by George Sidney Hurd

 Often when conversing with atheists, and occasionally even some within Christian circles, when I make reference to a passage of Scripture they will counter saying, “The Bible has been copied over and over and translated so many times during the last 2,000 years that there is absolutely no way of knowing what the original text  actually said.” This claim is repeated so frequently – often by prominent intellectuals, that many assume that it is true.
 
However, this is an uninformed response which actually demonstrates one’s ignorance – either willful or otherwise, of the abundance of textual evidence to the contrary.
 
The New Testament text is by far the most highly attested document of all ancient literature. There are over 5,800 extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and that number continues to grow as archaeologists discover more of them. The oldest discovered so far is a papyrus fragment containing a portion of John 18: 31-33 on one side and 18:37-38 on the other. It was discovered in far away Egypt and is dated between 117 and 138 A.D., only a few years after John wrote the original. The oldest entire copy of the Greek New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, dated 340 A.D. In addition to these there are over 10,000 Latin manuscripts dating as far back as 350 A.D., as well as 9,300 manuscripts in several ancient languages such as Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.
 
Additionally, even if we didn’t have a single copy of the New Testament, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Church Fathers who wrote prior to the Nicene Creed in 325 A.D.) include in their writings over one million quotes from the New Testament, citing the entirety of the New Testament with the exception of eleven verses. These writings of the Fathers themselves have provided us with an abundance of very early copies of the New Testament.
 
In marked contrast, most ancient non-biblical literature have very few extant copies available for critical comparison. And the few that do exist are anywhere from 800 to 2,000 years removed from the time they were originally written. If you stack up the manuscript pages of the average classical Greek literature, it reaches a height of about four feet. In contrast, if one were to stack up all the pages of the New Testament manuscripts it would be over a mile high!  Yet, strangely, no one questions the accuracy of other literature as they do the New Testament. 
 
Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews in 75 A.D., around the same time the New Testament was written. In spite of the fact that there are only 20 manuscript copies of it in existence, with the earliest dating seven centuries after the original, the authenticity of the Scriptural account is often judged by Josephus rather than the other way around. 

Some critics rightly point out that there are more variants in the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (estimates vary between 300,000 and 400,000). However, there are more than 2.5 million pages of text contained in the extant Greek manuscripts. If we take the median number of 350,000 variants, that only amounts to one error for every 7 pages.

Additionally, 99% of these variants are of no consequence whatsoever, since they only have to do either with misspelled words, the change of word order without changing the actual meaning, or the presence or absence of an article. All of these are easily recognized and corrected – especially considering the vast number of copies available for comparison.

The other 1% involves interpolations – usually of only one word or a line the scribe accidentally skipped over. The longest, most notable interpolation is John 7:53-8:11 but it is easily identified as an addition by a comparison of the multiple texts we now have. The longest reading that isn’t found in some of the earliest manuscripts is Mark 16:9-20. However, all things considered, many have concluded that the exclusion of verses 9 thru 20 was due to an unintentional early omission by a scribe, rather than it being an interpolation. None of these variants affect any major Christian doctrine, and most can be corrected beyond reasonable doubt by a careful comparison of the thousands of manuscripts at our disposition.

While it is true that we do not have the original copies available to us but rather copies of copies, a careful and critical comparison of all the surviving manuscripts has led many prominent textual critics to the informed conclusion that the Greek Texts we use today are well over 99% true to the original.

While one cannot be overly dogmatic since we don’t actually have the original in our possession, the preponderance of evidence is so overwhelming that only those such as Bart Ehrman who come to the text with a predisposition to disbelieve the Scriptures testimony concerning itself could possibly come away still questing its reliability.

I studied textual criticism in my final year of theological studies in 1982 and came away with great satisfaction that the Greek Text I was working with was a truly reliable representation of the original. I came to know Christ through the message of the Scriptures, and I admittedly wanted to believe that the testimony which Jesus Himself gave concerning the Scriptures was true. However, it is evident that not everyone shares the same love of the truth and desire to know and do the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures.

In this age the just live by faith and without faith it is impossible to please God (Rom 1:17-18; Heb 10:38-39; 11:6). The faith which we are called unto is a trust in God as He has revealed Himself in His Word. True faith is a gift of God which is imparted to those who come to an end of themselves and call upon the name of the Lord for salvation (Jer 33:3; Jn 10:25-27; Acts 13:48;16:14).

I believe that God often does not offer in-your-face undeniable evidence of the veracity of His Word in order to provide a way out for those who, in their false sense of self-sufficiency, are yet unwilling to submit to His Word. Paul even says that God sends strong delusion to those who do not receive the love of the truth but take pleasure in unrighteousness (2Thess 2:10-12).  Paul said that in the latter days men will no longer be willing to receive the written Word of God, but according to their own lusts they will gather around themselves many teachers who will tell them what they want to hear (2Tim 4:2-4).  

Paul also said that in the latter days many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons (1Tim 4:1,2). In this context “the faith” is that teaching or body of doctrine which was given to us through the Apostles of our Lord (Acts 2:42; 1Tim 4:16; Titus 1:9). Jude, the half-brother of Jesus said that we are to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Many today who depreciate the written Word of God given to us once and for all in favor of a more mystical approach are actually unwittingly giving themselves over to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, just as Paul warned. Jesus likewise warned of this, saying that false teachers and false prophets in the last days would even lead the elect astray if it were possible (Matt 24:11-12,24). Jesus even posed the question: “when the Son of Man comes, will He really find (the) faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)

Bart Ehrman began in the faith and studied under Bruce Metzger of Princeton who was one of the best textual scholars of the 20th century. However, while the study of the history and transmission of the text has served to affirm the faith of many, including myself, he chose the path of doubt and unbelief, eventually becoming an agnostic and a key player in the New Atheist Movement. As an indication of our times, six of his books have been on the New York Bestseller list.
In contrast, Dan Wallace who studied under the same scholars as Ehrman and is in my mind the greatest textual scholar of our time, was predisposed to believe rather than disbelieve, and he very aptly demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Greek Text we have today is indeed a trustworthy representation of the original. He has also written several books. However, just as Jesus said it would be in the last days, very few are willing to receive Wallace’s testimony concerning the veracity of God’s Word.

Recently, Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace had an open debate which I highly recommend taking the time to carefully listen to. To me, rather than it being a matter of whether or not it is believable that we have an accurate representation of the original text, it all really boils down to the issue of whether or not one is willing to believe (Jn 5:38-40,46-47). Ultimately, we must all choose whether to follow the path of faith and trust or the path of doubt and unbelief.
The link to the debate is:
Ehrman vs Wallace - Can We Trust the Text of the NT?

by George Sidney Hurd
 
The doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ began to come under heavy criticism by Liberal theologians beginning in the late 19th century, only to be more vehemently opposed by Post-modern Progressives who often seek to villainize the doctrine, caricaturizing it with terms such as “cosmic child abuse” or “Jesus saving us from an angry Father.”
 
Penal Substitutionary Atonement simply means that Christ bore in His own person the just penalty due to us for Adam’s original sin and for all subsequent sins we would commit as our substitute on the cross. I consider the scriptural support for this doctrine in my blog: “Did Christ’s sacrifice on the cross change God’s attitude towards us?” and also in my book: “The Ways of God (As seen through the eyes of a Conservative Restorationist)”
 
However, in this blog my objective is to examine the historicity of the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The claim commonly made by the opponents of penal substitution is that the doctrine is the recent invention of the Reformer John Calvin’s legal mind. If this claim could be substantiated, it would certainly bring the validity of the doctrine into doubt, since we would at least expect to find indications that the early Post-Apostolic Fathers believed in it, being that they were so close in time to the original Apostles and their teachings.
 
While it is true that the Early Fathers had not yet formulated any of the various theories of the atonement we have today, all of the essential elements of penal substitution are present throughout their writings. The atonement to them was more broad than penal substitution, just as it is for the proponents of penal substitution today. Nevertheless, it was central to their understanding of the atonement.
 
Some opponents of penal substitution, ignoring the clear references made to it by the Fathers which we will be examining shortly, only cite other statements made by them which are more in line with our Christus Victor view of the atonement, as if that excluded penal substitution. Others cite the Father’s references to restorative justice, ignoring their many statements which clearly indicate that they also believed that Christ satisfied God’s legal justice as our substitute. The Early Fathers taught that Christ was victor over Satan and death, but they also taught that Christ bore the just penalty for our sins committed against a holy and just God. They also clearly taught restorative justice, but not at the expense of legal justice.
 
