The sage illustrated his point by observing how nature works. In fact, as Fox notes, the Teacher adopted an “empirical methodology”⁵⁴ in which he sought “both to derive knowledge from experience and to validate ideas experientially.”⁵⁵ The author framed his remarks in terms of the “gain” (1:3) people obtain from all their “hard physical labor.”⁵⁶ This is the language of profit and loss, which ironically is how many people typically see life.⁵⁷ They strive for earthly attainments, often inconsiderate of whom they have to push aside to get it; but in the end, their decisions result in complete frustration and failure, all because they have not taken into consideration obedience to God.

“Toil” sums up an approach to life that is self-centered and shortsighted. Though the impious labor tirelessly “under the sun” (that is, on earth),⁵⁸ such efforts prove exhausting. From the perspective of eternity, nothing of lasting value or ultimate good results from this endless labor. The curse of sin is at the heart of why the endeavors of life can feel so wearisome (Gen. 3:17-19). People of faith recognize that only in Christ can work and leisure be enjoyable, beneficial, and fulfilling.⁵⁹ This truth will be explored further in the concluding section of this essay dealing with 1 Corinthians 15:50-58.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 begins the somber look at human existence and nature.⁶⁰ By highlighting the basic elements of the created order, the Teacher sought to depict in lyrical fashion the seemingly endless cycle of humanity’s futile pursuits.⁶¹ First, he noted the continual, uninterrupted succession of generations that parade across the stage of history. Like the created realm itself, each new wave of humanity is a beehive of activity; yet despite their ceaseless striving and accomplishments, nothing of real or lasting change results.

Moreover, just as the cycle of human life continues unabated on its seemingly meaningless course, so does the earth. This truth points out the relative shortness of a person’s life, especially when compared to the apparent permanence of the earth. As Leupold observes, there is “something tragic about having man, the noble creature derived from the earth, continually pass away while the ‘earth,’ the crude material from which he is made, continues.”⁶² According to von Ehrenkrook, the theme of “death has long been recognized as an important, perhaps even controlling principle in the perplexing message of Ecclesiastes.”⁶³

Second, the Teacher addressed the cycle of the sun. This celestial object seems to follow an endless pattern of rising, setting, and hastening back to where it first arose (vs. 5). Here the author may have implied that the sun actually grew weary of its incessant journey across the sky. If so, the sun is a fitting reminder of how the day-to-day aspects of life soon become tiresome. People grind through an ever-repeating, monotonous cycle of life. Sadly, despite all their efforts, nothing really changes and nothing of lasting value results.

Third, the sage observed that the wind blows to the south, circles around to the north, and then repeats this vicious cycle of swirling motion (vs. 6). Like the individual lives of people, the wind seems to churn ceaselessly in every direction without ever veering from its determined course; and yet nothing radical, new, or different is accomplished. The implication for humanity is that we live and die without any power to break the endless cycle.

Fourth, the Teacher described the constant flow of water from rivers into the sea, and yet the sea is never full (vs. 7). Consider the Dead Sea, which receives waters from the Jordan River to the north; and even though no river exits from the Dead Sea, the depth of the water it contains never seems to increase.⁶⁴ While verse 7 is not specifically talking about the evaporation cycle or the return of water to underground streams,⁶⁵ these two recurring phenomena in nature parallel what the author described. Like the earth, the sun, and the wind, the constant movement of water seems to produce nothing new or lasting. Understandably, it is vain to look to nature for a “fixed point of reference” for one’s “own meaning” (Kaiser 1979:50).

It bears repeating that in this portion of Ecclesiastes, the sage adopted a counterintuitive view of nature, one that would have felt jarring to his peers. The community of faith recognized that everything in the world is a testimony to the Creator. The Teacher, however, intentionally described how nature appeared to those who think there is no God (Dillard and Longman 1994:255). For the impious, there is no loving Creator behind nature, and thus life becomes one long humdrum repetition. Indeed, as verse 8 states, all this monotony is so wearisome that it exceeds human ability to describe, fathom, and bear.

While the human mind keeps searching for meaning and striving for understanding, it will never find it in nature alone. Moreover, as long as people determinedly reject or deny God, they cannot break through the cycle of time and repetition to discover the One who is permanent and absolute—God Himself. Hebrews 11:6 reveals that those who come to God must believe that He exists. People of faith also understand that the universe was “formed at God’s command” (vs. 3). In contrast, the irreligious foolishly assert “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1) and end their lives in frustration and futility.

As long as the profane hold to an agnostic or atheistic mindset, the only conclusion they can draw is that history repeats itself. Indeed, for them what has been done before on earth will be done again. This implies there is nothing truly new under the sun (Eccles. 1:9). Longman offers this assessment: “History, like the earth, appears to change, but in actuality it stays the same. Nothing new ever happens.”⁶⁶ From this perspective, nothing people do really matters, for it has been done before. Moreover, it has no more meaning now than it did in the past or when it will be repeated in the future. Clearly, when God is left out of the equation, the human drive for life is checkmated.

In verses 10 and 11, the Teacher restated his main premise about the utter futility of life, though this time he looked ahead to the future. He asked whether people can genuinely claim that something is distinctive or novel. The answer is no, for it existed in some form or fashion in the distant past. The author’s statement does not deny that people can be creative and innovative, just that what they attain finds parallels with what others have achieved in previous generations. For instance, while the Apollo 11 landing on the moon was a stellar feat, it did not necessarily trump similar events, such as the discovery of the Americas. In both cases, while the circumstances were vastly different, the results of their exploits were comparable.

Furthermore, the Teacher noted that as generations of people come and go, neither they nor their achievements are remembered. He stated that people of old have already been forgotten. Even more sobering is the realization that in future generations, those living then will not remember what people are doing now (vs. 11). Indeed, what each generation regards as being radical or revolutionary has its counterpart in the actions and accomplishments of those from the past. As a result, each new group of humanity that comes on the scene has to “confront its own present without historically liberating legacies and, in turn, face the prospect of committing the same errors as past generations.”⁶⁷

Regrettably, many today become so preoccupied with themselves or with the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasure that they fail to stop and consider what their life is all about. Though some people deceive themselves into living as if their earthly existence will never end, they cannot escape the inevitability of death (cf. Heb. 9:27). The somber repetition in Genesis 5 of the phrase “and then he died” serves as a reminder that the efforts of mortals to extend the realms of existence are checkmated by death. Put another way, “death cancels all human achievements.”⁶⁸ Indeed, as Forman noted, the “loss of immortality is the blighting fact of existence.”⁶⁹

Accordingly, it is best for people of faith to maintain a heavenly, eternal perspective, rather than a limited, earthly one. With the Teacher, they must face the fact that the life the Creator has given to people on earth sooner or later ends. Like sandcastles on a stretch of beach, each person’s life is eventually washed away by the incoming waves of time. This somber truth should prompt believers to consider how to best invest the fleeting existence God gives them.⁷⁰

After his opening statements about the meaninglessness of life without God, the Teacher told about his own personal experiences in Ecclesiastes 1:12-18. He explained how he had tried to find meaning in various ways—through the pursuit of wisdom, pleasure, work, success, and wealth (to name a few examples). As the king of Israel (vs. 12), he had the ability and resources to use wisdom to examine in a careful and thorough manner all that people have accomplished on earth (vs. 13). While his investigation could never be exhaustive, this did not undermine the legitimacy of his empirical observations, analysis, and conclusions. What mattered most was for him to be comprehensive and objective.

As a result of the author’s inquiry, he reached two conclusions. First, he learned that God had given people a burdensome task, one that kept them preoccupied. The Hebrew of verse 13 literally reads “the sons of the man” and may be an allusion to “Adam and the effects of the Fall.”⁷¹ In fact, Clemens thinks that Ecclesiastes is “best understood as an arresting but thoroughly orthodox exposition of Genesis 1—3.” He notes that “in both texts, the painful consequences of the fall are central.”⁷²

The nature of fallen humanity’s onerous, heavy burden in Ecclesiastes 1:13 is unclear. Some suggest the “task is evil because no solution can be found after much hard work.”⁷³ Another possibility is that the Teacher was referring to the higher awareness God gave human beings, namely, intelligence that distinguishes people from animals. The idea is that, because humans are created in the image of God, they sense there is more to life than simple physical existence and survival. They realize there must be meaning for their lives, that there needs to be an ideal for which to strive. Put another way, God has given people the unpleasant business of living with their conscience. This then is what drives humans to find significance and purpose in life.⁷⁴

The second conclusion the Teacher reached as a result of his study is that all the toil and activity to which people devoted themselves proved futile. In fact, their accomplishments were as senseless as chasing after the wind (vs. 14). The attainments of the unrighteous, no matter how commendable they might seem, were pointless because they had no lasting impact on the world. Moreover, all earthbound goals, regardless of the effort expended to attain them, ended up being as transient as the momentary presence of a swirling gust of air.

Even the Teacher’s exhaustive efforts to fathom the mysteries of life were ultimately crushed by the sheer enormity of the task. It is reasonable to suppose that he worked long and hard to conquer knowledge and wisdom on his own. In the end, though, he was unable to explain the enigmas of life, right its wrongs, and remedy its deficiencies. Furthermore, just when the sage thought he had pondered every contingency, something else came along to make him realize people lack ultimate meaning (vs. 15). As Garrett fittingly notes, the “implication behind this is that God’s ways are inscrutable”⁷⁵ (cf. Isa. 40:12-14; Rom. 11:33-36).

The Teacher claimed that none of his predecessors who ruled over Jerusalem excelled him in wisdom. He was in a unique position as Israel’s monarch, for unlike those who came before him, he had access to people and records that were previously unavailable (vs. 16). Moreover, the king spared no effort to discern the value of wisdom and knowledge over foolhardy ideas and actions; yet despite his efforts, the Teacher concluded that even this endeavor eluded his grasp. Indeed, regardless of how hard he tried to achieve his lofty objective, it proved to be as futile as chasing the wind (vs. 17).

