Home » Posts tagged 'John'
Tag Archives: John
Baptismal Regeneration: Acts 22:16
Requiring Baptism for Salvation
Definition and Denominations
“Baptismal Regeneration” in its definition at Wikipedia says:
Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it. Etymologically, the term means “being born again” (regeneration, or rebirth) “through baptism” (baptismal).
It’s more than that. You will find the Church of Christ, the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, LDS, and Charismatics such as Apostolics who also require water baptism for salvation. Where I live, the biggest denomination is the “Christian Church,” which believe this.
Hermeneutic
A certain wrong hermeneutic undergirds or produces baptismal regeneration, using a few proof texts. Instead of looking at all of the New Testament and understanding each verse within the whole, it conforms the whole to a few select verses. I will examine those verses. Those few verses don’t overturn what the New Testament teaches about salvation. They don’t include baptism as a requirement for justification. I will analyze what they do say, since men use them to buttress their false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Versus Belief Alone by Grace Alone
Many times the Bible says something like John the Baptist said in John 3:36.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
You don’t read any baptism in there. Forty times the Bible says, “believeth/believed in/on him/Jesus/the Son/me/thee,” as the sole condition for salvation.
Scripture expresses many other faith alone statements. The Ethiopian in Acts 8:37 said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Mark 1:15 says, “believe the gospel.” John 20:31 says, “Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through His name.” John 13:19 says, “ye may believe that I am he.” This is what the Bible teaches for salvation. Those verses mirror Ephesians 2:8-9:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
As much as verses teach faith alone for salvation, there are also many many that teach salvation not by works.
Adding a Work or Works
Baptism is not an incidental, non-affecting addition to grace or faith. It is akin to the addition of the one work or ritual of circumcision, which Paul addresses in Galatians 5. By adding this single work or ritual, “Christ shall profit you nothing” (v. 2). You become “a debtor to do the whole law” (v. 3). And, “Christ is become of no effect unto you” (v. 4). Those adding baptism almost always add other works and then depend on their works to stay saved. This is perverting the gospel.
Proof Texts
What I’m saying again here is that baptismal regeneration does not depend on what the New Testament teaches about salvation, but on proof texts that adherents use to force this doctrine on the Bible. I will deal with five verses, not necessarily in any order: Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38,1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5. In the end, I will give more evidence against baptismal regeneration [Read the book by Thomas Ross against baptismal regeneration, see his debate on the subject at these links]. My prime goal here was to examine these proof texts.
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Post Conversion Baptism
At face value alone, it seems possible that Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins or at least precedes the washing away of sins. The verse itself rests within the conversion testimony of Paul to a hostile audience in Jerusalem, many years after his salvation. In the first telling of Paul’s salvation, his conversion and then reception of the Holy Spirit far preceded the command and occurrence of baptism (Acts 9:1-17). Every time he recounts his conversion, Paul places his baptism as a later result of his conversion, not a cause (Acts 9, 22, 26).
Grammar and Syntax of Acts 22:16
The grammar and syntax of Acts 22:16 does not teach baptism preceding salvation or washing away sins. Luther B. McIntyre, Jr. explains well in his article, “Baptism and Forgiveness” (Bib Sac, Jan-March, 1996, pp. 61-62):
The Greek sentence has two participles and two imperatives: “Arising, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon his name.” Many English translations include two conjunctive “ands,” but the Greek text has only one kai (“and”). The construction is participle-verb-kai-verb-participle.
William MacDonald in his Bible Believer’s Commentary (NT, p. 469) suggests that best approach to this verse is to associate each participle with its nearest verb. This is entirely consistent with what A. T. Robertson (Greek Grammar, p. 1109) calls the adverbial use of the participle.
Based on the Greek construction, the washing away of sins is connected with ‘calling upon his name,’ not with being baptized. That agrees with Peter’s own appeal to the prophet Joel in Acts 2:21 that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” As Polhill says in his Acts commentary (p. 461), “The overarching term, however, is “calling upon the name of the Lord,” the profession of faith in Christ that is the basis for the act of baptism.