 The following are numerous quotes from the Early Church Fathers, all of which contain one or more essential elements of a penal substitutionary atonement. For a more extensive treatment of the subject I would recommend “Pierced for Our Transgressions”  coauthored by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach.
 
Clement of Rome (96 A.D.)
 
“Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.” [1]
 
In the Scriptures we see that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins before God (Heb 9:22; Lev 17:11). In the light of that, Clement here presents Jesus as shedding His own blood in our stead, just as was prefigured in the expiatorial lamb of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Here we see Christ suffering the penalty of death for us (penal substitution) by the will of God, thereby making atonement (Heb. kaphar, expiation) for our sins before God.
 
As a side note, our English word “atonement” is an unfortunate rendering of the Hebrew word kaphar,  which literally means “to cover,” but in the context of the sacrificial system means “to remove sin and guilt by sacrifice,” and is akin to propitiation which speaks of “a sacrifice which is satisfactory payment for an offense.”  On the other hand, “atonement” is a term which was coined in the 16th century from our English words: “at one + ment” which is more descriptive of the reconciliation brought about by the atoning sacrifice rather than the kaphar or expiatory sacrifice itself.
 
The error which has resulted from replacing expiation with the word “atonement” is that it has given place for some to divorce the blood sacrifice from it as though there could be forgiveness of sins and reconciliation without the need for the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28). In other languages it is more difficult to separate atonement from the sacrifice which makes reconciliation possible (ej: Latin, expiationem; Spanish, expiación; French, propitiation; Italian purgamento). These languages all correctly lay the emphasis upon the sacrifice itself, without which atonement or reconciliation would not be possible. Therefore, when we use our English word atonement, as in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, we must be careful not to think of reconciliation without the prior satisfaction of the justice of God through Christ’s shed blood.
 
Epistle of Barnabas (70-135 A.D.)
 
“For to this end their Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it was written concerning Him… ‘He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.” [2]
 
Here we see Christ presented as the substitutionary Lamb of God shedding His blood for our transgressions and iniquities, quoting from Isaiah 53 where it also says of His expiatorial sacrifice:
 
“it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin… 11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. (Isa 53:10,11)
 
 Why is the shedding of blood necessary in order for our sins to be remitted or forgiven before God? Because from the beginning – even before sin entered the world through Adam, God said that the wages of sin was death and the soul that sins shall die. When God instituted the blood sacrifices, He explained why the substitutionary shedding of blood was necessary for the remission of sins. He said: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement (expiation) for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement (expiation) for the soul.” (Lev 17:11).
 
Since the life is in the blood and God from the beginning said that the wages of sin was death, His justice and truth require the lifeblood of the sinner. The blood of animals was given to expiate the sins of the people. However, it was not possible that the blood of animals should take away their sins. Only the divine Lamb of God, who would give His own lifeblood once and for all, could actually take away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). The Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world according to the eternal plan of the triune God for the ages, fulfilled that which was prefigured in the Old Testament blood sacrifices (Rev 13:8).
 
There are some who would deny that the blood of Christ had any salvific value before God. They would say that the sacrificial system, which prefigures Christ’s once and for all sacrifice of Himself for all, was nothing more than a depraved invention of Moses who mistakenly thought that deities required blood for their appeasement. Yet, throughout the New Testament we see that it was established by God Himself, and found its fulfillment in Christ who shed His blood for the remission of sin, presenting it upon the heavenly mercy seat (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:12-15,23-28; 10:1-10). Those who would deny this are guilty of counting the blood of the covenant as a common thing and insulting the Spirit of grace (Heb 10:29).
 
Epistle to Diognetus (2nd century)
 
“He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous... For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” [3]
 
Here we see Christ giving Himself as a ransom for us, taking our transgressions upon Himself. He speaks of this substitution as a sweet exchange. This is a direct allusion to 2Corinthians 5:21 which says: “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
 
There are those who argue that the forensic, judicial or legal view of the atonement originated with Calvin. However, whenever we see reference to “transgressors” being “justified” in a “judgment,” whether in the Scriptures or in the Early Fathers, it is clearly referring to a legal or forensic transaction. A transgression by definition requires a law to transgress (Rom 4:15; 5:13). Transgressions, in turn, require judgment and its resulting “condemnation” which is another forensic term. That is why “justification,” or the verdict of “no condemnation” could only come through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ which satisfied the justice of God, thereby making it possible for God to remain just, while at the same time justifying sinners (Rom 3:23-26).
 
Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.)
 
“For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is everyone that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them’… If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of god.” [4]
 
Justin Martyr, making reference to Galatians 3:10, says that the whole human race was under the curse of the Law. The Law of God demands perfection. James said: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10). The curse is part of God’s Law rather than it being some curse from another source such as the devil.
 
Because of our disobedience we were all under God’s curse. This was by divine intent, not that man should be eternally cursed, but that we would come to see our need of God’s grace and mercy. Paul said: “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.” (Rom 11:32). In the appointed time, Jesus came and took our curse upon Himself as our substitute.  He suffered the penalty or curse due to us for our sins as our substitute – a clear statement of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement.
 
Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.)
 
“the Mediator between God and men; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling our disobedience by his own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker.”  [5]
“For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men [people], it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God he might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator.”  [6]
 
Here we see that, in addition to the fact that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, it is against God Himself whom we have sinned and therefore it is from Him that we must receive forgiveness. Additionally, we see that, in order for God to show compassion on us and forgive us, it was necessary that the Son of God should take to Himself the sins of humanity in order to suffer as our substitute, thereby cancelling our disobedience by His own obedience. While his emphasis on the recapitulation of all who fell in Adam through Christ, the Last Adam, was his greatest contribution, penal substitution is clearly stated here by Irenaeus as being that which made the recapitulation of all possible.
 
Eusebius of Caesarea (275-339 A.D.)
 
“Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world became a curse on our behalf… And the Lamb of God not only did this but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults and the dishonor which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.”  [7]
 
A clearer statement summarizing the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ could hardly be found, even in the writings of John Calvin. Christ became a curse on our behalf, suffering the just penalty for our sins, thereby enabling God to forgive us of our sins.
 
 
Eusebius of Emesa (300-360 A.D.)
 
“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed… His wounds became our saviors.” [8]
 
Here Eusebius quotes from 1Peter 2:24 which says, “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness — by whose stripes you were healed.” Peter here, in turn, draws from Isaiah 53, which clearly portrays Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement for our sins.
 
Hilary of Poitiers (300-368 A.D.)
 
“the sentence of a curse was pronounced on all who broke the Law… It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written: cursed is everyone that hangs upon a tree. Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed.”  [9]
 
Here again we see Christ redeeming us from the legal sentence of God’s curse for having broken His Law. Christ is presented as having offered Himself up to God the Father and not to the devil, as some versions of Christus Victor would have us believe.
 
Athanasius (300-373 A.D.)
 
“He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men.” [10]
“It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required.” [11]
“Formerly, the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law, but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all.” [12]
“For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘ Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood.’” [13]   
 
Contrary to the distorted depictions of the opponents of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement where God is presented as an angry Father murdering His Son after using Him as a whipping boy, we see that Christ took on Himself our judgment, suffering in our place out of sheer love for us. The wrath of God against sin was shared equally by all members of the trinity and was not merely the wrath of the Father. And it was out of the love of the triune God for us that the offering for sin was made. It was God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself and not a loving Savior saving us from an angry vengeful Father, as it is often blasphemously depicted by the opponents of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
 
Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.)
 
“By the blood of Christ, through faith, we have been cleansed from all sin.” [14]
 
This statement is based upon passages such as Matthew 26:28 which says, “this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,” and Hebrews 9:22: “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” If God could simply forgive without first satisfying His justice, then Christ’s death would have been in vain. And to say that His blood has no power to remit our sins is tantamount to counting the blood of Christ as a common thing (Heb 10:29; 2Pet 2:1).
 
Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390 A.D.)
 
“for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse and sin – who taketh away the sin of the world. And became a new Adam to take the place of the old. Just so, He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body.” [15]
 
Here again, we clearly see Christ suffering the curse in our place for our disobedience as our representative Head.
 