It must have been humbling for the wisest, most knowledgeable person of the day to admit that not even he could “resolve the riddle of human existence.”⁷⁶ Indeed, the more discerning and aware the sage became, the more grief and frustration he experienced. Generally speaking, those who grew in their comprehension of life were vexed by increased heartache (vs. 18). All such efforts to place the attainment of understanding as the supreme end of life—without the love of a caring God—simply brought more sorrow. In turn, the enormity of this grief stymied ongoing attempts to advance the frontiers of human understanding.⁷⁷

4. Conclusion and Afterword

A biblical-theological examination of Genesis 5 and Ecclesiastes 1 has shown that the reality of death hangs like a funeral pall over the coffin of life. Moreover, these two chapters jointly indicate that for the unsaved, the end of life checkmates all they have sought to attain. Even their most noteworthy achievements are neutralized by death and washed away by the ocean waves of time. Regrettably, generations in the distant future will not even remember the individual and collective efforts of their predecessors to extend the realms of human existence.

For believers, the sting of death is overcome by the hope of the Resurrection, a truth made clear in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58.⁷⁸ In this “lyrical passage,” Morris notes, “the apostle exults in the triumph Christ has won over death itself.”⁷⁹ Paul repeated in plain terms that natural, earthly bodies are not suited to a spiritual, heavenly existence. Indeed, that which is subject to death and decomposition could never receive as an inheritance that which is eternal and glorious in nature (vs. 50).⁸⁰ The good news is that living as well as deceased believers will have their bodies transformed at the Messiah’s return (vs. 51).⁸¹

Not all will “sleep” (that is, die), for some Christians will be alive at the Saviour’s return.⁸² These along with deceased believers will be “changed” (vs. 52), meaning they all will have their bodies glorified.⁸³ This will happen instantaneously—“in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye”—when the consummation of history occurs.⁸⁴ In Old Testament times, the people of God would sound trumpets to signal the start of great feasts and other significant religious events (cf. Num. 10:10).⁸⁵ The sounding of the last trumpet mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:52 will signal the occurrence of the resurrection.⁸⁶

Because perishable, mortal bodies are unfit to inhabit heaven, they need to be transformed into imperishable, immortal ones (vs. 53).⁸⁷ This does not mean that the earthly and heavenly bodies are completely different,⁸⁸ for there is a “fundamental continuity of identity” between the old and new.⁸⁹ It is like a person’s putting on a new robe (vs. 54).⁹⁰ When that happens, the long-anticipated defeat of death will occur. Paul quoted Isaiah 25:8 to indicate that the sovereign Lord will completely checkmate death. In 1 Corinthians 15:55, the apostle quoted Hosea 13:14 as if to taunt death, which is a loser and does not have ultimate power to inflict harm on God’s people.⁹¹

Death is like a poisonous hornet or scorpion whose stinger has been pulled.⁹² By Jesus’ own atoning sacrifice on the cross and resurrection from the grave, He dealt a fatal blow to death. As this essay has maintained, all people must die; but when the Messiah returns, He will raise all who have trusted in Him for eternal life, and they will be rescued from death forever. In this way, the arch-adversary of all humanity is “destined to be completely overwhelmed by God’s invincible power.”⁹³

In 1 Corinthians 15:56, Paul told his readers that it was through the presence of sin that death received its power to hurt believers.⁹⁴ After Adam disobeyed God’s command, death invaded his life and the life of all his descendants (cf. Rom. 5:12).⁹⁵ Sin gains its power from the law by using God’s commands to produce all sorts of wrong desires in people and to seduce them into disobeying the Creator (cf. 7:7-11).⁹⁶ As is clear from Genesis 5 and Ecclesiastes 1, people who reject the Lord are powerless to resist sin or overcome death. Paul gave thanks to the Father for the triumph available through faith in the Son (1 Cor. 15:57).

The apostle exhorted his dear friends to remain steadfast in his teaching and resolute in the faith, for they had ultimate victory in the Redeemer (vs. 58).⁹⁷ The hope of the Resurrection was meant to spur them on to serve the Lord diligently and wholeheartedly.⁹⁸ Their efforts would never be wasted, since in Christ they would bear eternal fruit and reap a heavenly reward. From this it is clear that only in Christ can work and leisure be enjoyable, beneficial, and fulfilling for people of faith.

Bibliography

Atkins, G.G. 1991. The Book of Ecclesiastes: Exposition. In N.B. Harmon, ed. The Interpreter’s Bible (5:3-88). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Barrett, C.K. 1968. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Harper and Row.

Birch, B.C., Brueggemann, W., Fretheim, T.E., and Petersen, D.L. 2005. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Second edition. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Bruce, F.F. 1986. The New Century Bible Commentary: I & II Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Brueggemann, W. 1982. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox Press.

Brueggemann, W. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Burkes, S. 1999. Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Caneday, A.B. 1994. Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage? In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (81-113). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Cassuto, U. 1978. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part One: From Adam to Noah. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Castellino, G.R. 1994. Qohelet and His Wisdom. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (31-43). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Clemens, D.M. 1994. The law of sin and death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1-3. Themelios. 19:5-8.

Crenshaw, J.L. 1978. The Shadow of Death in Qoheleth. In J.G. Gammie, W.A. Brueggemann, W.L. Humphreys, and J.M. Ward, eds. Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien (205-216). New York: Scholars Press.

Crenshaw, J.L. 1992. Ecclesiastes, Book of. In D.N. Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (2:271-280). New York: Doubleday.

Crenshaw, J.L. 1994. Nothing New Under the Sun: Ecclesiastes 1:4-11. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (241-248). Grand Rapids: Baker.

De Jong, S. 1997. God in the Book of Qohelet: A Reappraisal of Qohelet’s Place in Old Testament Theology. Vestus Testamentum. 47(2):154-167.

Dillard, R.B. and Longman, T. 1994. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Farmer, K.A. 1994. Piety or Heresy? In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (223-226). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Fee, G.D. 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Fishbane, M. 1998. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.

Forman, C. 1960. Koheleth’s Use of Genesis. Journal of Semitic Studies. 5:256-263.

Fox, M.V. 1986. The Meaning of Hebel for Qohelet. Journal of Biblical Literature. 105(3):409-427.

Fox, M.V. 1987. Qohelet’s Epistemology. Hebrew Union College Annual. 58:137-155.

Fretheim, T.E. 1994. The Book of Genesis. In L.E. Keck, ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible (1:319-674). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Fuerst, W.J. 1975. The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Lamentations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Furnish, V.P. 2003. The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garrett, D.A. 1993. The New American Commentary: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Nashville: Broadman Press.

Garrett, D.A. 1994. The Theology and Purpose of Ecclesiastes. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (149-157). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Godet, F.L. 1977. Commentary on First Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications.

Gordis, R. 1994. The World View of Koheleth. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (159-183). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Grosheide, F.W. 1984. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hamilton, V.P. 1990. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Helfmeyer, F.J. 1978. halakh. In G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (3:388-403). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hendel, R.S. 1992. Genesis, Book of. In D.N. Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (2:933-941). New York: Doubleday.

Hill, A.E. and Walton, J.H. 2000. A Survey of the Old Testament. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Hubbard, D. 1991. Mastering the Old Testament: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Dallas: Word Publishing.

Johnston, R.K. 1994. “Confessions of a Workaholic”: A Reappraisal of Qoheleth. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (133-147). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Kaiser, W.C. 1979. Ecclesiastes: Total Life. Chicago: Moody Press.

Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F. 1981. Commentary on the Old Testament. Volume 1: The Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F. 1982. Commentary on the Old Testament. Volume 6: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Kidner, D. 1967. Genesis. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Kidner, D. 1994. The Search for Satisfaction: Ecclesiastes 1:12—2:26. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (249-256). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Kraeling, E.G. 1929. The Interpretations of the Name Noah in Genesis 5:29,” Journal of Biblical Literature. 48:138-143.

LaSor, W.S., Hubbard, D.A., and Bush, F.W. 1996. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Leupold, H.C. 1982. Exposition of Genesis. Volume 1: Chapters 1-19. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Leupold, H.C. 1983. Exposition of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Lioy, D. 2005. The Search for Ultimate Reality: Intertextuality Between the Genesis and Johannine Prologues. New York: Peter Lang.

Longman, T. 1998. The Book of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Machinist, P. 1995. Fate, miqreh, and Reason: Some Reflections on Qohelet and Biblical Thought. In Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff, eds. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (159-175). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Mare, W.H. 1976. 1 Corinthians. In F.E. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (10:175-297). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Miller, D.B. 2000. What the Preacher Forgot: The Rhetoric of Ecclesiastes. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 62(2):215-235.

Morris, L. 2001. 1 Corinthians. Revised edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Ogden, G.S. 1994. The Meaning of the Term Hebel. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (227-231). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Parsons, G.W. 2003. Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Ecclesiastes, Part 1. Bibliotheca Sacra. 160(638):159-173.

Parsons, G.W. 2003. Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Ecclesiastes, Part 2. Bibliotheca Sacra. 160(639):283-304.

Prior, D. 1985. The Message of 1 Corinthians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Ranger, C.A. 1989. Send Forth Your Bread Upon the Waters: A Critical Investigation of Qoheleth 10:16—11:2. Balitmore: St. Mary’s Seminary and University. (Ph.D. Dissertation)

Rankin, O.S. 1991. The Book of Ecclesiastes: Introduction and Exegesis. In N.B. Harmon, ed. The Interpreter’s Bible (5:3-88). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Roop, E.F. 1987. Genesis. Scottdale: Herald Press.

Ross, A.P. 1988. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Sailhamer, J.H. 1990. Genesis. In F.E. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (2:1-284). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Sailhamer, J.H. 1992. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Sampley, J.P. 1997. The First Letter to the Corinthians. In L.E. Keck, ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible (10:773-1003). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Schoors, A. 1985. Koheleth : a perspective of life after death? Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses. 61(4):295-303.

Seow, C.L. 2001. Theology when Everything Is Out of Control. Interpretation. 51(3):237-249.

Shank, H.C. 1994. Qoheleth’s World and Life View. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (67-80). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Tamez, E. 2001. Ecclesiastes: A Reading from the Periphery. Interpretation. 51(3):250-259.