Some might not like the use of grammar and syntax getting in the way of their proof text. However, the grammar and syntax also agree with the vast and overall scriptural teaching of faith alone for salvation.
Context
In Acts 9:13, Ananias referred to Paul (then Saul) as “this man,” yet later, he calls Paul his “brother.” Paul was already converted before his baptism in verse 18. Brother was a term adopted by the early disciples. They used the term to express their familial love for each other in Christ. The shift from man to brother in the words of Ananias indicate Paul’s conversion preceded baptism.
[I suggest everyone to read, again, Thomas Ross’s book, Heaven Only For the Baptized? This book does a far more thorough job than above in debunking Acts 22:16 as a baptismal regeneration proof text.]
More to Come
Could There Be Practical Reasons Why Some Evangelists See More or Better Results than Others? Pt. 3
Every time I begin to consider the problems in this country and then the world, I go back to the gospel. Whatever path you ponder, it comes back to necessary conversion. Someone can make moves that might postpone the inevitable, but the actual solution is the gospel. Everything else is “peace, peace, when there is no peace.”
Last Monday I wrote two reasons and Wednesday a third on why some evangelists see more or better results than others. Here’s a fourth.
4. A Difference in Diligent Work
Scripture emphasizes work in evangelism, diligence, as if it would make a difference in the salvation in men’s souls. Jesus said in John 9:4: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” Even Jesus saw the need for urgency in getting something done sooner than later. This was an example from which the lyrics to a song come (here verse 2):
Work, for the night is coming: Work through the sunny noon; Fill brightest hours with labor: Rest comes sure and soon. Give every flying minute Something to keep in store; Work, for the night is coming, When man works no more.
The Apostle Paul also talked about the diligence to his work. He explains in what I call his “how-to book for the ministry” in 1 Thessalonians 2:9: “For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.” You read there, “our labour and travail: for labouring night and day.” Paul connected this to his success.
Even as I wrote about Paul, I thought about Philip the evangelist, when he evangelized the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. This is one of the most well-known, famous evangelism stories in all of scripture. Here are the last two verses in the chapter:
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Almost anyone else would have gone back to his lazy-boy and had an iced tea. He put in his 1.5 hours of evangelism for the week, time to head home. Not Philip. After the Ethiopian eunuch was saved, a great evangelistic moment in history, Philip “preached in all the cities” from Azotus to Caesarea.
What I’m describing is related at least to love. The 1.5 hour person is the one who is the legalist. Don’t get me wrong. I do think that having a habit, temperance of a fashion, putting it on the schedule, is and can be good. It’s not enough when it’s love. It isn’t laboring for the night cometh when no man can work. It isn’t labor and travail, laboring night and day. It isn’t preaching in all the cities. Everyone has other things to do. I agree things need to be done.
Every little bit helps. I’m happy when someone at least does evangelize. I’m writing about how some see more than others and in a legitimate way, true evangelism. Diligent labor is another difference.
John 1:9-13 Say That Faith Precedes Regeneration
Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), meaning that it is not by works (Titus 3:5-6) It is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is a gift of God (Romans 6:23).
Faith is not a work. The following are my two favorite places that teach that:
Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”
2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
First, it is given unto you to believe on Christ. Second, people obtain like precious faith. Salvation is by faith, not by works. If faith was a work, that wouldn’t make any sense.
How does someone obtain faith from God? It starts with revelation. What is to be known of God is manifest in people (Romans 1:19) and then clearly seen in creation (Romans 1:20), which is general revelation (Psalm 19:1-6). Next comes special revelation, the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11). As Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” This fulfills the message of Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” What I’m describing in this paragraph is what precedes faith. Much more could be said on this. The revelation of God is the grace that appears to everyone that gives faith that people obtain to be saved.
With all that said, here is John 1:9-13:
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Becoming a child of God and regeneration are essentially the same thing. Look at verse 12. Which comes first? Receiving Jesus Christ or becoming a son of God? It’s plain. What comes before receiving Him? Look at verse 9. “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” I know that Calvinists or the Reformed, not all of them, but many, say that regeneration precedes faith.
The idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from scripture. Why is that doctrine taught and believed then? In my opinion, it is a man-centered reaction to salvation by works. A metaphor for this is a pendulum swing. We’re not saved by works like Roman Catholicism and other religion teaches. The light coming, revelation producing faith, that isn’t good enough. They’ve got to go one step further to show how salvation does not depend on man. They are men and they have invented this doctrine though. The doctrine depends on them.
I’m writing on this because I read the article by Andy Naselli, published in the Master’s Seminary Journal, entitled, “Chosen, Born Again, and Believing: How Election, Regeneration, and Faith Relate to Each Other in the Gospel According to John.” Long title. Does Naselli get his position from the passages or does he come to the passages with his presupposition? You can read his section on John 1:9-13, the first one. He comes to the text with assumptions and forces the text into them. Naselli says that this text does not say that faith causes the new birth. He says “being born of God [is] logically prior to receiving Jesus.” Is that what you read?
If faith comes from the light, that means it comes from God. If faith comes from the Word of God, then it comes from God. If faith comes after the knowledge that manifests in people, then it comes from God. Faith does not require or need regeneration in order to be from or of God. Faith does not come by blood, by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man, because faith is given by God and obtained from God. It is not a work.
Naselli doesn’t say it, but I’ve read enough elsewhere to know. Many Calvinists cannot say that faith precedes regeneration, because they see faith as a decision or a choice. You can read that in his article. He says, “The basis of the new birth is not . . . what you desired.” He is equating faith with the “act of a human.” He is saying that faith is our will and since the new birth or regeneration does not come “by the will of man,” then it also cannot come by faith. The problem is that isn’t what the passage point-blank says.
Is the teaching of Naselli and others like him enough to mess up the doctrine of salvation? It is perverting what the passage says. What kind of damage is this teaching doing? It can lead to an extreme where someone does not want to receive Christ, delays receiving Christ, because he is waiting for regeneration. I’ve seen that many times through the years. I’m saying I’ve seen it personally over twenty times with individuals with whom I’ve talked.
I agree with some that this doctrine from Naselli affects what people think of the love of God. God must regenerate to believe. If someone does not believe, then God did not regenerate. This person did not apparently receive irresistible grace, Christ did not atone for him. God foreordained him to Hell. If scripture taught this was the love of God, I would happily believe it. It isn’t what the Bible says is the love of God. It also isn’t what grace is. The grace that saves appears to all men.
Yes, there is a mystery as to why some are saved and some are not. The mystery for the Calvinist is why God chooses some and He rejects others before they were ever born. The mystery for others, like myself, is why some receive Christ and others don’t. The latter at least has some teaching about that. Jesus says that it’s the condition of the soil in Matthew 13. Paul says that the god of this world blinds men’s minds (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Naselli teaches at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minnesota, John Piper’s school. I’ve read John Piper’s explanation of the five points of Calvin. The word “decisive” is a very important word to him. What I’m saying, Piper would say is the sinner, assisted by God, providing the decisive impulse. He would say, I’m saying, that “the decisive cause of faith is self-determination.” Scripture says nothing about “decisive cause.”
As I’ve written about this subject in the past, I’ve said that God is sovereign about His own sovereignty. We can’t make God more sovereign than what He says He is. John 1:9-13 as it reads in its plain meaning does not contradict a scriptural understanding of the sovereignty of God. It does not make salvation by works. Piper adds this layer of “decisive cause,” and in that sense is adding to the teaching of scripture. He speaks where scripture is silent. He reads into the text. This is also what Naselli is doing. Naselli fills in the blank by quoting Calvin, writing:
Faith is not produced by us but is the fruit of spiritual new birth.
Then Naselli fills in this silence even more by quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
The act of regeneration, being God’s act, is something that is outside consciousness.
Do you understand what he’s saying? He’s saying that a person becomes a child of God outside of his own consciousness. Is that what John 1:9-13 say? Of course not.