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.)
 
“Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree… You will not allow that He was cursed for us because you will not allow that He died for us. Exemption from Adam’s curse implies exemption from his death. But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was…He submitted as man and for man, to bear the curse which accomplishes death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.”  [16]
“For then that blood, since it was His who had no sin at all, was poured out for the remission of our sins.”  [17]
“For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.” [18]
“Now, as men were lying under this wrath by reason of their original sin, and as this original sin was the more heavy and deadly in proportion to the number and magnitude of the actual sins which were added to it, there was need for a Mediator, that is, for a reconciler, who, by the offering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law and the prophets were types, should take away this wrath. Wherefore the apostle says: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."  Now when God is said to be angry, we do not attribute to Him such a disturbed feeling as exists in the mind of an angry man; but we call His just displeasure against sin by the name "anger," a word transferred by analogy from human emotions. But our being reconciled to God through a Mediator, and receiving the Holy Spirit, so that we who were enemies are made sons ("For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"): this is the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [19]
 
Augustine presents man as being under the wrath of God because of their sins. Being in this state and under the curse of the Law, Christ bore our curse by hanging on a tree and being punished in our place for the remission of our sins. Without discounting other theories such as the Christus Victor and Moral Example, this language is the language of Penal Substitutionary Atonement alone. And without denying the fact that God’s justice is ultimately restorative and not purely punitive, these quotes from the Fathers refer to Christ as having born our penal judgment. Only after having been justified through Christ’s atoning sacrifice can restoration take place.
 
Cyril of Alexandria (378-444 A.D.)
 
“The Only-begotten was made man, bore a body  by nature at enmity with death, and became flesh, so that, enduring the death which was hanging over us as the result of our sin, He might abolish sin; and further, that He might put an end to the accusations of Satan, inasmuch as we have paid in Christ Himself the penalties for the charges of sin against us: ‘For he bore our sins, and was wounded because of us,’ according to the voice of the prophet. Or are we not healed by His wounds?” [20]
 
Cyril says that Christ bore the penalty for our sins, abolishing them. That amounts to penal substitution.
 
Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.)
 
“When then the first man was moved by Satan from the Lord, then the Lord was moved against the second Man… who being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, and yet being without offense took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal.” [21]
 
The Lord is said to have been moved against Christ the second Man while He Himself received the punishment due to us.
 
Severus of Antioch (512 A.D.)
 
“The one who offered Himself for our sins had no sin of His own. Instead He bore our transgressions in Himself and was made a sacrifice for them. This principal is set out in the Law.” [22]
 
Here we see the legal forensic nature of the atonement of Christ clearly stated. He bore in Himself our transgressions as was prescribed in the Law.
 
Oecumenius (990 A.D.)
 
“So great was His passion that however often human beings may sin, that one act of suffering is sufficient to take away all our transgressions.” [23]
 
Other quotes from the Early Fathers could be cited, but these should be sufficient to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Fathers uniformly believed in the penal substitutionary death of Christ. While they also believed in elements of other theories, the fact that Christ suffered the penalty for our sins, thereby making it possible for God to be just and at the same time justify sinners and forgive sins, was always central to their beliefs. Therefore, the allegation that it was an invention of John Calvin’s legal mind is unfounded.


[1] Clement, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 49, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:18
 

[2] Epistle of Barnabas 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:139
 

[3] Mathetes, The Epistle to Diognetus 9, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:28
 

[4] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 95, Ante Nicene Fathers 1:247
 

[5] Irenaeus, against heresies 5.17.1, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers 1 (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979 [1885]). see also 4.8.2 where in performing the offices of the high priest Christ “propitiates” God for people.
 

[6] Ibid., 5.17.3
 

[7] Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangélica 10.1 trans. W.J. Ferrar,
http:www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.html
 

[8] Ibid
 

[9] Hillary, Homilies on the Psalms 13, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2, ed. Philip Schaff, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 9:246
 

[10] Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, trans, and ed., A Religious of C.C.M.V., Intro. By C.C. Lewis (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 34
 

[11] Ibid., 35
 

[12] Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2 4:341
 

[13] Ibid., 2 4:374
 

[14] Basil, On Baptism, in ACCS NT XI, 96
 

[15] Gregory, The Fourth Theological Oration 5, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2 7:311
 

[16] Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 6, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1 4:209
 

[17] Augustine, “On the Trinity” 15, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1 3:177
 

[18] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Volume 8, §10
Cyril of Alexandria (378-444 A.D.)
 

[19] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Volume 3, Chapter 33
 

[20] Cyril, De atoratione et cultu in spiritu et verita te iii, 100-102, in JP. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca, vol. 68 (Paris, 1857) 293,296
 

[21] Gregory, Morals of the Book of Job, in Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (London: Oxford, 1844) 1:148
 

[22] Severus of Antioch, Catena, in ACCS NT XI, 96
 

[23] Oecumenius, Commentary on 1Peter, in ACCS NT XI. 107
  
by George Sidney Hurd
 
The doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ began to come under heavy criticism by Liberal theologians beginning in the late 19th century, only to be more vehemently opposed by Post-modern Progressives who often seek to villainize the doctrine, caricaturizing it with terms such as “cosmic child abuse” or “Jesus saving us from an angry Father.”
 
Penal Substitutionary Atonement simply means that Christ bore in His own person the just penalty due to us for Adam’s original sin and for all subsequent sins we would commit as our substitute on the cross. I consider the scriptural support for this doctrine in my blog: “Did Christ’s sacrifice on the cross change God’s attitude towards us?” and also in my book: “The Ways of God (As seen through the eyes of a Conservative Restorationist)”
 
However, in this blog my objective is to examine the historicity of the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The claim commonly made by the opponents of penal substitution is that the doctrine is the recent invention of the Reformer John Calvin’s legal mind. If this claim could be substantiated, it would certainly bring the validity of the doctrine into doubt, since we would at least expect to find indications that the early Post-Apostolic Fathers believed in it, being that they were so close in time to the original Apostles and their teachings.
 
While it is true that the Early Fathers had not yet formulated any of the various theories of the atonement we have today, all of the essential elements of penal substitution are present throughout their writings. The atonement to them was more broad than penal substitution, just as it is for the proponents of penal substitution today. Nevertheless, it was central to their understanding of the atonement.
 
Some opponents of penal substitution, ignoring the clear references to it made by the Fathers which we will be examining shortly, only cite other statements made by them which are more in line with our Christus Victor view of the atonement, as if that excluded penal substitution. Others cite the Father’s references to restorative justice, ignoring their many statements which clearly indicate that they also believed that Christ satisfied God’s legal justice as our substitute. The Early Fathers taught that Christ was victor over Satan and death, but they also taught that Christ bore the just penalty for our sins committed against a holy and just God. They also clearly taught restorative justice, but not at the expense of legal justice.
 
 The following are numerous quotes from the Early Church Fathers, all of which contain one or more essential elements of a penal substitutionary atonement. For a more extensive treatment of the subject I would recommend “Pierced for Our Transgressions”  coauthored by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach.
 
Clement of Rome (96 A.D.)
 
“Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.” [1]
 
In the Scriptures we see that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins before God (Heb 9:22; Lev 17:11). In the light of that, Clement here presents Jesus as shedding His own blood in our stead, just as was prefigured in the expiatorial lamb of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Here we see Christ suffering the penalty of death for us (penal substitution), thereby making atonement (Heb. kaphar, expiation) for our sins before God.
 
As a side note, our English word “atonement” is an unfortunate rendering of the Hebrew word kaphar,  which literally means “to cover,” but in the context of the sacrificial system means “to remove sin and guilt by sacrifice,” and is akin to propitiation which speaks of “a sacrifice which is satisfactory payment for an offense.”  On the other hand, “atonement” is a term which was coined in the 16th century from our English words: “at one + ment” which is more descriptive of the reconciliation brought about by the atoning sacrifice rather than the kaphar or expiatory sacrifice itself.
 