Thiselton, A.C. 2000. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Towner, W.S. 1997. The Book of Ecclesiastes. In L.E. Keck, ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible (5:267-360). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Turner, L.A. 2003. Genesis, Book of. In T.D. Alexander and D.W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (350-359). Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Von Ehrenkrook, J.Q. 2002. Contextualizing Wisdom: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of Ecclesiastes. Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary. (Th.M. Thesis)

Von Rad, G. 1972. Genesis: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Whybray, R.N. 1994. Ecclesiastes 1:5-7 and the Wonders of Nature. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (233-239). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Woudstra, M.H. 1970. The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance. Calvin Theological Journal. 5:184-89.

Wright, J.S. 1991. Ecclesiastes. In F.E. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (5:1137-1197). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Wright, J.S. 1994. Introduction to Ecclesiastes. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (159-183). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Wright, J.S. 1994. The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (17-30). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Zuck, R.B. 1994. God and Man in Ecclesiastes. In R.B. Zuck, ed. Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes (213-222). Grand Rapids: Baker.

¹The idea for the present article came from Fishbane (1998:37), who said concerning the “overall teaching of the primeval cycle in Genesis” that the “unchecked expression of the drive for life is ultimately counterproductive and results in death, destruction, and isolation.” This is a preliminary draft of an essay that will eventually be published in a peer-reviewed theological journal. All rights reserved.

²cf. Hendel 1992:2:935-936; Turner 2003:350-351; Woudstra 1970:184-189

³Ross 1988:171

⁴1994:1:380

⁵Cassuto 1978:249-250; Hamilton 1990:255; Sailhamer 1990:2:70; Sailhamer 1992:117

⁶Lioy 2005:50-51

⁷Lioy 2005:51

⁸Hamilton 1990:255; Roop 1987:60; Sailhamer 1990:2:70-71; Sailhamer 1992:117-118

⁹Lioy 2005:48

¹⁰Lioy 2005:52

¹¹Keil and Delitzsch 1981:124; Kidner 1967:79-80; Leupold 1982:236

¹²Ross 1988:171

¹³1972:69

¹⁴Sailhamer 1990:2:73; Sailhamer 1992:118

¹⁵Helfmeyer 1978:3:394; Keil and Delitzsch 1981:125; Leupold 1982:241-242; Roop 1987:60; von Rad 1972:71

¹⁶Fretheim 1994:1:380; Kidner 1967:80-81

¹⁷Ross 1988:174

¹⁸1982:67

¹⁹Keil and Delitzsch 1981:241; Leupold 1982:234-235

²⁰Cassuto 1978:252-253; Hamilton 1990:256

²¹cf. Hamilton 1990:258-259; Kraeling 1929:138-143

²²Keil and Delitzsch 1981:126-127; Leupold 1982:245-246; Roop 1987:60; Ross 1988:176

²³1990:2:74

²⁴cf. Brueggemann 1982:69-70; Sailhamer 1992:119; von Rad 1972:72

²⁵Fuerst 1975:91

²⁶cf. Ranger 1989:2

²⁷Caneday 1994:85-86; Castellino 1994:31-32; Johnston 1994:134-135; Leupold 1983:28-31; Wright 1994:19-20

²⁸1997:154

²⁹Atkins 1991:5:21

³⁰Towner 1997:5:267-268

³¹Miller 2000:220, 233

³²Shank 1994:71; cf. Caneday 1994:90-91, 110-111; Parsons 2003:296-297

³³Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, and Petersen 2005:419-420; Keil and Delitzsch 1982:183; LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush 1996:501

³⁴Hubbard 1991:29

³⁵Hill and Walton 2000:369; Wright 1994:169, 172

³⁶Keil and Delitzsch 1982:218

³⁷Forman 1960:261-262

³⁸Kaiser 1979:24-25; Leupold 1983:7, 38

³⁹Caneday 1994:113; Castellino 1994:40; Garrett 1993:264; Rankin 1991:5:3-4; Towner 1997:5:269, 272

⁴⁰Kaiser 1979:26-29

⁴¹Kaiser 1979:11-12; Wright 1991:5:1138; Wright 1994:18-19, 160

⁴²Rankin 1991:5:10

⁴³Hubbard 1991:46; Kaiser 1979:32-37; Wright 1994:172

⁴⁴1975:91

⁴⁵de Jong 1997:167

⁴⁶Parsons 2003:166, 301

⁴⁷Gordis 1994:177; Hubbard 1991:43; Towner 1997:5:290; Wright 1994:168

⁴⁸Crenshaw 1992:2:273; cf. Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, and Petersen 2005:420; Fox 1986:409

⁴⁹Caneday 1994:95-96; Farmer 1994:224-225; Fox 1986:411-414; Leupold 1983:40-41; Longman 1998:62-64; Ogden 1994:227-228; Shank 1994:74-75

⁵⁰Crenshaw 1992:2:272

⁵¹Seow 2001:243

⁵²Towner 1997:5:292

⁵³Hubbard 1991:21; Zuck 1994:215, 217

⁵⁴1987:137

⁵⁵cf. Parsons 2003:285

⁵⁶Garrett 1993:284

⁵⁷Hubbard 1991:45; Johnston 1994:143; Leupold 1983:43-44

⁵⁸Longman 1998:66

⁵⁹Dillard and Longman 1994:255

⁶⁰Atkins 1991:26-27

⁶¹Crenshaw 1994:241-242, 248; Whybray 1994:234, 236

⁶²1983:45

⁶³2002:16; cf. Burkes 1999:45-80; Clemens 1994:5-8; Crenshaw 1978:206-211; Machinist 1995:159, 165-175; Parsons 2003:297; Schoors 1985:295-303

⁶⁴Longman 1998:70

⁶⁵Whybray 1994:237-238; Garrett 1993:285

⁶⁶1998:72

⁶⁷Tamez 2001:252

⁶⁸Crenshaw 1992:2:277

⁶⁹1960:262

⁷⁰Farmer 1994:226; Zuck 1994:220-221

⁷¹Kaiser 1979:53; cf. Caneday 1994:90-91, 101-102, 110-111; Garrett 1994:157; Kidner 1994:250; Shank 1994:71, 73

⁷²1994:5

⁷³Longman 1998:78

⁷⁴Wright 1991:5:1154-1155

⁷⁵Garrett 1993:290; Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, and Petersen 2005:416; Brueggemann 1997:395; Seow 2001:248

⁷⁶Ranger 1989:11; cf. 277-278

⁷⁷Keil and Delitzsch 1982:231-232

⁷⁸Sampley 1997:10:988-989

⁷⁹2001:227

⁸⁰Fee 1987:797-799

⁸¹Bruce 1986:154

⁸²Prior 1985:275

⁸³Thiselton 2000:1295

⁸⁴Mare 1976:10:291

⁸⁵Barrett 1968:381

⁸⁶Fee 1987:801-802

⁸⁷Grosheide 1984:393

⁸⁸Godet 1977:869

⁸⁹Furnish 2003:116

⁹⁰Morris 2001:229

⁹¹Thiselton 2000:1298-1299

⁹²Prior 1985:276

⁹³Furnish 2003:116

⁹⁴Grosheide 1984:394

⁹⁵Bruce 1986:156

⁹⁶Barrett 1968:383-384

⁹⁷Mare 1976:10:291

⁹⁸Sampley 1997:10:990

성경교의 개요 : 구원

1. ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??????. ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????. ( ???? ??- ??????)

2. ??? ??

?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???. ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????. ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???. ?? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???. ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????.

a. ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???. ( ???3?)

b. ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????. (???4)

c. ????? ?? ??? ????? (??? 22?)

d. ???? ????? ?????. (???12)

e. ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????.(???17?11?)

??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ? (?? 1:29), ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ? ??? ????.

I. ??- ?1?

????? ????? ??? ???? ?

A. ???? ???

1. ??? ?? ????- ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????.

???- ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???.

2. ????? ??- ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????.

???- ??? ?????? ??? ????. ??? ?? ???? ?? ????..

3. ??? ??- ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????.

???- ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???.

4. ??? ?? – ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????.

???- ???? ??? ??? ????? ??.

5. ??? ??- ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???.

???- ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????

??.

B. ??? ??- ??? ?? ?? ??

1. ?? : ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???.

a. ?? ??? ??- ?? ( “ ?????. ???”)

· ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? (??? 1:18, 28-32; 2:2)

· ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???. ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???. ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???????. ????? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ? ???. (???? 3:36; ??? 1:9; ??? 21:8)

??? 4:10- ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????.

??? 2:2- ????? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????.

??? 3:21-26- ????? ????- ??- ??? ???? ???? ?????.

b. ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???

1. ??- ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???.

?? 5:21- “ ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????.”

??? 5:6-8- “ ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? (??) ?????.

? 10:45- “ ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? (??)??? ???? ???.”

2. ??- ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??????.

? 10:45- “ ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? (??)??? ???? ???.”

???5:10-“ ??? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????.”

?? 5:18,19

3. ?? – ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????.

??? 3:24-“ ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???.

??? 3:26- “ ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???????.

?? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??

( 1984? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?)

II. ??- ?2?

??? ????? ??? ????? ?????- ??? ??? ??? ????

A. ??- ???? ??? ?????.

1. ?? : ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????.

2. ??- ???? ??? ?? ? ? ?????.

????1:4 “ ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????”

?? 1:2-“ ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????”

??? 2:13- “ ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???.”

??1:9 – “??? ? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????.”

3. ??- ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??.

? 10:13-“ ??? ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ?? ???.

? 3:16-“ ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???.”

4. ??- ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??.

? 6:37- “????? ?? ??? ?? ? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????”

? 6:44- “?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ? ???.”

-? ? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? (??? ???? – 6:37) ???? ??? ???? ????. ( ???? ??? ?? 6:44)

?? 13:48-“??? ??? ??? ? ???”

?? 16:14, ???2:13 ( ???? ???? ???) ? ????

5. ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??

a. ?? #1- ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????.

???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???.

???: ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????. ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???. ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??.

b. ?? #2- ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???.

???? ??? ?????.-. ??? ?? ? ????.

??? : ? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???.

c. ?? #3- ??? ??? ??? ???.

“ ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???”

???&??: ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ???? ??.