*********************************
I was fine with the ending of this post, especially time-wise. However, since I wrote it, other thoughts came, especially as it related to regeneration outside consciousness. You go evangelizing in obedience to the command of Jesus Christ. You do your best. No one is saved. Why? None of the preaching audience was regenerated outside of their consciousness. Obviously, if God had regenerated any of them outside of their consciousness, they would have believed.
I read a book about evangelizing Mormons, entitled I Love Mormons, and the PhD evangelical who wrote it gives a lot of strategy related to success with Mormons, understanding their culture, knowing their doctrine, taking a proper approach, etc. I’m not saying I even agree with him on all of it, but isn’t the key for success that God arbitrarily regenerates outside of their consciousness? If God does, your Mormon evangelism can’t but succeed. Automatic success. How does loving Mormons affect unconscious regeneration? Not at all, because that would make man a decisive cause of faith. I’m sure many passages come to your mind that do not fit this thinking.
John Evincing Jesus as the Christ
The gospel of John is good going word by word and verse by verse in great detail, doing a three year series. I’ve done that twice, the second time, twice as slow as the first. John is also very good reading it straight through as if it were a gospel tract. This can be a good reason that churches often hand out copies of John and Romans as an evangelistic tool. I don’t know how many people would actually read those two, who’ve been handed them, but if they did, they’re powerful as a testimony to salvation.
I’ve mentioned that I’m reading through the Bible twice this year, and I read through half of John today as part of my first time through. It’s easy math to think that you can read John through in seven days at three chapters a day. Perhaps read it through in two days and see the difference in that too.
I wouldn’t say John isn’t the life of Christ, but it isn’t exactly biographical either. It goes in chronological order, but it reads like an evangelist persuading someone to be saved. That’s what John says he is doing at the end of the book (John 20:30-31):
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
To have eternal life, John says we must believe that Jesus is the Christ. You can be saved by believing in Jesus Christ, but believing in Jesus Christ is believing that Jesus is the Christ. The Christ is the Messiah, that prophesied Savior of the Old Testament, fulfilled in the New Testament, the One Who came the first time to suffer and die and raise from the dead, and the second time as a glorified, conquering Judge and King to transform the earth and rule it. You must believe Jesus, that historic figure, the One Who Already came, is also that second figure, which would mean that your future is wrapped up in Him.
John picks out material in the life of Christ — this is, of course, all under the inspiration of God — that will give evidence and persuade that Jesus is that Person, so that you can and will want to receive Him as the Christ. For those who say that repentance is not in John, believing that Jesus is the Christ is repentance. You have repented if you believe that Jesus is the Christ. I didn’t say intellectually assent that Jesus is the Christ or pray a prayer, but believe that Jesus is the Christ. This isn’t asking someone into your heart or even asking someone to save you in a way that you keep on the same path you were before. No, you know your way is changing if you believe what John writes in his gospel.
This last week I twice ate at an Arab or Middle Eastern restaurant in Detroit. It was authentic. You look around and everyone around is Arab and there is Moslem dress on the ladies. It’s like a foreign country. The first meal was the sample platter. This had quite a few of the standard classics in that genre of cuisine, using the names in the original language. That plate, which fed all five adults at the table, gave you a good idea about the food, whether you liked it and what you liked. John gives the sample platter. If you can’t receive John’s testimony of Jesus as the Christ, you aren’t going to believe that Jesus is the Christ.
John writes with authority. If what he writes is true, and it is, you better do something about Jesus Christ. You can’t be neutral. You can’t just enjoy the story and appreciate what a good man Jesus was. It doesn’t read like that at all. A lot of John are long passages of Jesus teaching in Jerusalem on various occasions. Peppered among these are various miracles of different sorts that confirm His teachings.
Before John ever presents the multitude of testimony, he pronounces how and why with outright statements of the identity of Jesus. He will do and teach these things, because He is the God the Son with the same attributes of God. He preexisted before time and created the world. If you believe John’s opening salvo, everything is downhill from there, much like if someone believes the first verse of the Bible.