The error which has resulted from replacing expiation with the word “atonement” is that it has given place for some to divorce the blood sacrifice from it as though there could be forgiveness of sins and reconciliation without the need for the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28). In other languages it is more difficult to separate atonement from the sacrifice which makes reconciliation possible (ej: Latin, expiationem; Spanish, expiación; French, propitiation; Italian purgamento). These languages all correctly lay the emphasis upon the sacrifice itself, without which atonement or reconciliation would not be possible. Therefore, when we use our English word atonement, as in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, we must be careful not to think of reconciliation without the prior satisfaction of the justice of God through Christ’s shed blood.
 
Epistle of Barnabas (70-135 A.D.)
 
“For to this end their Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. For it was written concerning Him… ‘He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.” [2]
 
Here we see Christ presented as the substitutionary Lamb of God shedding His blood for our transgressions and iniquities, quoting from Isaiah 53 where it also says of His expiatorial sacrifice:
 
“it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin… 11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. (Isa 53:10,11)
 
 Why is the shedding of blood necessary in order for our sins to be remitted or forgiven before God? Because from the beginning – even before sin entered the world through Adam, God said that the wages of sin was death and the soul that sins shall die. When God instituted the blood sacrifices, He explained why the substitutionary shedding of blood was necessary for the remission of sins. He said: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement (expiation) for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement (expiation) for the soul.” (Lev 17:11).
 
Since the life is in the blood and God from the beginning said that the wages of sin was death, His justice and truth require the lifeblood of the sinner. The blood of animals was given to expiate the sins of the people. However, it was not possible that the blood of animals should take away their sins. Only the divine Lamb of God, who would give His own lifeblood once and for all,https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev+15%3A3-4&version=RVR1960 could actually take away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). The Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world according to the eternal plan of the triune God for the ages, fulfilled that which was prefigured in the Old Testament blood sacrifices (Rev 13:8).
 
There are some who would deny that the blood of Christ had any salvific value before God. They would say that the sacrificial system, which prefigures Christ’s once and for all sacrifice of Himself for all, was nothing more than a depraved invention of Moses who mistakenly thought that deities required blood for their appeasement. Yet, throughout the New Testament we see that it was established by God Himself, and found its fulfillment in Christ who shed His blood for the remission of sin, presenting it upon the heavenly mercy seat (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:12-15,23-28; 10:1-10). Those who would deny this are guilty of counting the blood of the covenant as a common thing and insulting the Spirit of grace (Heb 10:29).
 
Epistle to Diognetus (2nd century)
 
“He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous... For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

by George Sidney Hurd

“And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. 11 He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.” (Rev 22:10-11)
 
 
These closing words finalizing the book of Revelation have been enigmatic to many from all camps, whether they be Calvinists, Arminians or Universalists. For many years I puzzled over its proper application until just recently when it all became clear to my understanding.  In this brief blog I will attempt to share with you what I believe it is saying.
 
To me, the key to understanding its application was to put it in its proper context. From a child I was taught to read it as something future as if it was saying, “for the time is coming when he who is unjust will be unjust still, etc.” Many commentaries I consulted also interpreted it as though it referred to the future. Out of forty commentaries, twenty-one of them understood it as meaning that one’s state will be permanently fixed at a certain point in the future. Thirteen of them saw it as applicable in the present, whereas six were noncommittal. However, in the context the angel was speaking to John concerning the way in which believers at that time were to relate to those who obstinately resist the truth and persist in an ungodly lifestyle. It is simply saying, “the time is short. Let them be...”
 
The angel said, “the time is at hand.” Many are scandalized by this since nearly 2,000 years have gone by and the time has not yet come. However, by divine intent it is not for us to know the times and the seasons which the Father has appointed, but rather, each generation is to live and labor with the expectation that they may be the final generation who lives to see Christ’s return (Acts 1:7-8; Matt 25:8; Rev 3:11; 22:7,12; Luke 12:42-46; 2Tim 4:8). I explain this with more detail in my book “Last Days, Past or Present?” Just as Peter prophesied, today there are many who mock believers who still live in the expectation of Christ’s soon return (2Peter 3:3,9). Jude warns us that many of these mockers will actually come from within the churches, causing divisions (Jude 1:4,16-19).
 
In essence, the angel said to John: “The time is too short to allow yourselves to become distracted by the obstinate sinners and detractors who despise God’s precious Word in order to justify their ungodly lifestyle. Rather than casting your pearls before the swine, when it becomes evident that they do not want to retain the knowledge of God, let them go their way. Focus your energies instead on living a life of purity and righteousness before them.”
 
Meditating upon this passage, I was reminded of the man called Obstinate in Pilgrim’s Progress who went after Christian and Pliable to try to persuade them to return to the city of Destruction. Here I quote the conversation they had with him in the way:
 
Obstinate: “What are the things you seek, since you leave all the World to find them?”
Christian: “I seek an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away; and it is laid up in heaven, and safe there, to be bestowed, at the time appointed, on them that diligently seek it. Read it so, if you will, in my Book.”
 
Obstinate: “Tush.” “Away with your Book! Will you go back with us, or no?”
Christian: “No, not I, because I have laid my hand to the Plough.”
Obstinate: “Come then, neighbor Pliable, let us turn again, and go home without him. There is a Company of these crazed-headed coxcombs, that when they take a fancy by the end, are wiser in their own eyes than seven men that can render a Reason.”
Pliable: “Don't revile. If what good Christian says is true, the things he looks after are better than ours. My heart inclines to go with my Neighbor.”
Obstinate: “What! More Fools still? Be ruled by me, and go back; who knows whither such a brain-sick fellow will lead you? Go back, go back and be wise.”
Christian: “Nay, but do thou come with me, neighbor Pliable; there are such things to be had which I spoke of, and many more glories besides; if you believe not me, read here in the Book, and for the truth of what is expressed therein, behold all is confirmed by the Blood of him that made it.”
Pliable: “Well, neighbor Obstinate, I begin to come to a point, I intend to go along with this good man, and to cast in my Lot with him. But, my good companion, do you know the way to this desired place?”
Christian: “I am directed by a man whose name is Evangelist, to speed me to a little Gate that is before us, where we shall receive instructions about the Way.”
Pliable: “Come then, good neighbor, let us be going. Then they went both together.”
Obstinate: “And I will go back to my place. I will be no companion of such misled fantastical fellows.”
 
I believe that the angel was telling John the revelator that we are to let the “Obstinates” we meet along the path go their own way. Once it becomes evident that they have no heart for God and despise His Word, rather than continuing to insist, we are to let them continue on their own way. On the other hand, we ourselves are to focus upon a life of purity and holiness before God and others in order that even the Obstinates we meet along the way may glorify God in the day of their visitation (1Peter 2:12). Rightly understood, it is referring to something that we are to do, rather than something which God will do. It is in the imperative mood, “(you) let him be unjust still…” It doesn’t refer to some future eschatological abandonment by God. Contrary to what many affirm, God does not abandon anyone forever. Jeremiah says:
 
“For the Lord will not cast off for ever: 32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. 33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33)
 
Having said that, nevertheless God Himself will often cast off or reject the obstinately wicked for a time in judgment. However, the end of the Lord is always good. Before Jerusalem was sieged and its inhabitants taken into captivity in Babylon because they persisted in their wicked ways, the Lord said to them:
 
“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon… 10 After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (Jer 29:4,10-11)
 
We here see that even though God delivered them over to the enemy and sent them into captivity for 70 years, He did not cast them off forever and His plans for them were good, always with a view to their final restoration. If we want to have the Lord’s heart towards all mankind we must look beyond the severity of His judgments and see that the end result is good – it ends in restoration, not eternal rejection. As James said: “You have seen the end of the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful.” (James 5:11 ASV)
 
The companion passage which appears in the book of Daniel sheds more light on the nature of these individuals and how we are to relate to them. They are seen to be blinded to the truth because sin and darkness has blinded their understanding. In Daniel’s day he was told to seal up the vision because the time had not yet come, whereas the angel said to John: "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.” Both speak of the same groups of individuals that will be present in that day:
 
“And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.” (Dan 12:9-10)
 
These two passages complement one another. Daniel says that the wicked will not understand revelation even if we try to explain it to them. In Revelation it says of the same individuals: “let them go their way.” Paul said something very similar concerning the times we are living in. He said:
 
“Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For THE TIME WILL COME when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 BUT YOU be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” (2 Tim 4:2-5)
 
Paul explains that in the last days God will release a deluding influence upon those who do not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved:
 
“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And FOR THIS REASON God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Thess 2:8-12 cf. Rom 1:28)
 
So here we see that, since they did not receive the love of the truth in order to be saved – choosing rather to continue in their unrighteous lifestyle, God in judgment gives them over to a strong deluding influence, causing them to believe the lie of Satan. In Daniel it again speaks of the same individuals who will be deceived in the last days by the Antichrist:
 
“Forces from him (the Antichrist) shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. 32 He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. 33 And the wise among the people shall make many understand.” (Dan 11:31-33 ESV)
 
Through the use of flattering speech (ie. smooth deceitful words) the spirit of deception operating in the time of the Antichrist will seduce all those who do not love the truth of God’s Word and take pleasure in unrighteousness.  Jesus said that if possible, even the elect would be deceived during this time (Matt 24:24). This implies that the deception will be so subtle and persuasive that it will even confuse for a time some of the very elect.  Yet the elect – those who truly know their God, will be strengthened and will be mobilized by the Spirit of God. They will be instrumental in bringing many into an understanding of God’s truth, resulting in an innumerable multitude escaping the deception of the Antichrist and being saved during the Great Tribulation (Rev 7:14).
 