6. ???? ?? –??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ???

????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????. ? ?? ??? ??? ??????. ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????. ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ? ? ??.(???????? ?? ?????? ????) ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??.

7. ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???.

a. “?? ??? (?? ???, ??, ??, ??,?)? ?????? ?? ???? ? ??.

1) ???? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ???.- ??? ??. ???? ??? ?? ?????. (? 1:4)

2) ???? ???? ??? ? ?? ???.- ??? ??. ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? (? 2:8)

3) ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ?????. –??? ??. ???? ??? ???? ????. (?? 3:9) ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???. (? 2:2-5, 3:11,12)

b. “ ?? ?? ?? ? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ? ??.”

1) ??? ?? ????? ???? ? ??. ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???.??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????????.

2) ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???. ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??.

c. “ ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??.

- ???. ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??. (???? 28:19-20)

??, ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? (? 10:14) ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????. “??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???. (? 10:13) ??? ??. ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??. ?? ???? ??? ?? ? ???? ? ? ??.

???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??. ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???. ??? ??? ???? ??????. ??? ??? ?? ? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ? ??.

B. ??- ??? ????? ?? ?? ????.

???

??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ???. ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??3?? ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ? ??? : 1) ???? ???? 2) ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? 3) ??? ??? ???

1. ???? ???? ?

a. ??? ??? ??? ??? “????? ??? ???? ????? ???????.”??. (??15:3-5-?? ??? ?? ??? ????: ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????.) ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???.

b. ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? “????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??(“ ???”)?? ???.

2. ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????

??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? “??”??. “??”?? ?? ? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???. ??? ? ??? “????” “?????? ????. ???? ???? ? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???. ??? ? ???? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ???. ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???. ???? ????? ?? “??”? ?? ??? ???.??? ???”??”? ??????. ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??.

?? ????? ??? ?“??”? ?? ?? ???? “??, ????, ??, ?????”??. “??”? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????. ?? ??? ???? ???????.

??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? (??, ??)? ???? ??.: ?1:12; 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; 6:47,48,51; 7:37,38; ? 10:43; 16:30-31 ? 1:16; 3:22; 3:27,28; 5:1; 6:23; ?? 15:1-4; ? 2:16; 3:22; ? 1:13; 2:1-10 (esp. 8,9);??? 5:9;?? 1:15,16; ?? 3:15; ???3:4-7; ?? 5:11-13;

3. ??? ?? ?? ????

a. ??- ??? ??? (?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ? ??, (/article/common-assaults-gospel)

?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???. (? 1:6-9)

1) ????? ?? ??? ???? ??

???. ??? ??? ?? ??? ???. (?2:8-9??) ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???.

2) ????? ?? ??? ??? ???.

???. ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????.(?2:41)

3) ????? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? ?? ???.

??? ??? ???( ????? ??? ???? ?????)? ??(?? ????? ???)? ???? ???. ? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???.

b. ???- ??? ???? ?

??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????.

1) ” ?? ??? ??? ???”- ? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??. “??? ?? ??? ???”? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??: ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??????. ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ????.

2) ????? ?? ?? ?? ???.

“ ????? ?? ?? ????? ???”

? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???. (? ??) ??? ????? ??? ?????. (?? ??? ??????.) ??? ??? ??? ???

3) ??? ???? ?????.

“ ??? ???? ????”

? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? “????”? ??? ??? ???. ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????. ?? ??? “????? ?????”?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????( ? 1:12)?? ??? ???? ??. ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? “?? ??? ?? ?”??? ??? ???? ??.

III. ??? ??

??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? “???”?? ??? ??.

A. ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??

1. ??? “??? ??”? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????.

2. ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ??? ???? ??. ??? ? ??? ????? ??? ?? ? ???? “??? ????” “???? ?? ??”?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? (?? ??)

B. ??? ???? ??- ??? ??? ??? ??? ???.

1. ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????.

???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???. (? 8:30)

2. ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??.

a. ???? ??? ????. (? 3:16,?)

??? ? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???.

b. ??? ???? ??? ???.(? 10:28; ? 2:8)

??? ??? ??? ?? ? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ? ? ??.

c. ??? ????? ??? ???.

???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???. (? 10:28-29)

???? ???? ??? ? ??. (? 1:13-14)

d. ??? “???? ?”? ??.

????? “?”? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? (?? 12:13)

??? ???? ?? ???? ? ????? ?? ?? (? 3:3)

??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ??. (? 8:38-39)

?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ? ??? ??.(????? ?? ?? ?? ?????) ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??.

e. ?? ??? ?? ?????. (?3:1,33)

?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ? ??? ??.(????? ?? ?? ?? ?????) ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??

f. ??? ???? ??? ???. (? 1:12)

??? ?? ? ??? ??? ??? ???.

g.???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???.(??2;13)

“ ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ? ?????”.

c. ???? ???? ??? ??

??? ???? ???? ??? ?????

???	??
?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???	??? ???? ??? ???? (?? 5:14-15)

??: ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???.

C. ??? ???

??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ? ?? ???. ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??.

1. ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????????. ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ? ? ???.

2. ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??.

a. ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? (??) ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???. (? 5:4, ? 6:1-8, 10:26-31)

??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???. ??? ??? ??? ?? (??)?? ?? ??? ?? ?? “???? ???”? ???. ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ? ? ??. ?? ???? ?? ??? ? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ? (? 5:4) “????” ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ???? (? 6:6) ??? “?? ?? ??….?? ???? ??? ??.(? 10:26)

b. ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???. (?? 9:24-27; ? 15:6)

c. ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? (?? 3:17; ?? 1:19,20; 6:10)

III. ??? ??

??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???. “??”? ??? ??? ??? ???? ? ??? ????. ??? ?? ??? “ ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ? ?????”??.

A. ??? ??? ?? ??

1. “??? ??” ??- ??? ????? ?? ??? ????.

? ??? ??? ???? ??? “??? ??? ??? ????????.

2. “???? ??” ??- ??? ??? ????? ?? ? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????.

?? ??? ???, “ ? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???”?

B. ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??

1. ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????, ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???. ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ???.

2. ?? ??? “??? ??”(? 5:22,23)? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ??? “??? ?(? 5:19-21)”? ????. “??? ??”?????? ?? ????. (?? 3:1-3) ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???.

C. ??? ??: ???? 7:15-20; ???? 6:43-45

1. “??? ??? ??? ??? ? ???.”(? 7:15-20)

???? 7:15-20?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? (7:15)? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???. ??? ??? ???. ???? 6:43-45? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????. ??? ???? ????? ? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ? ??? ???? ?? ???.

2. “???? ??? ?? ???.” (??? 2:14-26)

?? ???? ? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??. ??? ???? ????? ? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???.(??,?? ???Gospel Under Siege, p.19-33 ?? ?? ????, Common Assaults on the Gospel, )/article/common-assaults-gospel)

??:

1. ? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ? ? ??. (??5:11-13) ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???.

2. ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???.

3. ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????. ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???. ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????(?? 1:9)?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??, ??? ????? ??? ??? ??.

성경교의 개요 : 성령

I. 성령의 인격

성령은 성부와 성자와 같은 한 인격적 존재이다. 성령은 비인격체인 “그것”이 아니고 단순한 감화가 아니다.

A. 성령은 인격적 특징들을 갖고있다.

1. 성령은 인지를 갖고있다. (고전 2:10-11)

2. 성령은 감정을 갖고 있다 (엡 4:30-“ 성령을 근심하게 하지 말라”)

3. 성령은 의지를 갖고있다 (고전 2:11)

B. 성령은 인격적 방법으로 행동하신다.

1. 성령은 가르치신다. (요 14:26)

2. 성령은 명령하신다. (행 8:9)

3. 성령은 기도에서 우리를 위해 간구하신다.(롬 8:26)

C. 성령은 문법적으로 인격적 단어로 묘사되어지고 있다. 성령에 대한 헬라어는 (푸뉴마)는 성에 있어 중성이지만 성경에서는 성령을 언급(요 16:13-14; 15:26; 16:7-8)하기위해서는 남성명사 (“그”, “그를”)을 사용한다. 문법적으로 옳게 하기위해서는 인칭중성명사 (“그것”)이라 생각된다.

II. 성령의 신성

A. 성령은 신성의 이름과 칭호를 갖고 있다

1. 야홰-주님(야홰)이 이사야 6:8-13에 말한 것은 사도행전 28:25에 성령을 설명하는 것이다.

2. 하나님의 영 (롬 8:9,14; 고전 2:11; 12:3; 엡 4:30)

B. 성령은 말로 표현할 수 없는 속성을 갖고 있다.

1. 자존 (롬 8:2)

2. 전재성 (시편 139:7)

C. 성령은 말로 표현할 수없는 일을 행하신다. (오직 하나님만이 하실수있는 일)

1. 창조 (창세기 1:2)

2. 부활 (롬 8:11)

D. 성령은 신성에 합당하다.

1. 사도행전 5:3-4- 성령을 속이는 것은 하나님을 속이는 것이다.

2. 고린도후서3:17-18-“ 주님은 영이시다.”

