Kingdom of God

70 AD AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD?

The 70 AD Doctrine claims the kingdom of God did not come until A.D. 70.  The way it is worded is somewhat confusing in that the claim is that while the kingdom of God came in a limited fashion on Pentecost, it was not fully established in its full glory until the Jewish form of worship was put down.  Jewish worship revolved around the temple and when the temple was destroyed by the Roman armies under Titus, the Jewish form of worship was destroyed.  Jewish worship was conducted by the Levitical priesthood.  To serve as a Levitical priest in Old Testament worship, one had to be able to prove their lineage was of the tribe of Levi.  The temple contained the ancestry records of the Priests.  While the destruction of the temple in A.D.70 was not the first time the temple was destroyed, it was unique in that the ancestry records of the Priesthood was lost making it impossible to restore temple worship to what it had to be.  The old testament form of worship was destroyed, never to be restored and the belief is, the kingdom of God could not be fully realized until the Jewish system was taken out of the way.

Advocates of the 70 AD doctrine see this event as the focal point in the conversion of old testament worship to Christianity.  They teach that the period of time between the cross and the destruction of the temple was a transitional period between Judaism and Christianity.

To address this, first we must have a clear understanding of what the Kingdom of God is.  It’s coming was prophesied in Dan 7:27 and fulfilled on Pentecost following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  Jesus foretold the coming of His Kingdom in Mark 9:1, “And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”  Jesus predicts that the kingdom will come with power. In Luke 24:49 He told them to stay in Jerusalem, for they would be clothed with power from on high. This promise is repeated in Acts 1:4, and then Jesus connects power with the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles in Acts 1:8, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” The Holy Spirit did not come upon the apostles in A.D. 70, but rather in the day of Pentecost.  Acts 2:1-4 details the power of the Holy Spirit connected with coming of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus provides a vital characteristic of the Kingdom which serves to better understand its nature in Luke 17:20-21, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” (NKJV).   The Kingdom of God is not some material thing one can point out, rather the children of God, Christians, are Christ’s kingdom.  The kingdom of God is a spiritual entity populated by the people of God.  The term “Kingdom” is an expression of the reign of Christ over His people.  To make the claim that the kingdom was not fully present at the time of Pentecost is to say Christ was not fully reigning over His people.

When did Christ begin His reign over His Kingdom?  One cannot have a kingdom without a king.  Therefore, the Kingdom of God had to have come into existence when Christ began His reign.

Hebrews 10:12-14 reads, “But this Man [JESUS], after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”  Jesus’ reign began upon His arrival in heaven after His ascension.

Another event that is associated with Christ assuming His reign is mentioned in 1 Peter 3:22, which reads, “who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.”  In Ephesians 1:20-23 we read, “…which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,  21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. 22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”

On Pentecost Peter concluded his address to the listeners with an account detailing where Jesus was, when it happened and who He is.

Acts 2:32-36“This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.”

When Jesus sat down at the right hand of God the Father and began His reign, God gave Him the rule over all earthly kingdoms, principalities and powers, which is inclusive of the Jews.  Paul wrote by inspiration, “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body…”This happened upon His arrival in heaven from earth following His crucifixion.

If Jesus was placed “far above” all the earthly kingdoms and over the body of Christ, how did the Jews that were still practicing Judaism keep the kingdom of God from coming?  They had no power or authority over the workings of God in any fashion.  The only thing they were accomplishing by engaging in Judaism was false worship in a dead system.

Where was Jesus?  At the right hand of God.

When was he there?  At the time of writing.

Who is He?  Lord / King.

Soon after Jesus accomplished the purging of sin by the one sacrifice for sin forever, He sat down beside God to reign as King over His Kingdom and over all the kingdoms of the earth.

To further reinforce the belief that the Kingdom of God was present before AD 70 we can turn to Col 1:13-14, “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”  The word “conveyed” is in the past tense, meaning it had already happened.  Christians who entirely comprise the Kingdom of God were already in the Kingdom of God.   The A.D. 70 advocates argue that this kingdom was a powerless and incomplete kingdom, yet Paul told the Colossians who were in this kingdom, “in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority” (Colossians 2:10).   The letter to the Colossians, having been written before AD 70 clearly demonstrates the presence and existence of the Kingdom of God prior to the destruction of the Judean temple.

There is also a notable issue with baptism.  According to John 3:3-5, one cannot see the kingdom of God unless they are baptized; yet if the kingdom of God did not come until A.D. 70, then why did the apostles preach and practice baptism long before this?  (Acts 2:38; 8:12).  

Of significance to this study of the Kingdom is the fact that this body of Christians which comprise the Kingdom of God is designated in other terms within scripture.  In Matthew16:18-19, we read, “And I [Jesus] also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My [Jesus’] church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (NKJV).  The spiritual Kingdom of God comprised of God’s followers is here designated as the “kingdom of heaven“.  In addition to this, we see another term come into view.  The word “church” is translated from the Greek word “Ekklesia” which in the context means a Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both. (New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary).