Seeing our passage in Revelation 22:10-11 in the light of the passages in Daniel, we see that they are both referring to the same individuals who, because they refuse to retain the knowledge of God, will be given over to a debased mind and vile passions. God does not obligate man to bow in adoration. He seeks those who voluntarily worship Him in spirit and truth (Jn 4:23-24). Paul in Romans describes how God abandons those who persistently resist the knowledge of Him in order to continue living in their own lusts:
 
“who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 FOR THIS REASON God GAVE THEM UP to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased (adókimos, “disapproved, rejected, reprobate”) mind, to do those things which are not fitting.” (Rom 1:25-28)
 
When an individual obstinately rejects the knowledge of God, walking instead after their own desires, He simply delivers them over to the lusts of their own heart and the power of the enemy who always seeks his opportunity to wreak havoc in our lives (1Cor 5:5; 1Tim 1:20; 1Peter 5:8).
 
When Paul said that “God gave them over to a debased mind,” the word here translated as “debased” is adókimos, which is the opposite of dókimos meaning “approved.” The word dókimos and its cognates are terms commonly used in the context of the refining of precious metals. [1] The desire of the Master Refiner is to find purity in us rather than dross or scum. If the refiner puts the metal to the test and it is still full of impurities, it is set aside as adókimos or “disapproved.” However, the disapproved metal still contains that which is precious to the refiner. Although it is disapproved, it is not discarded as worthless. Rather it is set aside for the refiners “lake of fire” or crucible. I deal with this subject in more detail in my blogs: Is there Hope for Reprobates? and “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.”  
 
Six of the eight times adókimos is used in the New Testament it is translated as “reprobate” in the King James Version instead of “disapproved,” which is unfortunate due to the picture “reprobate” paints in the religious mind. Often when we hear the word “reprobate” applied to an individual we think there is no hope for that person. However, in the context of the refiner it simply means that it is set aside for further purification in the fire. God’s chosen people Israel were once in that condition as we see described in Ezekiel:
 
“The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 18 ‘Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to Me; they are all bronze, tin, iron, and lead, in the midst of a furnace; they have become dross from silver.’ 19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Because you have all become dross, therefore behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 20 As men gather silver, bronze, iron, lead, and tin into the midst of a furnace, to blow fire on it, to melt it; so I will gather you in My anger and in My fury, and I will leave you there and melt you. 21 Yes, I will gather you and blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and you shall be melted in its midst. 22 As silver is melted in the midst of a furnace, so shall you be melted in its midst; then you shall know that I, the Lord, have poured out My fury on you.’” (Ezek 22:17-22)
 
This is what the Lord must do in order to purify the disapproved (adókimos). However, this does not speak of eternal rejection in the sense of unending. The fifth verse of the hymn, “How Firm a Foundation,” communicates a truth that many fail to see:
 
“When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not harm thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.”
 
The fire only continues until the dross is consumed and we come forth as pure gold. As severe as the furnace of fire was for Israel, it culminates in their final restoration as we see a few chapters later:
 
“For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezek 36:24-26)
 
So, the message of Revelation 22:10,11, “He who is unjust, let him be unjust still,” is not saying that one’s destiny is eternally fixed at a future point in time, as many have understood it.  In his concluding remarks the angel tells us to let go of people who are determined to go their own way and focus rather upon a life of purity and holiness in order that, even if they do not receive the word, they may later be won over by your godly conduct on the day of their visitation (1Peter 2:12; 3:1-2).
 
We shouldn’t waste our time and energy trying to pick unripe fruit or trying to force the precious truths of God’s Holy Word upon those who persistently despise and profane them (2Tim 3:15-17). Jesus expressed the folly of this endeavor in words stronger than most would choose in today’s politically correct society. He said:
 
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” (Matt 7:6)
 
Paul likewise did not spare words, telling us to avoid those who always resist the truth – especially in the latter days when the departure from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints will be so prevalent:
 
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved (adókimos) concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.” (2 Tim 3:1-9)
 
Paul said in like manner as the angel said to John in Revelation 22:10,11, that the time is at hand and therefore we should turn away from those who are always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth – those who always resist the truth and are disapproved concerning the faith. If there was ever a time when we should heed these words, it is now!
 


[1] NT:96, adókimos – “not standing the test, not approved; properly of metals and coin” Thayer's Greek Lexicon, 

 The Scriptural Arguments
by George Sidney Hurd
 
Having considered the moral and logical problems presented by the belief in reincarnation, we can now consider some of the passages of Scripture presented in support of this theory.
 
Some claim that most references to reincarnation were removed from the New Testament by the Roman Church in the fifth and sixth century but without any substantial supporting evidence. In fact, manuscript evidence predating the fifth century would contradict that theory.
 
Additionally, we also see the hope of the resurrection in the Old Testament Scriptures. In Genesis 3:19 God said to Adam, “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” However, from the earliest recorded times we see the hope of the resurrection. The book of Job is believed to be the first book of the Bible to have been written. Job clearly expresses an expectation of the resurrection in the final day. He said:
 
“Oh, that You would hide me in the grave, that You would conceal me until Your wrath is past, that You would appoint me a set time, and remember me! 14 If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait, till my change comes.” (Job 14:13-14)
 
Job, in his extreme suffering, wished to die and remain hidden in hades until God’s set time came to resurrect him. Some proponents of reincarnation would argue that “till my change comes” refers to reincarnation and not resurrection. I will consider the meaning of the Greek words pálin gínomai used here in the LXX, which literally mean “to become again,” later. For the moment I would just like to emphasize that there is no record of any belief in reincarnation prior to 1100 B.C. and Job predates that by at least five hundred years. Furthermore, in continuation it becomes even more evident that Job’s expectation was to be resurrected on the final day when he would be raised into God’s presence. He said:
 
“For I know that my Redeemer lives, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. 26 And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God. 27 Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another: this my hope is laid up in my bosom.” (Job 19:25-27 DRB)
 
Clearly, Job was longing for a bodily resurrection in the final day rather than anticipating a reincarnation. His hope was to see God in a resurrected body of flesh. When we get to the book of Daniel the resurrection is clearly presented as occurring after the Great Tribulation:
 
“And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.” (Dan 12:1-3)
 
Here we see the resurrection taking place at the end of the Great Tribulation, which would be at Christ’s Second Coming, just as Jesus Himself explains (Matt 24:29-31). Those who would claim that the Roman Church filtered out references to reincarnation have the problem of explaining why the Jewish Old Testament also contains references to resurrection rather than reincarnation. These references cannot be misconstrued as reincarnations since it is a collective resurrection rather than individual. Isaiah also speaks of this joint resurrection:
 
“Your dead shall live; TOGETHER with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in dust; for your dew is like the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” (Isa 26:19)
 
These Old Testament references all speak of a collective bodily resurrection unto physical immortality, just as we see set forth in the New Testament. Paul says, “But someone will say, ‘How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" (1Cor 15:35). He goes on to explain that it is a spiritual incorruptible body, not of the dust of the ground like our present body, but a real body nonetheless (1Cor 15:44-45,48).
 