III. 성령의 역활은 교회의 세월에 앞선다.

A. 성령은 창조에 참여하셨다. (창 1:2; 욥 33:4; 시편 104:30)

B. 성령은 이스라엘을 인도하셨고 보호하셨다. (이사야 63:10-14)

C. 성령은 성경을 만들기위해 선지자를 통해 말씀하셨다. (베전 1:11; 베후 1:20-21)

D. 성령은 구약에서는 선택적으로 조건적으로 어떤 사람에게 거했다. (요셉-창 41:38; 여호수아 –민수기 27:18; 사울-삼상 10:9-10; 다윗 16:13 등등) 성령의 거하심은 특별히 어떤사람에게 특별한 임무를 할 수있게 하는 것에 관계가 있다. 성령은 그들의 불순종때문에 한 개인에게서 떠날 수있었다. 성령은 사울을 떠났다. 9삼상 16:14) 다윗이 죄을 지었을 때 성령이 그를 떠나지 말아달라고 간구하였다. (시 51:11)

E. 성령은 그리스도 지상삶에 있어 능력의 역할자였다.

1. 성령은 그리스도동정녀 탄생의 역할자였다. (눅 1:35)

2. 그리스도 사역에 능력을 주었다.(마 12:28; 눅 4:1,18)

3. 성령은 그리스도 부활의 역할자였다.(롬 1:4; 8:11)

IV. 교회시대에서 성령의 역활

A. 성령은 구원의 중심이다 ( 사람이 구원되는 방법이다)

1. 성령은 복음의 노력을 지도하고 가능하게한다 (빌립/이디오피아인-행 8:26,29; 최대의 임무-행 1:8)

2. 성령은 믿지 않는 자의 죄를 책망하신다.(요 16:8-11)

3. 성령은 사람을 회심(구원)시킨다

a. 성령은 죄에서 인간을 깨끗게하고 그들에게 새로은 본성을 준다.(디도서3:5)

b. 성령이 이 영적 “거듭남”을 행할때 인간은 “하나님의 나라”로 들어간다.(=영생- 요 3:3-7,16)

4. 성령은 인간을 인치신다.(영원한 보증). 성령의 임재는 “인치심” 또는 한 개인이 구원되고 구원됨이 유지될것을 보장하는 것이다.(엡 1:13)

5. 성령은 그리스도 지체안에서 인간을 세례한다.

a. 성령세례란 무엇인가?

-그리스도 안에서 우리를 연합하는 성력의 사역이다.-그리스도의 죽음과 장사와 부활에 우리를 영적으로 일체화하는 것이다.

- 우주적교회(“그리스도의 몸”-모든 교회시대의 믿는자들)에 우리를 연합하는 성령의 사역이다.-고전 12,13)

b. 언제 성령의 세례가 일어나나?

- 각 믿는 자 안에서 한번 그리고 그들의 회심때 발생한다. (고전 12:13; 갈 3:26-28)

- 역사에서 이것은 교회시대의 믿는자에게 한한다.(예견 되었다- 행 1:5; 이루어졌다. –고전 12:13)

- 주: 예외- 교회시대가 시작한 오순절 사건에서 새로운 그리고 기존에 믿는자 모두 성령에 의해 세례받았다. (행 1:5; 11:15-16) 또한 초대교회에 다른2가지 경우에 있더 성령이 사도를이 나타날 때 까지 믿는자에게 성령이 주어지지 않은 것 처럼 보이낟. (행 8:14-17; 19:1-6)

B. 성령은 성화의 중심역활이다.(구원된 사람이 성장하는 방법)

1. 성령은 믿는자에게 거한다

a.이 시대에 모든 믿는자에 거한다.(롬 5:5; 8:9; 고전 3:16; 6:19) (성령이 몇몇 사람에게 거하던 구약시대와는 다르다.

b.성령은 이 시대에 믿는자에게 영원히 거한다. (요 14:16) (성령이 떠날 수도 있었던 구약시대와는 다르다.

c.성령의 거하심은 믿는자 삶안에서 그의 다른 사역에 대한 기초이다. (성령은 성경에 대해 우리에게 가리치고/ 조명한다- 요 16:13; 성령은 기도하는데 도움을 주고-롬 8:26; 성령은 우리의 구원을 확인하시고-롬 8:16; 우리를 성장하게 하신다- 아래의 “충만”-엡 5:18을 참조하시오)

2. 성령은 믿는 자들을 충만시킨다.

- “성령의 충만은 하나님이 믿는자가 변화된 삶을 살수 있도록하는 중요한 일을 표현한 것이다. 우리가 영적으로 성장하는 유일한 방법은 하나님의 능력있는 일에 의해서이다.( 베전 1:3) 기독교인에게 변하는 능력을 주고 정의 안에서 성장할수있게하는 것은 특별히 성령의 사역이다 (성령으로…-육신의 행위를 죽이는 것”- 롬 8:13; 성령의 열매 –갈 5:22-23)

-영적성장은 조절의 논제이다. 우리는 자기 중심적 육신에 의하거나 우리안에 거하는 성령에 의해 다스려진다.(롬 8:4-1; 갈 5:16-17) 에베소서5:18은 이런 성령의 다스림/능력을 주는 사역을 성령의 충만으로서 설명하고 있다. “충만”은 다스림의 은유(묘사)이다. 우리는 육적 욕망(술같은 것)에 의해 충만되거나/다스려질수도 있고 성령으로 충만되거나/ 다스려질 수도있다.(엡 5:18)

- 비록 행하는 것은 성령의 힘이나 믿는 자는 성령으로 다스림을 받거나 능력을 받을지를 선택해야 만 한다. “충만하라”라는 명령이며 마찬가지로 “성령을 쫒아 행하라”(갈 5:16)이다. 성령의 임재는 영원하나 우리는 계속적으로 우리를 자라(충만)게 하고 변화시키는 성령의 변화의 힘을 경험하기 위해 하나님께 순종할 지를 선택해야하다. 실제적 경험은, “성령을 쫏아 행함” 또는 “성령으로 충만하게 됨” 성령에 의식적으로 의존하는 기독교인의 삶.(시험을 당하는것, 결정을 내리는것 등등)을 의미하는 것이다. 성령은 우리에게-신성한 열매를 맺게 힘을 주시는 분이다.(갈 5:22-23)

3. 성령은 믿는 자에게 성령의 선물을 주신다.

a. 어디에서 우리는 성령의 선물들을 찾는가? 네가지 주요 성구가 성령의 열매를 설명하고 있다.: 롬 12:3-8; 고전12; 엡 4:7-16; 베전 4:10-11

b. 성령의 선물들은 무엇인가?

1) 정의 : 성령의 선물은 섬기라고 하나님이 주신 능력이다. 헬라어로 성령의 선물은 (카리스마)이고 “은혜”라는 단어의 형태이다. 그래서 이런 특별한 능력들은 특권들이다. 하나님은 은혜롭게 모든 믿는자가 영적 사역에서 섬길 수있도록 능력을 주셨다.

2) 영적 선물은 특별한 위치가 아니다. 젊은 전도자들과 양로원에 일꾼들은 비록 그들의 사역이 분명히 가르치고 섬기고 등과 같은 영적 선물을 사용할 수있을 지라도 선물이 아니다.

3) 영적 선물은 비록 하나님이 타고난 재능을 사용하도록 주신 영적 선물을 줄 지라도타고난 재능 (음악적 능력이나 기술적 소질 등등)과는 같지 않다.

c.어떻게 영적 선물들을 얻는가?

1) 제공자- 독특하게 성령은 이런 특별능력을 나누어준다.(고전 12:7-11) 그러나 역시 정확히 말해 교회에 주신 “그리스도의 선물”이라고 말할 수있다.

2) 때- 우리는 우리가 그리스를 구주로 믿었을 때 성령의 선물을 받는다. 그것은 우리가 성령을 받았을 때이다: 우리가 그리스도의 지체의 한부분이 될 때이다.

4) 수혜자- 각각 믿는 자는 적어도 한개 그러나 아마 여러 선물들을 갖고 있다.

d. 성령의 선물의 목적은 무엇인가?

1) 성령의 선물은 하나님이 바라시는 영적사역을 이룬다.

2) 성령의 선물은 사역을 하도록 다른사람을 갖추어준다.(엡4:12)

3) 성령의 선물은 하나님을 영화롭게 한다.(베전 4:11)

e.무엇이 다른 영적 선물들인가?

1) 어떤 성령의 선물들은 일시적이 었던 것 처럼보이나 초대교회를 세우는데 사용되었고 기독교가 시작했을 때 사람들에게 복음을 증명하도록했다.(엡 2:20; 히 2:3-4- 보충으로 상세한 내용은 “The Charismatic Question 참조) 일시적표시 선물들은 사도의 능력, 병고침, 기적적행사, 방언, 방언의 번역등등이 있다. 또한 일시적인것으로 지혜의 말 명철의 말 예언이 있다.- 이것들로 하나님이 인간에게 직접 개시하셨다. 신약시대 이전에 필요했던 이런선물들은 완성이 되었다. 역시 신약을 쓸 필요가 있는 선물들이 었던 것 같다.

2) 오늘날에도 의심할 여지 없이 영적 선물에는 가르치는 것 돕는 것(봉사하는 것) 주는것, 감독(리더쉽), 자비를 보여주는 것, 복음을 전하는것, 목사-선생(양육하는 것) 그리고 격려가 있다. 이런 선물들은 이 시대를 통하여 교회의 진보적 기능에 중요한 것이다.

f. 어떻게 우리는 영적 선물을 발견하고 사용하나?

1) 우리는 우리의 영적선물에 치중할 것이 아니라 부족함을 채우는데 집중해야 한다. 전도의 경험은 사용되지 않은 선물을 드러낼 것이다.

2) 우리는 성숙한 기도교인들에게 어떤 봉사의 분야가 나한테 맞는지 맞지 않은 분야인지를 지도 받도록해야 한다.

3) 우리는 어떤 사약들을 피하기 위한 변명으로 영적 선물을 사용해서는 안된다. 기독교인들은 몇 기독교인의 구체적 영적 선물인 (자비-롬 12:8; 전도자 –엡 4:11; 격려 롬 12:8; 베풀기 –롬 12:8) 보편적으로 몇몇 형태의 사역을 하도록 하고 있다. (자비를 보이라 –야고보2:13; 3:17; 복음전하라-행 1:8; 서로격력해라-히 3:13; 10:25; 베풀어라 –고후 8:7)

4) 우리는 영적 선물이 자동적으로 다른 사람들에게 유익이 되지 않는다고 깨닫아야만 한다.

- 우리는 순종적으로 우리의 선물을 사용해야 만 한다. 우리가 선물을 사용하지 않는 다면 어느 누구도 유익이 되지 않는다. (롬 12:6-8; 베전 4:10-11)

- 우리는 우리의 선물을 효과적으로 사용하도록 부지런해져야만 한다. (딤전 4:14; 딤후 1:6-7)

- 우리는 적당한 태도로 우리의 선물을 사용해야 만 하고 (롬 12:8; 베전 4:11) 적당한 시간과 장소에(고전 14:9-12,22,23,40) 사용해야 만 한다. 그렇지 않으면 영적 선물들이 소용없거나 하나님의 목적에 해가 될 수있다.