Everything of Jesus was coordinated from above with His fulfilling Divine plan and purpose to perfection, including the foreordination of the forerunner, John the Baptist, who also then testified to Jesus. His initial followers recognized He was the Christ in accordance with their knowledge of the Old Testament. Then Jesus’ works evince this reality with the miracle at Cana and His cleansing of the temple. An unbelieving religious leader and teacher was challenged by what He saw personally and Jesus’ preaching to Him in John 3 reads of an extraordinary presentation of His role as Savior. John ends the third chapter by saying this (v. 36):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jesus is the Christ.
New Testament scholars and historians acknowledge the validity, truthfulness, and authority of the events of the New Testament. They question the supernaturalness of the New Testament, but that’s what John is all about. Jesus wasn’t just a man. He was a man, but He was also God. His teaching wasn’t only Jewish either, even seen in John 4 with the Samaritan woman. Samaritan salvation was also of Jesus Christ. Using the water of the well as an analogy, Jesus said in verse 13-14:
13 Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
“Drinketh” of verse 13 is present tense and “drinketh” of verse 14 is aorist. Continue drinking and drinking this water and you’ll thirst again, but I give a water, that if someone drinks it one time, He will never thirst again in the strongest possible negation of thirst. Jesus is the source of everlasting life for everyone and once someone has it, he can never lose it.
Next chapter in John 5, Jesus heals the impotent man. Jesus can because He is the Christ. He did it on the Sabbath and He explains, verse 17: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” The Father never stops working, even on the Sabbath, because the whole world is upheld by Him. Because His Son, Jesus, is also God, He also must always be working. And then in verses 22-24:
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
All judgment is committed to Jesus. He is the Christ. The Son is to be honored as the Father is honored. Eternal life is dependent upon hearing and believing the word of Jesus.
In John 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000 and He says this afterwards in verse 35, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
The whole book keeps going like this. It doesn’t let down. One particular repeated manifestation of Jesus as the Christ are statements like what Jesus said in verse 35, “I am the bread of life.” They’ve been called the “I am” statements. In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” “I am” points to God’s introduction to Moses as “I am” in Exodus 3:14:
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Every chapter of John evinces Jesus as the Christ from beginning to end.
Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible
May 17, 2024 / 3 Comments on Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible
Does it matter if one adopts a belief in “Q” and rejects the historic belief that the synoptic gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–are independent accounts? What happens if one rejects this historic belief for the theory, invented by theological liberalism and modernism but adopted by many modern evangelicals, that Mark was the first gospel (instead of Matthew), and Matthew and Luke depended on and altered Mark, using a (lost) source called “Q” that just happens to have left no archaeological or historical evidence for its existence? What happens if we adopt source, tradition, and redaction criticism? Let me illustrate with the comment on Matthew 25:46 in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1034–1037. Nolland is discussing how to go behind the text of Matthew’s Gospel to what the historical Jesus said (which he assumes is different); he is discussing what Matthew added and changed from what Christ originally said, which, supposedly, was handed down in little bits of tradition here and there, and which Matthew used, along with his dependence upon Mark and Q. I have added a few comments in brackets within Nolland’s commentary.
While the account has a totally comprehensible sense in its Matthean use, various unevennesses and tensions suggest a complicated history. At various points there seem to be Matthean accents and even quite Matthean features. [In other words, Matthew added and changed what the Son of God said.] … On the basis of the tensions and difficulties [which are not really there] in the account many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together [what a nice description] out of traditional fragments and OT resources. Others would be prepared to identify a remnant of a parable in vv. 32c–33 and a significant fragment of tradition in vv. 35–36. But perhaps even this is too pessimistic. [Perhaps? We aren’t sure?]
We have had cause to notice that the king in various of Jesus’ parables was originally God, but he has become Jesus himself in secondary use of the parable. [The Watchtower Society and the Unitarians would be delighted.] This is likely to be true of all three of the immediately preceding parables. In the other cases the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change.