Some, not understanding that our glorified body is a spiritual body, think that God needs our original body’s dust in order to raise us. For this reason, the Roman Church would at times burn the bodies of “heretics” (often the true saints) and cast their ashes into the river, thinking that would prevent God from resurrecting them. Likewise, some atheists have their ashes cast into the sea for good measure just in case. But our new body will not be of dust.
 
Paul said that it would be a body just like the glorified body of Christ which could materialize or dematerialize, and yet Jesus said His body wasn’t a ghost but had flesh and bones (1Cor 15:48-49; 1Jn 3:2; Luke 24:36-43). Jesus said that we will be like the angels who are spirits, yet they can also appear in tangible flesh-and-bone bodies (Matt 22:30; Heb 13:2; Gen 18:2 cf. 19:1; Judg 13:15).
 
While, as we shall see, the New Testament implies that some erroneously believed in reincarnation during the time of Christ’s ministry, the overall teaching of both the Old and New Testaments clearly teach only one resurrection followed by judgment. Jesus said:
 
“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” (John 5:28-29)
 
In Jesus’ teaching, the resurrection is frequently mentioned, but not once does He even allude to the possibility of multiple reincarnations (Matt 12:25-26; 22:30; 24:29; Luke 20:37; Jn 11:24-25). In New Testament times there were only two major sects of the Jews – the Pharisees who believed in a bodily resurrection at the end of the age and the Sadducees who denied the resurrection.
 
While there were a few Jewish mystics at that time who believed in reincarnation through the combined influence of Plato and Eastern mysticism, the esoteric teaching concerning reincarnation of the Kabbalistic Jews of our day didn’t arise until the 13th century.
 
While the belief in reincarnation is indirectly referred to in the New Testament, it nevertheless uniformly teaches resurrection and not reincarnation. Paul, in his defense before the council, said that he was being tried for “the hope and resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6-8). Reincarnation would have been vehemently rejected in that Jewish council.  When Paul spoke before the men of Athens concerning the resurrection of the dead they mocked him (Acts 17:32). The Platonic belief in reincarnation was respected in Athens at that time so they wouldn’t have been mocking him for teaching concerning reincarnation.
 
One passage which I briefly mentioned in the previous blog particularly and specifically excludes any concept of reincarnation:
 
“And as it is appointed for men to die ONCE (hapax “once numerically or conclusively, once and for all”), but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered ONCE (hapax “once and for all”) to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” (Heb 9:27-28)
 
The Scriptures uniformly present physical death as a one-time event. Even as man dies once and then must face judgment, so Christ died once in our place, bearing in Himself the just judgment or condemnation due to us. As Peter says: “Christ also suffered once (hapax “once numerically or conclusively, once and for all.”) for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.” (1Peter 3:18). He suffered and died for our sins once and for all. Therefore, those who are united with Christ through faith in this life will not face a condemnatory judgment when they die (Jn 5:24; 5:29; Rom 8:1).
 
The rest will be judged according to their works and will receive their part in the purifying Lake of Fire which is the second death (Rev 20:13-15; 21:8; 2:11). I examine what is meant by the Lake of Fire in my blog, “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.” Those who do not die to the flesh and the independent self-life in this life will be purified in the fire of affliction called the Lake of Fire rather than by ages of repeated reincarnations.
 
Terms mistaken for Reincarnation 

1)    Regeneration (poliggenesía) 

“So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration (poliggenesia), when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.  30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” (Matt 19:28-30)
 
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration (poliggenesía) and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:5-7)
 
“If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait, till my change comes. (LXX pálin gínomai “to become again”). (Job 14:14)
 
The word poliggenesía is made up of the word pálin meaning “again” and génesis which means “origin or birth.” It only appears twice in the Bible and both instances are in the New Testament. In the LXX Greek translation of the Old Testament it only appears once and as two separate words in Job 14:14. Some argue that poliggenesía means reincarnation. However, in secular literature during biblical times it carried two different meanings, depending on the context in which it appeared, but neither usage implied reincarnation. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel) says the following concerning its meaning:
 
“The word first seems to have acquired significance in Stoicism and its doctrine of the renewal of the world following the ekpúrosis (purification by fire)… In a fragment of Terentius Varro (in Aug. Civ. D., 22, 28) poliggenesía is used for the new birth of individuals in a new period of the world, and this is accepted as the general Gk. usage. Thus the word has an individual as well as the original cosmic sense… It should be noted in this connection that in both Stoicism and Judaism poliggenesía lies in the future. In the former it follows the future ekpúrosis; in the latter it belongs to the future judgment.” (emphasis mine) [1]
 
So, we see that in the extrabiblical literature of that time the word could refer to the future restoration of the world, or the future resurrection or the rebirth of individuals. In Matthew 19:28 Jesus is clearly using the word in its Stoic sense referring to the renewal of the earth. [2] In Titus 3:5 it refers to our spiritual regeneration. In neither instance is it referring to a physical reincarnation as some have argued.
 
2)    Born again (genáo ánothen, anagenáo) 

“Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again (genethe ánothen), he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"  5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again (genethenai ánothen).  8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (Jn 3:3-8)
 
Some have interpreted Jesus’s words, “you must be born again” as meaning that we must reincarnate. However, there are at least two reasons why Jesus could not have been referring to reincarnation. In the first place, ánothen is from ano which primarily means “up.” It is not simply another birth but a birth from above. For this reason, several translations either render it as “born from above” or else include that alternate reading in the footnote.
 
Secondly, the new birth is not a physical birth as was our first birth. Nicodemus was confused concerning this in a manner similar to that of the reincarnationists. He asked Jesus: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” The idea of reincarnation didn’t even enter into Nicodemus’ mind. But similar to the reincarnationists, he was confused, thinking that Jesus was speaking of a physical birth. If reincarnation was even a consideration for Nicodemus, he wouldn’t have responded in such a confused manner, asking how he could possibly enter again into his own mother’s womb.
 
Jesus answered saying that it is not the body which must be reborn, but rather the spirit of man. He said: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” When we were born the first time it was by the seed of man or of the flesh, but when we are born again it is our spirit which is born by the seed of God who is Spirit. As Peter says:
 
“having been born again (anagenáo), not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.” (1Peter 1:23)
 
When we were spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins, God made us alive (Eph 2:1,5). This is referring to spiritual birth, not physical. Our spirits became alive with the eternal life of Christ who is now our life and we are therefore one spirit with Him (1Cor 6:17). This is something way more glorious than reincarnating or even reaching the state of Brahman where one is said to lose their personal identity becoming one with the impersonal cosmic consciousness!
 
Did Jesus teach Reincarnation? 

Some have supposed that Jesus taught reincarnation on a couple of occasions. We will briefly consider these passages.
 
The Man Born Blind 

“Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ 3 Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.’” (Jn 9:1-3)
 
The question asked by the disciples of Jesus implies that they believed in reincarnation. The only way a man could be born blind because of his own sin is to have lived prior to his birth. However, rather than going into a whole discourse in order to dispel their erroneous belief in reincarnation, He simply corrected them saying: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned.”
 
There was much folklore and superstition among the uneducated classes like the disciples, just as there is in some regions today. As we have already seen, Jesus taught concerning resurrection – not reincarnation. The fact that He didn’t intervene, giving them a discourse concerning the resurrection at that moment shouldn’t be taken as proof that He believed in reincarnation. When they saw Jesus walking on the water and the disciples cried out saying that He was a ghost and Jesus simply said, “Don’t be afraid, it is I,” by saying that, we shouldn’t assume that Jesus therefore believed in ghosts and apparitions in the same manner as the disciples (Matt 14:26-27). Much of Scripture should be understood as descriptive rather than prescriptive. The actual teachings of Jesus rule out reincarnation rather than affirming it.
 
Elijah and John the Baptist 

Contrary to what many who seek to find reincarnation in the Bible affirm, John the Baptist is nowhere said to be the reincarnation of Elijah. The children of Israel were anticipating the coming of Elijah because it was prophesied in Malachi 4:5 that he would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
 
Elijah is a unique case since, due to the fall, it is appointed unto man to die, yet he was taken into heaven without seeing death (Heb 9:27; 2Kings 2:11). This may be one of the reasons why he will be sent in the last days to prepare the way for the coming of Christ which will initiate the day of the Lord. In all probability he will be one of the two witnesses during the Great Tribulation who will be martyred but will be resurrected after three days and caught up into heaven (Rev 11:3-12).
 