V. 마직막 때에 성령의 역할

A. 7년 환난기에

1. 믿지않는 자들 안에서- 성령은 환란에 가까올때 이스라엘 백성의 구원에 도구가 될 것이다.

2. 믿는 자들 안아에서- 성령은 구약에서와 같이 영적 임무을위한 특별 능력을 제공해 줄것이다. 9행 2:17-21)

B. 천년왕국기에서

1. 믿는자 안에서- 성령은 믿는 이스라엘 백성에게 의의로운 삶을 살도록 할 것이다. (겔 36:27)

2. 그리스도 안에서 –성령은 그리스도의 의로운 법안에서 작용될 것이다 (이사야 11:2)

Related Topics: Pneumatology (The Holy Spirit)

성경교의 개요: 천사, 사탄, 악마

천사의 이론

I. 천사의 존재

A. 성경은 천사들의 존재를 추정한다.

1. 전체 66권의 성경중 34권이 천사들을 언급하고 있다.

2. 그리스도는 그들의 존재를 가르쳤다. (마 8:10; 24:31; 26:53등)

B. 성경은 그들의 창조를 설명하고 있다.

1. 천사들은 하나님에 의해 창조되었다. (시편 148:2,5; 골 1:16) 오직 하나님만이 시작이 없다. (딤전 6:16)

2. 천사들은 세상과 인간 이전에 창조되었다. (욥 38:6-7)

3. 천사들은 거룩하게 창조되었다 (겔 28:13; 유다서6)

II. 천사의 본질

A. 천사는 인격적 존재이다.

1. 천사들은 인지를 갖고있다. (마 28:5; 베전 1:12)

2. 천사들은 감정을 갖고 있다. (욥 38:7; 눅 2:13; 15:10)

3. 천사들은 의지를 갖고 있다. (유다서 6)

B. 천사들은 영적 존재들이다.

1. 천사들은 물질적 육체가 아닌 영으로 존재한다. (히 1:14)

a. 천사는 한번에 한장소에 존재 할 수있다. (다니엘 9:21-23; 10:10-14)

b. 비록 천사들은 영적인 존재일지라도, 그들은 인간의 형태로 나타날 수 (꿈에서 –마 1:20; 인간의 역할을 하는 자연시각에서- 창 18:1-8; 22: 19:1; 몇몇사람에게는 보이나 다른 사람에게는 안보는-왕하 6:15-17)

2. 그들은 자손을 낳을 수없다. (막 12:25)

3. 그들은 죽지 않는다. (눅 20:36)

C. 천사들은 인간보다는 더 그러나 하나님보다는 덜 전 할 수 있는 속성이 있다.

1. 천사들은 인간보다 더 지혜가 있으나 (마 24:31; 눅 1:13-16) 그러나 하나님 보다는 덜 지혜가 있다. (마 24:36)

2. 천사들은 하나님보다는 덜 인간보다는 더많은 능력을 갖고 있다. (베후2:11; 행 5:19)

D. 천사들은 조직화 되어있고 순위가 있다. 한 “대 천사장, 미가엘이라고 불린다. (유다서9) 또한 “군장” (다니엘 10:13) “스랍”(이사야 6:1-3) “그룹” (창 3:22-24)

III. 천사들의 사역

A. 천사들은 하나님을 찬양한다. 그들은 계속 하나님의 속성을 설명함을 통해 (사 6:3) 그리고 찬양을 부름을 통해 (계 5:8-9) 하나님을 찬양함에 열중한다.

B. 천사들은 그리스도를 섬긴다. 천사들은 그리스도의 탄생을 알렸고 (눅 1:26-33; 2:13) 그리스도를 보호했고 (마 2:13), 그리스도를 강하게 했고 (마 4;11; 눅 22:43), 그리고 사람들에게 그리스도의 부활을 설명했고(마 28:6) 그리고 승천을 설명했다. (행 1:10-11)

C. 그들은 하나님의 통치권을 행하였고, 천사들은 하나님의 종들이며 (시편 103:20; 히 1:7) 그리고 메신저들이다.(눅 1:19; 2:8-14) 그들은 본성 (계 7:1; 16:3,8,9), 국가(왕하 19:35) 그리고 사단과 마귀들(단 1:13,21;12:1)을 다스리는데 관계될 수 있다.

D. 천사들은 하나님의 사람을 보호한다. 그들은 믿는 자들을 섬기도록 보내졌다. (히 1:14) 그들은 신성한 사람을 보호 (시 34:7; 단 6:20,23) 하고 우리의 적에 반한다. (시 35:4-5) 그리고 특별히 각 개인의 수호자로서 임무를 맡고있다. ( 18:10) 그들은 물질적 섭리( 창 21:17-20; 왕상 19:5-7)이다.

E. 그들은 죽음에서 믿는 자들을 도와준다. (눅 16:22; 유다서 9)

사단의 이론

I.사단의 존재

A. 구약의 여섯 책과 모든 신약책 작가는 사단에 대해 언급하고있다.

B. 예수님은 사단에 대해 언급하셨다. (마 13:39; 눅 10:18; 11:18)

II. 사단의 인성과 이름

A. 인성- 사단은 지력을 갖고 있고(고후 11:3), 감성 (계시록 12:17) 그리고 의지(딤후 2:26)을 갖고있다.

B. 이름- 사단, 악마 (비방하는자), 루시퍼 (아침의 아들), 바알세블 (파리의 왕- 마 12:24), 그리고 벨리알 (불법자- 고후 6:15) 마귀(요일 5:19) 유혹하는 자 (살전 3:5) 세상의 임금 (요 12:31) 이 시대의 신 (고후 4:4), 공중의 권세잡은 자 (엡 2:2) 형제를 참소하는 자 (계 12:10) 그리고 빛의 천사 ( 나쁜 빛-고후 11:14) 뱀 (계12:9) 그리고 용 (계 12:3)

III. 사단의 속성

A. 사단은 창조된 천사적 존재이다. 그는 천사의 영역의 부분으로 창조 되었었다. (엡 6:11-12, 겔 24:18) 그리고 그들 모두의 순위에서 가장 높은 자이다. ( 겔 28:12-14)

B. 그는 정의의 적이다. 그는 살인자이다. (요 8:44), 그리고 참소자 (계 12:10)그리고 우리의 적이다. (베전 5:8)

C. 유한한 창조물이다. 그는 하나님에 의해 유한해진다. (욥 1:12) 그는 하나님과 동등하지 않다. (요일 4:4) 그는 전지 , 전재하지 않고 어떤면에서 무한하지 않다. 하나님의 도움을 받은 믿는 자들은 사단에게 저항할 수 있다. (야고보 4:7)

IV. 사단의 멸망

주요 성구 –에스겔 28; 이사야 14

A. 에스겔 28:11-19는 언어 적인 면에서 단순한 인간왕이 아닌 사단의 멸망을 묘사한 두로왕에 대한 예언적 애가이다. 사단은 28:2(군주/ 통치자)에서 두로의 인간통치자와 28:12( 이스라엘의 통치자 조차 “왕”이라고 불리지 않는다.)에 왕이라고 불리는 것과는 구별이 된다. 두로가 인간 “통치자”가 있더라도, 사단은 악독한 왕국 뒤에 있는 진짜 “왕”인 것이다.

B. 사단의 속성- 도덕적 완벽성 (12절 ) 창조되서 멸망까지 죄없음 (15절)

C. 사단의 외모- 온전한 아름다움(12-13절)

1. 그의 특권- 에덴동산에 접근할 수 있는 자유(12절) 그리고 하나님의 거룩한 산에 접근 할 수 있는 자유(= 하나님에게 갈 수있는 자유-14절)

2. 그의 위치-“스랍” (14,16절)

3. 그의 심판

a. 하나님 산에서 쫒겨남( 16절, 참조 계 12:4 )

b. 땅으로 던져짐 (17절)

c. 불에 의해 소멸됨( 18절, 참조 계 20:10)

D. 이사야 14:12-15 역시 사단의 멸망을 묘사하는 것처럼 보인다. 사단은 바빌론의 왕에 의해 나타나지고 있다. 에스겔 28에서 처럼 사단은 여기서 악한 바빌론왕의 배후의 진짜 “왕”으로 그려지고 있다.

1. “계명성”과 “하늘에서 떨어진”의 비유적 표현은 초자연적 실현을 암시하고있다. “계명성”(12-13절)은 천사의 공간의 상징이다. (욥 38:6-7; 계 12:4)

2. 13과14절에서 나오는 다섯번의 “ 나는…하리라” 는 문어적으로 사단이며 은유적으로 바빌론의 왕이다. 이 극치의 자만의 형태는 (“ 나는 가장 높은 자 처럼 될 것이다”-14절)은 신약의 디모데전서 3:6의 산단의 멸망을 묘사에 적합한 것이다.

V. 사단의 행동

사단은 모든면에서 가능한한 악을 키워 하나님의 계획에 반하려고 하고있다.

A. 간접적인 행동: 사단은 세상( 이곳에서 사단은 극히 자유로움과 힘을 갖고있다.-요 12:31;요일 5:19)과 육신을 통해 간접적으로 활동학 있다. 이세상과 육신과 악은 기독교인의 세가지 분리된 적이 아니다. 차라리 사단은 우리 안에 있는 육적본성을 (롬 7:18; 갈 5:19-21)이용하도록 악한 세상의(요일 2:13-15) 체계를 통해 활동하고 있다.

모형: 가이슬러의 형식

B. 직접적인 행도- 사단은 묘사 , 유혹, 공격, 소유에의해 직접적으로 행동 한다.

1.그리스도의 사역에서

a. 사단은 그리스도를 유혹했다. (마 4:1-11)

b. 그는 그리스도사역을 왜곡시키려했었다. (요 8:44; 마 16:23; 눅 22:31)

C. 사단은 유다가 배신을 행하도록 하였다 (요 13:27)

2. 불신앙자 안에서

a. 사단은 복음의 이해를 방해하려고 그들의 마음을 어둡게 했다. (고후 4:4)

b. 복음을 듣고 이해 할 때 사단은 그 효과를 방해하려 했다. (눅 8:12)

c. 사단은 복음의 효과를 방해하기위 핍박(계 2:10)과 잘못된 종교들을 (계 2:13)사용한다.

