Before we do, I would like to start up part II basically where we left off in part I. That is, with 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 2 as this passage deals directly with a summary of the Gospel.
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.”
(1 Corinthians 15:1–2 NAS95)
Dr. Shank erroneously asserts that Paul is actually warning the Corinthians in these verses. "He warns the Corinthians that, by means of the Gospel which they accepted when he preached to them, they are now being saved ([sozesthe], present indicative passive) 'if you are holding fast [katechete, present indicative] the word which I preached to you' (I. Cor. 15:1, 20."[1]
I love the shear fact that Dr. Shank has provided the parsings, because in doing so he has refuted his own understanding of this text. Paul's assertion is not to warn the Corinthians with conditional salvation, but to give a description of salvation. This is even further confirmed by the fact that κατέχετε (katechete) is indicative and not subjunctive even though the marker εἰ (if) is a marker of condition. In this case (no pun intended, or maybe it was), εἰ is expressing "a condition thought of as real or to denote assumptions relating to what has already happened."[2]
Paul isn't warning the Corinthians to maintain their salvation, Paul is denoting the result of salvation, not the cause. The rest of 1 Corinthians 15:2 that Shank didn't quote is ironic, because it shows there is such a thing as a belief that doesn't result in salvation, "unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:2 NAS95) It is curious on why Shank left out part of the actual verse/context.
Dr. Shank's next atrocity is found in subsection II on page 34, the Parable of the Lord and His Steward found in Luke 12. As usual, if we simply took Dr. Shank's presupposition that true believers must be able to lose their salvation, and we didn't take into consideration the context we would probably arrive at the same conclusion. However, when we examine the context, we are left with an entirely different conclusion.
"It has been argued by some that the unfaithful steward of verse 45, 46 was never a true disciple, but only a hypocrite from the beginning, and the Lord's sudden appearance simply brings to an end his false pretension of discipleship. Such an argument rest on two false assumptions:"[3]
The first assumption that Shank believes this interpretation rests on is that there are two different stewards. Shank believes that Christ didn't speak of two stewards, in fact could not have been speaking of two stewards.[4] Unfortunately for Dr. Shank, he should've left the Greek text out of this discussion. However, because he did, we actually are forced to disagree with his assertion that, "Language forbids any assumption that more than one servant is in view in the parable"[5] because the emphatic demonstrative pronoun (which isn't emphatic on any other grounds that Shank's interpretation) ekeinos in the absolute sense is used in "denoting contrast to another entity"[6]. To use a pronoun that denotes contrast to another entity means there is more than one.
Well, you might say, you're only quoting a portion of the BDAG. Ok, here's another possibility since ekeinos (as Dr. Shank points out) is used with "ho doulos"[7] which is a noun and thus is being used "to differentiate persons or things already named, from others...."[8] How do you employ a pronoun with a noun that differentiates persons or things, if you only have one person being mentioned?
Dr. Shank is entirely incorrect on his understanding of the Greek, and by his presentation of the Greek actually proves the first assumption to be correct. And if you didn't know Greek, simply allowing the text to stand for itself should've been sufficient. You have a faithful servant first presented followed subsequently by an unfaithful servant. The distinction couldn't be more obvious, and Shank's "correct" analysis of the parable on page 35 is nothing more than a skilled ceramic expert cutting the text to fit his man-centered theology.
"The second false assumption on which the argument of original hypocrisy must rest is the assumption that the [L]ord was unaware of the true character of his steward at the time of his appointing, being deceived by his hypocrisy. This might happen in the affairs of ordinary men; but it cannot happen to our Saviour, who is the Lord in view in the parable."[9]
I totally agreed that Christ would know His sheep (John 10:1-30). And it seems clear that we can parallel John 10 with what Shank is saying in this paragraph on page 35. However, doesn't this beg the question, how can Christ lose those who are His? Some of the lengthiest treatises regarding Christ's possessions of His people can be found in John 6:35-45, John 10:1-30, and even John 17. The later two of those passages indicates 1). Those who were hearing Jesus and were not believing were unbelievers because they are not His sheep (John 10:25, 26) and 2). Christ prays, not for the world, but for those whom the Father has given Him (John 17:6 - 9). Can Christ's prayer for those for whom the Father has given to Him fail? Can Christ fail to fulfill the will of the Father (John 6:35-45)? Surely Dr. Shank must give answer to these questions.
However, is "original hypocrisy" impossible because the Lord would entrust as leaders over His people that would fail at their task, never be saved to begin with (1 John 2:19), and be punished with a harsher punishment? If we look at the context it is not impossible, nor does it mess with Christ's Deity/Sovereignty, considering this chapter starts with Christ warning against the hypocrisy of those who are the religious leaders of Israel (Luke 12:1).
In attempting to push his man-centered theology and conditional perseverance presupposition, Dr. Shank has erred grievously in his attempt to refute this second assumption. Shank's point is that hypocrisy is not the case. The Word of God has been turned upside down on it's head, the way Shank is handling it. Not only is Luke 12 introduced by a warning away from the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, but chapter 12 is introduced because of the circumstances of chapter 11, Christ's "woe to you" speech, in which He pronounces judgment upon the religious leaders because of their approval of the killings of prophets in the Old Testament. And because prophets and apostles would be sent to them of whom they would beat and kill, these leaders are guilty. Jonah, a prophet of God, calls himself a slave (doulos, LXX) of God (Jonah 1:9), and the apostles Peter and Paul called themselves salves of Christ (doulos, c.f Romans 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1), so it's obvious that prophets and apostles are considered slaves of God, and the Pharisees treated them the exact same way that Christ mentioned the "steward" would treat the slaves of the Master in our parable.
Furthermore, how can hypocrisy not be the intention of the parable, considering the parallel passage actually states that the Master will give the unfaithful steward his place with the hypocrits! Notice,
Matt. 24:50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
Matt. 24:51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Is this seriously the kind of "interpretation" skills that someone can trust? Misrepresentation of the Greek text as well as misrepresentation of the context and parallel passages is not abiding by the "What saith the scripture?" rule.[10] Instead, it's abiding by a principle of "What can I make the Scriptures say?"
Dr. Shank should be embarrassed.
More to come.
Notes:
1). Shank, Life in the Son, 33
2). William Arndt et al., A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 277
3). Shank, Life in the Son, 34
4). Ibid, 34, 35
5). Ibid, 35
6). William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 301 - 302
7). Shank, Life in the Son, 34
8). William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 302
9). Shank, Life in the Son, 35
10). Ibid, 31
4). Ibid, 34, 35
5). Ibid, 35
6). William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 301 - 302
7). Shank, Life in the Son, 34
8). William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 302
9). Shank, Life in the Son, 35
10). Ibid, 31
No comments:
Post a Comment