Some have concluded that John the Baptist was Elijah because the angel who announced his birth to his father said that he would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” However, seeing these words in their context it becomes clear that it was referring to the anointing that would be upon him and the ministry he would fulfill, rather than being an actual reincarnation of Elijah’s spirit. The angel said:
 
“He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him IN THE SPIRIT AND POWER OF Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:15-17)
 
God anointed Elijah with power and authority in order to turn the hearts of the Israelites away from their idolatries back to Himself. In the same manner, John the Baptist was anointed with the spirit and power which rested upon Elijah. It is the same spirit that Elisha asked to receive just before Elijah was taken up:
 
“And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, ‘Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?’ Elisha said, ‘Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.’” (2 Kings 2:9)
 
Here we see Elisha asking Elijah that a double portion of his spirit be upon him when Elijah was taken into heaven. On this occasion it is very clear that the spirit of Elijah being upon Elisha didn’t refer to a reincarnation since they were both living at the time and the spirit of Elijah was something which came upon Elisha the very moment that Elijah was taken up into heaven.
 
That the “spirit and power of Elijah” is not to be understood as Elijah himself reincarnated is made even clearer when the Jews asked John whether or not he was Elijah and he responded, “I am not” (Jn 1:21). When they kept insisting that he tell them who he was he simply said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: make straight the way of the Lord” (John 1:23 cf. Luke 7:27). So, rather than the spirit and power of Elijah having reference to reincarnation, it spoke of a particular anointing for a ministry similar to that of Elijah.
 
What confuses some is the statement of Jesus concerning John the Baptist when He said: “And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Matt 11:14-15). Here we see Jesus saying that if Israel had been willing to receive it, John would have been Elijah who was to come to prepare the way for their Messiah/King. However, within a few days Herod their king beheaded him and when Christ formally presented Himself as Israel’s Messiah/King they rejected His offer and the kingdom was then taken from them and given to the Gentiles (Luke 19:37-44).
 
The reason Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let Him hear” in reference to John being Elijah is because Jesus knew all along that Israel was not going to receive John’s message and that they were going to reject Him and crucify their King and Messiah. His first coming was as their Savior – His Second Coming will be to reign over them as their King of kings when they finally welcome Him saying: “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt 23:39). Because they did not receive Him, John was not Elijah – Elijah is yet to come, just as Jesus later explained to Peter, James and John as they descended from the mount of transfiguration where Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah:
 
“And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ 11 Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah IS COMING first and will restore all things.  12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.’  13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.” (Matt 17:10-13)
 
When they saw Elijah talking with Jesus, they realized that Elijah wasn’t the John the Baptist they had known. Believing that Elijah had to come before the Christ, they asked the question, “why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” It wasn’t until Jesus explained to them that John the Baptist would have fulfilled the role of Elijah if they had received his message, that they understood that Elijah was yet to come.
 
Admittedly, this can seem rather confusing. That is why Jesus said they would have to be attentive in order to understand (Matt 11:15). John the Baptist came in “the spirit and power of Elijah” and yet John himself said that he wasn’t Elijah. Jesus told the Jews that John was Elijah “if they would receive it” but they didn’t, and so the kingdom was taken from them and given to another until such a time as they would receive Him (Matt 23:39; Rom 11:25-26).  
 
Therefore, while some may attempt to read reincarnation into the Scriptures, upon closer examination it becomes evident that, although some mystic Jews may have believed in it, the Scriptures clearly teach that one lives and dies only once and then awaits a future resurrection unto judgment.
 
Often the reason that people want to find reincarnation in the Scriptures rather than accepting the doctrine of the resurrection is that they do not want to have to face judgment before God after death. However, the solution is not to deny the resurrection, but to receive Christ as one’s Savior and Lord, since He was delivered up because of our offenses and was raised because of our justification (Rom 4:25). For that reason, we may have confidence in the day of judgment since there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).
 
Two Opposite Ways of Salvation 

By far the most critical error of reincarnation is that it presents a way of salvation apart from Jesus Christ our Savior. Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6) Romans 3:20 says, “by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Paul says that “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph 2:8-9). In contrast, the law of karma is a form of self-salvation – it is salvation by works on steroids – the total opposite to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Scriptures salvation is a gift to be received – not an unattainable goal to be achieved. I wouldn’t change the gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ for a million lifetimes!
 
While preparing for this blog I came across a testimony of a former spiritual teacher who taught reincarnation but later became convinced that he was in error. Some may find it helpful. It is entitled:
Why I quit believing in Reincarnation - Mike Shreve https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syLNTQzvCwc&t=9s
 


[1] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
 

[2] The Jewish historian Josephus employs it of the renewal of the land of Israel after a period of hardship, while the Jewish philosopher Philo uses it to describe the renewal of the earth following the flood.

​ The Logical Arguments
 
by George Sidney Hurd
 
Among those of us who believe in life beyond the grave there are two very distinct belief systems. One is that we only die once and await the resurrection of our immortal spiritual bodies at the end of the age. The other is that one repeatedly reincarnates in different mortal bodies eon after eon before finally achieving perfection, at which time one ceases to reincarnate, losing their personal identity, becoming one with the cosmic consciousness.
 
When I had a personal encounter with the Lord and began seriously studying the Scriptures for myself fifty years ago, the belief in reincarnation wasn’t even considered a viable option among Christians. However, around that same time there was a major shift taking place. The counter-culture movement in the west rejected traditional Christianity and began looking to the east for its spirituality. Combined with the influence of western predecessors like Madame Blavatsky and Edgar Cayce, a new westernized version of eastern spirituality began to emerge, forming what is now known as the New Age Movement.
 
A concerted effort  was made to introduce eastern spirituality into the Christian community, either by discounting the authority of the Bible, or by revisionism and the use of biblical phrases used out of context in such a way as to make the Bible appear to be teaching reincarnation. As a result, over 25% of professed Christians in America today say that they believe in reincarnation. But is it even possible to reasonably conclude from the Christian Scriptures that we are reincarnated rather than being resurrected? Can the belief in reincarnation even be seen to be a logically coherent theory? These are the two questions that I hope to answer in this and the following blog.
 
The Logical Incoherence of Reincarnation 

While I normally give priority to the scriptural arguments for a given belief before considering the logical implications since I consider the Scriptures to be the Word of God and authoritative, recognizing that many who believe in reincarnation do not share the same high view of Scripture as I do, I will first consider the logical implications of the belief in reincarnation.
 
1)    The Problem of Increased Population 

Logically, if there are a fixed number of souls who are evolving through a finite series of reincarnations, with all eventually becoming incorporeal and one with the cosmic consciousness, then the human population should be decreasing rather than increasing. However, rather than decreasing the human population is exploding. When my mother was born in 1920 the world population was 1.8 billion. When I was born in 1950 the population was at 2.5 billion. By 1970 it had increased to 3.7 billion. Now, only 40 years later it has more than doubled, reaching 7.8 billion. According to the theory of reincarnation the population should actually be decreasing rather than increasing as souls reach Brahman and cease reincarnating. How do they resolve this logical contradiction?
 
Some proponents of reincarnation would argue that the increased population is the result of a dramatic increase in the number of souls who are now reincarnating as humans that had formerly been lower lifeforms such as plants or insects. Others speculate that the increase in population could actually be the result of a cosmic migration of souls from other planets who are reincarnating on our planet as humans.
 
However, such fanciful explanations are a grabbing at straws at best. The human growth in population is better explained as a natural exponential growth. The Scriptures present it as the simple process of procreation in which one couple begets or engenders offspring with each soul’s existence beginning at conception. The increase in population is best understood as simple mathematics.
 
As more people are born and scientific understanding is able to extend the average lifespan, the human population grows. On the other hand, as the human population increases the lower animal lifeforms become endangered with many species becoming extinct - however not by the transmigration of souls from one life-form to the next, but simply due to man’s disregard for the delicate balance of nature. Contrarily, we see a greater number of domesticated animals such as chickens and cows – not because karma required that more souls should reincarnate as chickens or cows, but simply because humans like to eat them.
 
Therefore, the biblical model in which each soul lives and physically dies only once, followed by a resurrection unto immortality at the end of the age is logically compatible with the increased human population, whereas reincarnation is not.
 