3. 믿는 자 안에서

a. 사단은 믿는 자를 유혹한다.(자만하도록- 연대기상21:1-8; 세속적으로-요 2:15; 야고보 5:1-7; 비도덕적으로- 고전 7:5; 거짓말하도록 –행 5:3; 실망하도록-베전 5:6-10; 용서하지 않는 자가 되도록-고후 2:10-11)

b. 사단은 믿는자의 사역을 방해한다. (살전 2:18; 계 2:10)

c. 사단은 믿는 자 가운데서 잘못된 가름침을 촉진시킨다.(요일 4:1-4)

d. 사단은 분노, 슬픔, 분을 촉진시킨다.(엡 4:26-27; 고후 2:5-11) 참조:보충으로 보기 “ 사단의 활동과 영적 전쟁” 사단과 그의 귀신들이 어떻게 활동하며 우리는 어떻게 반응해야만 하는가에 대한 더 많은 정보가 있다.

귀신의 이론

I. 귀신의 존재와 본성

A. 그들의 창조- 하나님은 귀신을 원래는 천사 영역의 한부분으로 창조 하셨다. (골 1:16)

B. 그들의 타락-

1. 증거- 사단은 다음과 같은 존재이다. ( 귀신의 왕- 마 12:24; 마귀와 그 사자들- 마 25:41) 귀신들은 성경을 통해 묘사되고 있다 (단 10:10-20; 마 10:1; 엡 6:12)

2. 시기- 사단의 타락에서 많은 천사들이 그 모반에 사단을 따랐다. ( 귀신은 타락한 천사이다. ) 천사의 별의 삼분의 일이 사단과 함께 타락한 것 처럼보인다.(계 12:4- “용”으로서 사단을 상징 그리고 천사/귀신은 “별”들로 묘사

C. 그들의 본성-

1. 귀신은 원래 천사와 같은 영적 존재이다. 그들은 인격이고, 인지의 존재이다.

2. 귀신은 도덕적으로 악하다. (“ 더러운 영들”- 마 10:1; “악”- 눅 7:21; “악함/어두움”-엡 6:12)

a. 그들은 사람을 속이는 자이다. (딤전 4:1-3; 고후 11:13-15)

b. 그들은 부도덕한 자이다. (창 6:4; 유다서 6-7)

3. 귀신들은 육안으로 보이지 않으나 나타날 수있다. (사단- 스 3:1; 마 4:9-10; 귀신 –계 9:7-10; 16:13-16)

4. 귀신들은 큰 지적능력을 갖고있다. 그들은 그리스도의 신분과 힘을 알았다 (마 1:14, 34; 5:6, 7) 그들은 그들 자신의 미래의 심판을 안다. (마 8:28-29)) 그들은 미래를 예견하려고 시도 할 수있다. (행 16:16) 그들의 지혜는 무한한 것이 아니다. 그들은 수천년의 경험과 관찰을 통해 그것을 배웠다.

5. 귀신들은 큰 힘을 갖고 있다. (막 5:3; 행 19:16; 계 9:1-11)

II. 귀신들의 활동성

귀신들은 사단의 악한 계획들을 행하는데 관계한다. (고후 11:15) 사단이 하는 일이 곧 그들의 일이다. (위 참조)

A. 귀신들은 우상숭배를 자극한다. (레 17:7; 신 32:17; 시편 106:36-38) 이 활동은 원시적 문화에서 현저한 것이다.

B. 귀신들은 그들이 할 수 있는 모든 방법으로 믿는자들의 영적 진보를 방해하는데 열중한다.(사단의 활동을 참조) 그들은 이런 노력들을 고의적으로 그리고 조직적화 되있다. (엡 6:10-12)

C. 귀신들은 잘못된 가르침을 촉진한다. (딤전 4:1)

D. 귀신들은 사람을 지배하고 고통을 준다 (보충참조)

1. 그들은 육체적 병을 야기시킨다. ( 벙어리- 마 9:32-33; 장님- 마 12:22; 발작- 마 17:15-18; 마 9:20; 자해하기- 마 5:5; 9:22)

2. 귀신들은 정신이상을 야기시킨다. ( 금단증상, 옷벗기, 더럽히기, 비이성적 행동 –눅 8:27-29; 자살광-막9:22

3. 하나님이 허락하시면 그들은 믿는 자들에게도 문제를 만든다. (욥의 고통-욥 2:7-9; 바울의 “육체의 가시”:-고후 12:7)

E. 귀신들은 교회내에서 이기심과 분열을 촉진시킨다. (야고보 3:13, 16)

추천 책과 참고서적

Fred Dickason, Angels, Elect and Evil 시카고: 무디출판사, 1975

Todas as Coisas Realmente Cooperam para o Bem?

Related Media

Traduzido por Bio Gomes.

Você já deve ter ouvido umas mil vezes: “Não se preocupe, tudo vai dar certo!” Este é o eterno otimismo que nasce, não das provações da realidade, mas dos desejos da imaginação do sonho Americano, do faz-de-conta de Hollywood, ou da pura ingenuidade. Todos sabemos que não o é de todo verdade. Conhecemos casos de crianças que foram abatidas por um câncer ou por um motorista bêbado. Conhecemos casos de viciados em drogas que vieram de bons lares, de homens de família que perderam seus empregos, de soldados que retornaram do campo de batalha com um membro a menos. Estamos à par de incontáveis tragédias e sofrimentos desnecessários, mesmo assim repetimos para nossos filhos sem sequer pensar duas vezes: “Não se preocupe; tudo vai dar certo.”

Este sentimento não é novo; não começou na modernidade. Os antigos gregos e romanos diziam coisas semelhantes a seus filhos sabendo que suas palavras eram ocas. E, o apóstolo Paulo também disse algo deste tipo. A diferença é que Paulo não escreveu um cheque em branco otimista. Ele condicionou seu sentimento com importantes qualificadores, e ele definiu o que é “bem” como algo que está além do conforto e das riquezas.

Diz-se que no campo da imobiliária, há três princípios fundamentais que alguém deve seguir quando estiver comprando uma casa: o local, o local, e o local. Na interpretação das Escrituras, há também três princípios fundamentais: o contexto, o contexto, e o contexto. Romanos 8:28 não é uma exceção a esta regra. Se observarmos este texto em seu contexto, logo entenderemos sua intenção.

O contexto geral de Romanos 8:28 é um em que Paulo trata do viver pelo poder do Espírito em meio ao sofrimento e a dor. Paulo não era indiferente ao sofrimento. Suas várias experiências à ponto de morte, açoitamentos, prisões, e perseguições foram suficientes para erradicar qualquer ingenuidade que pudesse se ocultar em seu coração. No contexto imediato, dentro do próprio versículo, Paulo expressa os pré-requisitos para o que é “bom” (ou “bem”, NT) acontecer: “sabemos que todas as coisas contribuem juntamente para o bem daqueles que amam a Deus, daqueles que são chamados segundo o seu propósito” (Rom 8:28, BRP). Paulo não está dando esta promessa para todas as pessoas, mas apenas para aqueles “que amam a Deus, daqueles que são chamados segundo o seu propósito.”

Mas o que isto significa? Aqueles que amam a Deus são, de acordo com este contexto, cristãos, porque eles são chamados de acordo com o propósito de Deus (note o v. 30: os “chamados” são também os “justificados,” que serão “glorificados”). Alguns entendem o particípio presente “que amam” (ajgapw'sin) como uma condição temporal, como se ele quisesse dizer: “Enquanto você amar Deus, as coisas vão cooperar, mas quando você não estiver mais amando a Deus, as coisas não vão cooperar para o seu bem.” Esta interpretação, todavia, é improvável. Primeiro, o tempo desta construção grega é muito provavelmente um presente gnômico, assim indicando uma característica, em vez de uma condição temporal. Segundo, os versículos seguintes (vv. 29-30) falam da nossa conformidade a Cristo, nossa glorificação, como um resultado inevitável daqueles que amam a Deus. E isto não depende do quanto nós amamos a Deus, mas da obra que Cristo fez na cruz. Paulo conclui este capítulo explicitamente declarando que nada pode nos separar do amor de Deus (vv. 38-39). E, por inferência, isto incluiria até aqueles lapsos temporários do nosso amor pelo Salvador.

O que é, então, o “bem”? Isto está definido para nós, à princípio pelo menos, no versículo 29; um dos versículos esquecidos das Escrituras: “Porque os que dantes conheceu também os predestinou para serem conformes à imagem de seu Filho, a fim de que ele seja o primogênito entre muitos irmãos” (BRP). O “bem” não é o nosso conforto, riqueza, ou saúde. É a conformidade a Cristo! Este “bem” é, portanto, totalmente definido no próximo versículo: “E aos que predestinou a estes também chamou; e aos que chamou a estes também justificou; e aos que justificou a estes também glorificou” (BRP). Em fim, todas as coisas cooperam para trazer cada cristão à conformidade de Cristo, para trazer cada cristão à glória. Paulo está tão certo de que isto se realizará, que ele fala da nossa glorificação no tempo pretérito. Ele usa o que é chamado de “aoristo proléptico;” é um mecanismo da língua grega que o autor usa quando está querendo dizer algo que é tão bom como se já tivesse acontecido. Não apenas isto, mas ninguém está perdido entre predestinação e glorificação. Paulo não diz “alguns daqueles”, nem mesmo “a maioria daqueles”, quando descreve cada estágio da jornada da salvação. Da predestinação à glorificação, ele usa simplesmente “aqueles” (ou{ ou touvtou); o pronome, que se repete, refere-se ao grupo inteiro que foi mencionado antes. Ninguém vai perder o trem na jornada da salvação.