Without vv. 31–32a, ‘by my Father’ in v. 34, and ‘my brothers and sisters’ in v. 40, the account could be focussed on God and not on Jesus. [Note how he is willing to cut out portions of the Word.] With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account. With the loss of vv. 31–32a the account will be of the eschatological judgment of Israel rather than of all nations. So we can now make sense of the unquestioning recognition of the status of the king by those on the left and the assumption that they would have served him if it had been visible to them that that was what was involved. Both those on the left and the right are Israelites who in principle recognised God as their ultimate king. … Various other Matthean features noted above may also betray his intervention, [of course, all of what he is saying is speculative.] but these do not disturb the basic functioning of the narrative. … Matthew has bundled a lot of cross referencing into his account [in other words, he assumes Christ did not refer back to His earlier teaching, but Matthew changed it so that it referenced back to earlier passages] in a manner reminiscent of his development of 9:27–31. It remains an open question whether the fourfold repetition of the list is a pre-Matthean feature. It is reminiscent of the repetition involved in the inclusion of 25:16–18, which was judged above to be pre-Matthean but not original. [“Not original” means Christ did not actually say it.]
The pre-Matthean account that emerges is still not a parable, only an account of the judgment that makes use of a comparison (if this is not Matthean) and speaks of God as ‘the king’. But could there be a genuine parable further behind this? A lot depends on the missing beginning. But the other places where the narrative world of a parable about a king is broken are vv. 34, 41, and 46, and we would have to give up ‘your brothers and sisters’ suggested above for the pre-Matthean account. A possible beginning sentence for a parable might be something like ‘There was a king who entered into judgment with his people’ (all the future tenses of the account would need then to become past tenses). If in v. 34 ‘Come, you blessed ones’ was followed by something more appropriate to the narrative world, and similar adjustments were made to v. 41, then the narrative world of a parable would be complete (while v. 46 completes the narrative logic, it is not strictly necessary, but it could be adjusted in a corresponding manner).
There is one important proviso here to describing both the Matthean and, behind that, the immediately pre-Matthean account as ‘an account of the judgment’. We have already noted the tension between 24:31 and 13:41, where the angels respectively gather the elect and take off the wicked to punishment. Mt. 25:31–46 offers a different picture again. Not the angels, but Jesus/God acting like a shepherd makes the division himself (perhaps the angels might be used for the initial gathering), and the two groups are arranged on either side of him. … The further along this track behind the Matthean material we go, the more our account of it becomes necessarily speculative. [My note: No kidding!] But there appears to be no insurmountable barrier to tracing the origins of the Matthean account back to the historical Jesus. And the original that we might attribute to the historical Jesus offers the same challenge about the importance for judgment day of God’s profound self-identification with his people.
Nolland-who is considered “conservative,” not a liberal, by many, and his commentary in the NIGTC series representative of a broadly “evangelical” commentary series–makes the common and unreasonable assumptions that Matthew, who would have been there to here Christ teach and who was controlled by the Holy Spirit, needed to depend upon tiny fragments of tradition passed down here and passed down there by who knows who, and also borrow from Mark (who was not there, like Matthew was). Through this whole process what Christ actually said got changed, and so we need to attempt to reconstruct what Jesus Christ actually said by going behind Matthew’s Gospel to the hypothetical, reconstructed words of the historical Jesus.
This anti-inspiration nonsense affects evangelical apologetics. When I debated Shabir Ally he could not believe that I denied that there was a “Q” document and that the gospels were dependent on each other. Other Christians that Shabir debated accepted that these lies were true.
This sort of anti-inspiration and anti-historical nonsense about Q, sources, and redaction is all over evangelicalism and just about completely controls theological liberalism. It even infects portions of those who call themselves fundamentalist, chiefly among those who deny the perfect preservation of Scripture and so are not King James Only. Beware of “evangelical” commentaries on the Gospels and “evangelical” leaders who adopt critical methods and deny the Biblically faithful and historically accurate view that the synoptic gospels are independent accounts and give us eyewitness testimony.
–TDR