2)    The Problem of the Origin of Bad Karma 

According to eastern belief, every soul is eternal, without beginning or end, going from an original state of perfection and returning to that same state, ceasing to reincarnate, and returning to oneness with the cosmic consciousness. Incarnation is said to be an inferior state but necessary in order to pay for the bad karma acquired in previous lives.
 
The logical dilemma which this presents is: how could the cosmic consciousness have originated bad karma, thereby requiring the initial incarnation of these billions or trillions of souls? If bad karma is acquired in the lower state of a mortal body, necessitating a reincarnation in order to pay for it, how did the perfect cosmic consciousness initially produce souls with bad karma while yet being disembodied?
 
The biblical model does not face this dilemma. It presents a personal triune God as creating free moral agents capable of abiding in Him or acting independently in rebellion against Him. Evil originated in Satan’s heart, and through his influence it passed on to the human race through Adam’s disobedience.
 
3)    The Problem of Perpetuated Evil 

According to the law of karma, the very evil which one commits in a lifetime must come back upon him in the next life. However, this would perpetuate evil rather than eradicating it. For example, John Wayne Gacy, infamously known as the killer clown (because he dressed as a clown), sexually assaulted and murdered at least 33 young men and boys before finally being convicted, receiving the death sentence and being executed in 1994. According to the law of karma, in his next reincarnations he must also be raped and murdered 33 times. This in turn would require that those 33 who rape and murder him in his subsequent lives also suffer the same fate for their offense, which means that those who murder them also must be murdered, ad infinitum. One can only imagine how much havoc the evil deeds a man like Adolf Hitler would wreak to the karma of future generations!
 
In contrast, according to the biblical model, one can repent before God and be forgiven without having to pay for his sins because God in Christ propitiated the sins of the whole world upon the cross, satisfying God’s justice, dying in our stead (1Jn 2:2; Rom 3:23-26). When one comes to Christ not only are all their sins forgiven but Christ comes to live in them, making them a new creation and producing in them His own perfection – something unattainable even in a million reincarnations.
 
Some would insist that the Bible is teaching karma when it says, “whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” (Gal 6:7). However, there are two considerations which make God’s law of sowing and reaping distinct from the law of karma. In the first place, the law of sowing and reaping in Scripture is not tit-for-tat as is karma, but rather it primarily refers to the natural consequences of living a life of sin and excess. If you drink too much you can destroy your marriage, your family and your health. What one reaps is corruption or ruin:
 
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption (thora ‘destruction, ruin’), but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” (Gal 6:7-8)
 
In the second place, God’s principle of sowing and reaping is not an impersonal law which cannot be circumvented by grace as is the law of karma. While God means it when He warns us that sin will have its consequences, He is a loving Father and when we truly repent of our sins He forgives us, just as any loving father would do, and He relents of any corrective judgments pronounced against us, often even healing us of the infirmities we inflicted upon ourselves by our sinful behavior.
 
When I came to the Lord in 1969 my health was failing me due to drug abuse. I had contracted Hepatitis A, B C and Delta from sharing used needles with my companions. While the Lord didn’t immediately heal me, He promised me that my sickness wouldn’t result in death but in His glory. In 2012, in a miraculous manner I received a new liver and by 2016 I was totally free of the Hep C virus. While we shouldn’t presume upon God’s intervenient grace in such instances, I definitely saw God’s grace in my life, resulting in me not fully reaping what I had sown to the flesh during my troubled years as a youth.
 
The Traditional model of eternal torment for the majority of mankind, popularized by Saint Augustine in the fifth century, likewise perpetuates evil, albeit in a different manner. It presents God as perpetuating evil by maintaining lost sinners in a conscious state of torment forever without end. According to this model God doesn’t eradicate evil from His creation – He simply maintains it in a perpetual quarantine.
 
However, in the Scriptures we see that evil is not a creation of God. It is not eternal but had a beginning in time, and will be fully eradicated at the end of the ages once the last enemy – death, has been destroyed and all have subjected themselves to Christ, at which time Christ will subject Himself to the Father and God will become all in all (1Cor 15:25-28; Rev 21:4-5). I present the scriptural basis for the full eradication of evil and the restoration of all in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy (the reconciliation of all through Jesus Christ)”
 
Therefore, rightly understood, the Scriptures do not perpetuate evil as does the law of karma and the doctrine of eternal torment. Rather than an impersonal law we have a personal God who has determined that all will ultimately be saved, bowing the knee in adoration and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Isa 45:22-24; Phil 2:10-11; Ps 86:9).
 
4)    The Problem of Ignorance concerning Past Lives 

It is thought by some that the law of karma is a just system which explains why some suffer in life more than others. Granted, it would appear to be a just system if one were conscious of the wrongs that were committed in previous lives. However, with the exception of a very few who claim to have some recall of past lives through hypnotic regression or other psychic means, no one has any memory whatsoever of past lives.
 
In reality, our memory is an essential part of personhood and without it the reincarnated individual would essentially be a different person altogether. So, in essence, according to the theory of reincarnation, when someone suffers for deeds done in a past life, he is suffering for the sins of another. And, who in our generation could be said to be paying for the bad karma accumulated by someone like Hitler? Even if we could think of someone who might be suffering for Hitler’s sins, in what way could we reasonably call that justice?
 
In order for us to learn from our past mistakes it is essential that we at least have some memory of them. Even in our justice system, if it is determined that an individual had no recollection of his crime it is taken into account as an extenuating circumstance and his sentence will be lightened. But karma is said to be a rigid impersonal law which shows no mercy.
 
We all have a tendency to qualify and nuance our cherished beliefs when confronted with their logical fallacies rather than abandoning them, but who of us in all honesty feels it would be just to have to suffer for wrong deeds you have no recollection of ever having committed?
 
The traditional model of infinite punishment for finite sins presents an equally – if not greater moral contradiction than that of the law of karma. However, contrary to what has been traditionally taught since the fifth century, God’s judgments are just and measured according to the works of each one – not infinite. I treat this subject with more detail in my books, “The Triumph of Mercy” and “The Universal Solution.”
 
In Scripture we see that men are judged according to what they did in their one lifetime rather than suffering for previous lives they have no recollection of (Heb 9:27). Also, we see in Scripture that our Judge is a merciful Father and for the repentant sinner His mercy triumphs over judgment (Jas 2:13). Because justice and peace kissed each other at the cross, God can be a just Judge and at the same time justify those who repent and believe on Jesus (Ps 85:10; Rom 3:25-26). Actually, the very passage which says that it is appointed unto man to die once and afterwards be judged emphasizes that Christ took our judgment upon Himself at the cross:
 
“And as it is appointed for men to die ONCE (hapax “once and for all”), but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered ONCE (hapax “once and for all”) to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” (Heb 9:27-28)
 
Christ, being the Son of God incarnate (not reincarnate), having been put to death once and for all for the sins of the world, was resurrected from the dead and ever lives to make intercession for sinners who want to come to God the Father through Him (Rom 6:10; Heb 7:23-27; 9:12). As Paul says, there is now therefore no condemnation (nor bad karma) for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).
 
That is not to say that we do not have to pass through the purifying fire. Everyone will be salted in fire in order that we may come forth as pure gold, since nothing impure can endure God’s presence (1Cor 3:13-15; Matt 5:8; Heb 12:14; Rev 22:14-15 NIV). Those who die outside of Christ will not be raised until the second resurrection unto judgment (Jn 5:24,29; Rev 20:5,6). They will be resurrected and judged according to their works, receiving their part in the purifying Lake of Fire (Rev 20:14-15).
 
I discuss the subject of the Lake of Fire in my blog, “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.” Its purpose is purification – not torture, and it does not last “forever and ever” as eis tous aionas ton aiónon is mistranslated to read in most nonliteral versions. The phrase eis tous aionas ton aiónon means “into the ages of the ages” or extending into the coming ages. Each one will receive their part (meros) according to the works of each one, rather than the fire enduring forever.
 
So, rather than one suffering for some impersonal law of karma for wrongs done in previous lives which we have no memory of, we see in Scriptures that each individual who has ever lived, once having died, will be judged by the just Judge according to their own works, rather than the works of individuals of bygone  generations. Having briefly considered some of the logical arguments against reincarnation, in the next blog we will consider the Scriptural arguments presented for reincarnation vs. resurrection.