Quando lemos Rom 8:28 em seu contexto, nós podemos dar uma resposta positiva à questão da dor e do sofrimento no mundo. Não vemos nada de bom na miséria e nos desastres deste mundo, mas este mundo não é toda a realidade que existe. Há um “até então...”. Há um lugar além do horizonte do qual nossos sentidos podem apreender, e é mais real e mais duradouro do que o que experimentamos nesta casca mortal. Deus está usando o presente, até mesmo um presente miserável, para nos conformar à imagem do seu Filho. Se definirmos o que é “bom” como apenas o que podemos ver nesta vida, então perdemos a mensagem deste texto. Pois, como Paulo havia dito antes no mesmo capítulo, “Porque para mim tenho por certo que as aflições deste tempo presente não são para comparar com a glória que em nós há de ser revelada” (Rom 8:18, BRP). Os cristãos ocidentais, especialmente os cristãos americanos, tendem a deturpar o sentido de textos como Rom 8:28. Se nossas vidas forem confortáveis, se tivermos riquezas, boa saúde, então, está tudo bem. Mas, este não era o “bem” que Paulo tinha em mente, e este não é o alvo da vida cristã.

FREE ONLINE BIBLE TRANSLATION DEBUTS ON bible.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FREE ONLINE BIBLE TRANSLATION DEBUTS ON bible.org

NET BIBLE^® First Version Ever to be ‘Beta-Tested’ by Users

During On-line Collaborative Translation Process

Dallas, Nov. 4, 2005 – Internet-based “bible.org,” one of the largest online Christian ministries in the world, announced today that after 10 years of development, the first edition of the “NET BIBLE^®” is now available online and free for download from www.bible.org. Over three million people use bible.org and the new online translation has been endorsed by top Christian leaders. Previously, the NET BIBLE^®was available in a series of online beta editions but is now available in its first edition.

“The NET BIBLE^® is an entirely new translation from the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts,” said Dave Foran, executive director of bible.org. “A team of over 25 top scholars, experts in the Biblical languages, worked directly from the best currently available texts. The result was 60,932 translators’ notes and citations pulling from more than 700 scholarly works.”

The NET BIBLE is the first Bible ever to be beta-tested on the Internet. In this beta-testing process all working drafts of the NET BIBLE were posted on www.bible.org for public review and comment.

“The significance of this is that the NET BIBLE team, from day one, has been listening to its readers,” Foran said. “The purpose of the public review was to be accountable, to be transparent, and to request that millions of people provide feedback on the faithfulness and clarity of the translation as well as on the translators’ notes. By creating this kind of translation environment the NET BIBLE was read, studied, and checked by more eyes than any Bible translation in history.”

Ministry officials point out that anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection is able to use and print out the NET BIBLE without cost for personal study, preaching, teaching, and training others. And anyone who wants to give away the Bible can print up to 1,000 copies of the NET BIBLE and distribute them for free without the need for written permission.

Pastors without extensive libraries, missionaries and Bible translators in the field, and people in countries where access to Bible study materials are restricted or prohibited will all benefit from access to a contemporary English translation with extensive notes available on the Internet.

“We are putting ministry first,” said Chris Goodman, director of ministry development. “We are able to offer an entirely new and in-depth Bible translation to millions of people online to download without cost for personal study and to teach others. The NET BIBLE unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives and to me, this is wonderfully fulfilling.”

Bible.org is a non-profit (501c3) Christian ministry headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The Ministry launched in 1994 to leverage the Internet as a powerful new force in Christian ministry. In the last decade bible.org has grown to serve millions of individuals in over 170 countries by providing thousands of trustworthy resources for Bible study – including the new translation of the Bible (the NET BIBLE^®).

bible.org Ministry Overview

Serving the servants: Providing the tools and resources Christian leaders need to make a difference.

Revolutionizing universal availability: the Internet, CD, PDA, Audio and Print for home, office, drive and personal time.

Innovating new methods for "personalized discipleship" : improving weaknesses and strengthening strengths.

MINISTRY:

Bible.org is a non-profit (501c3) Christian ministry headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The Ministry launched in 1994 to leverage the Internet as a powerful new force in Christian ministry. In the last decade bible.org has grown to serve millions of individuals around the world through providing thousands of trustworthy resources for Bible study – including an exciting new translation of the Bible (the NET Bible). 2 Tim 2:2

Bible.org was the first ministry to create and publish a modern Bible translation (NET Bible) on the Internet before it was printed. It is available at www.bible.org for FREE to the world! The Ministry is passionate about serving by making the Bible (and trustworthy study resources) available and useful to Christian leaders and individuals so that they will go and help others - all people growing to spiritual maturity. Eph. 4:12-13 That is the point – maturity!

WHO WE SERVE:

From America to the Middle East. From Africa to China. Bible.org is providing trustworthy Bible Study resources to missionaries in closed parts of the world that are hostile to the gospel, to pastors in the deepest parts of the African jungle to small group leaders in Europe to stay-at-home moms in America and to impassioned pastors in Australia. Bible.org is serving Christian leaders and individuals around the world.

IMPACT:

Lives globally are changing as bible.org continues to provide trustworthy Bible study resources for FREE!

Typical users include Pastors, church staff, small group leaders, missionaries, and maturing Christians
The Ministry serves people in more than 175 countries and provides materials in 18 different languages.

User Feedback:

"… when I found your web site I couldn't believe it, it was like a dream come true. Free seminary or Bible college online for those who could not afford a formal education, WOW!"

" This is an invaluable service to all Christians, whatever their denomination or doctrinal orientation. This service is also essential to establishing and maintaining a vital, positive image of Christian thought and behavior throughout the world."

"…bible.org should be the model held up for all others to strive to be like; for this is the Christian faith at it's very best. I would ask one thing only, please do not make this an all pay-for-use site unless you feel that is what God would have you do." (edited for grammar)

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE:

Bible.org is searching for partners to help support the distribution of the gospel and is looking for:

Prayer Partners
Financial Partners
Ministry Partners: Bible.org is looking for opportunities to work with other ministries in general and specifically those serving: local churches (globally); discipleship; China and closed countries.

Together, we can help those around the world experience " the measure of Christ's full stature." Eph. 4:13

In addition, bible.org is currently working on several key initiatives (inquire below for more details):

Bibles for Asia
Christian Skills Development (personalized discipleship tools)
Closed Country Projects (confidential due to security risks, please contact below for more information)

CONTACT:

If you are interested in finding out more information about bible.org or these key projects, please call 800.575.2425 or email us today. Thank you.

Lives globally are changing as bible.org continues to provide trustworthy Bible study resources for FREE!

Typical users include Pastors, church staff, small group leaders, missionaries, and maturing Christians
The Ministry serves people in more than 175 countries and provides materials in 18 different languages.

User Feedback:

"… when I found your web site I couldn't believe it, it was like a dream come true. Free seminary or Bible college online for those who could not afford a formal education, WOW!"

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE:

Bible.org is searching for partners to help support the distribution of the gospel and is looking for:

Prayer Partners
Financial Partners
Ministry Partners: Bible.org is looking for opportunities to work with other ministries in general and specifically those serving: local churches (globally); discipleship; China and closed countries.

Together, we can help those around the world experience " the measure of Christ's full stature." Eph. 4:13

In addition, bible.org is currently working on several key initiatives (inquire below for more details):

Bibles for Asia
Christian Skills Development (personalized discipleship tools)
Closed Country Projects (confidential due to security risks, please contact below for more information)

CONTACT:

If you are interested in finding out more information about bible.org or these key projects, please call 800.575.2425 or email us today. Thank you.

You are here

From the series: Enseñanza cristiana basica PREVIOUS PAGE

Apendice 8 El Dios Vacio

Introducción

I. La Doctrina de Kenosis

A. Enseñanza Kenotica Clasica

B. Comparación con el punto de vista de Kenneth Copeland (como representante del “Mensaje de Fe” escuela del pensamiento (School of thought)).

C. Comentario General

II. Una Afirmación Positiva, de la Escritura, de la Posición Ortodoxasobre la Humillación de Cristo en relación con Filipences 2:5-11

A. De lo que Cristo se despojó principalmente fué de atavíos externos y de la Gloria Divina.

B. ¿ Muestran las Escrituras que Él mantuvo sus atributos de Deidad mientras estuvo en la tierra?

C. Habiendo visto este tema parte por parte, ahora podemos concluir con un poderoso testimonio del libro de Colosences.

III. Una Refutación Critica,de parte de las Escrituras y Eruditos Evangélicos,sobre las cosas que implica y enseña la Doctrina de Kenosis

IV. Un método alternativo de manejar los “versiculos problematicos” sin alejarse de la Cristología ortodoxa.

From the series: Enseñanza cristiana basica PREVIOUS PAGE

Trinitarianism Book Recommendations

KROZ BIBLIJU NA GODINU DANA Plan za dnevno čitanje Biblije

KROZ BIBLIJU NA GODINU DANA

Life and Death in Biblical Perspective: An Examination of Genesis 5, Ecclesiastes 1, and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58

Abstract1

1. Introduction

2. Life and Death from the Perspective of Genesis 5

2.1 The Toledot Sections of Genesis

2.2 Genesis 5 and the Human Drive for Life

3. Life and Death from the Perspective of Ecclesiastes 1

3.1 The Inspired Perspective of Ecclesiastes

3.2 Ecclesiastes 1 and the Human Drive for Life

4. Conclusion and Afterword

Bibliography

From the series: 성경교의 개요 (Survey of Bible Doctrines: Korean) PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

성경교의 개요 : 구원

??:

From the series: 성경교의 개요 (Survey of Bible Doctrines: Korean) PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: 성경교의 개요 (Survey of Bible Doctrines: Korean) PREVIOUS PAGE

성경교의 개요 : 성령

From the series: 성경교의 개요 (Survey of Bible Doctrines: Korean) PREVIOUS PAGE

성경교의 개요: 천사, 사탄, 악마

Todas as Coisas Realmente Cooperam para o Bem?

FREE ONLINE BIBLE TRANSLATION DEBUTS ON bible.org

bible.org Ministry Overview

Pages

II. Una Afirmación Positiva,
de la Escritura, de la Posición Ortodoxa
sobre la Humillación de Cristo en relación con Filipences 2:5-11

III. Una Refutación Critica,
de parte de las Escrituras y Eruditos Evangélicos,
sobre las cosas que implica y enseña la Doctrina de Kenosis

Abstract¹