The Ekkesia is a group of people, which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God, also a group of people.  Where the term Kingdom of God is an expression of Christ’s reign, the term ekklesia, or church, is an expression of an assembly or body of people called for a purpose, in this context, Christians.  The word Ekklesia is used in Acts 19:32 to refer to a mob of angry people.  it is used again in Acts 19:39 to refer to a lawful assembly.  In any event, depending on context, this word refers to a group or assembly of people.   Both the Kingdom of God and the Ekklesia are referring to Christians.

In Colossians 1:18-24, we learn yet another term which refers to the people of God which make up the kingdom and the Ekklesia.  The Ekklesia / church is also referred to as the body of Christ.  The term body is an expression of oneness or unity with Christ.  Christians are a part of Christ’s body as further augmented in Eph 5:30-31, “for we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.” (NKJV).

Thus we conclude the Kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, the ekklesia or church, and the body of Christ are all terms representing one thing; the people of God.  Why is this significant?   Because if the kingdom of God did not arrive on the scene until the destruction of the Judean system of worship, neither did the ekklesia / church, nor the body of Christ.  Nobody in their right mind is going to make the claim that the church nor the body of Christ did not exist until 70 AD.

The Kingdom of God, the church and the body of Christ were all brought in to existence on the day of Pentecost, following Christ’s crucifixion upon the baptizing of about 3000 souls.  Acts 2:41, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them...”, Acts 2:47, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” (NKJV).

If the Kingdom of God did not come fully into existence in all its’ glory prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, then neither did the church or the body of Christ since all three are one and the same thing.  The teachings by the A.D. 70 supporters cannot stand up to the facts.

I would further like to point out for the reader that none of the scripture used in forming this conclusion violated any of the simple rules of interpretation listed in the beginning of this work.  It is all based on the New Testament.  None of the scriptures were lifted out of context, it harmonizes perfectly with the corpus of new testament teaching, no commandments of God are circumvented, and each verse of scripture is understood as written and not in figurative terms.

CHRIST’S REIGN

Jesus reigns in Heaven over His kingdom.   The scriptures are clear that Jesus ascended to be on the Father’s right side after His resurrection. Acts 1:9

Hebrews 10:12-14 reads “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.” (NKJV)

Jesus’ position is that of a ruler over His kingdom, which is His body and the church.

Ephesians 1:20-23 establishes the scope of His reign as absolute: “which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,  21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. 22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (NKJV)

I would encourage the reader the take note of the fact that in verse 21, Paul mentions only two ages.  The current one and the one yet to come.  This harmonizes perfectly with the two ages we observed and discussed in Luke 20:34-35.

Now we turn to 1 Corinthians 15:20-27 which reads, “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” (NKJV)

We have a description of Christ reigning with a list of events which are associated with the age yet to come.  Let’s note verse 23 which states, “Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming”  It is clear from the text that there is a coming age.  The end of the present age and the beginning of the next age is shown in verse 24 of 1 Corinthians 15, “Then comes the end”.     The end spoken of here is the END OF CHRIST’S REIGN.  The coming of Christ and the end of His reign are directly connected here.  If Christ came in 70AD, then His reign has ended and everything mentioned in the above text in association with the end of His reign had to have occurred as well.

During Christ’s reign we see:

  1. He is superior to all powers in existence (Ephesians 1:21)
  2. He the head of everything pertaining to the church/body/kingdom, (Ephesians 1:22-23)

At the end of Christ’s reign we see:

  1. All shall be made alive in the resurrection, (1 Corinthians 15:22)
  2. Christ delivers the Kingdom over which He reigns to the Father, (1 Corinthians 15:24)
  3. Christ puts an end to earthly authority and power, (1 Corinthians 15:24)
  4. Christ’s reign over His kingdom ends when He has overcome all enemies, including death, (1 Corinthians 15:24)
  5. No more death after the end of Christ’s reign (1 Corinthians 15:24)

This is a huge problem for the 70 AD advocates because if Christ came in 70AD then that signifies the end of His reign over the church.  The kingdom has been delivered to God the Father. All of the enemies of Christ have been subdued, and there is no more death.   We don’t see that today.  There are people that have not been resurrected. There are plenty of earthly powers that have not been subdued.  Christ still has plenty of enemies.  People still die so death has not been overcome.   And the elephant in the room that has not been explained then is, since Christ’s reign has ended, who is reigning over the kingdom of God on earth?  Can this be God the Father that is reigning over us now?  Is Christ no longer our mediator?  The problem here that cannot be explained is that Christ’s reign ends at His coming.  And if He came in 70 AD then He has not ruled over the people of God for about 2 millennia.  Are we to believe He reigned over His kingdom for 47 years, handed the kingdom of God over to God the Father and retired?  The inescapable conclusion here is that if Jesus came in 70 AD then He is not reigning over us today.   Any conclusion not backed up with any supporting scripture is nothing but a theory.  And conclusion at variance with the word of God cannot be the truth.  There is not a single verse of scripture in all the inspired text that alludes to any period of time where Christ is not the head over His body which is the church.

We can further reinforce this with the great judgment account found in Matthew 25:31-46.  Here we see that all nations are to stand before Jesus, all graves are to be opened and the dead are raised and everyone judged goes to one of only two destinations, neither of which is on earth.   This has to have happened in 70 AD if Jesus came at that time.  And if that is true then there would have been no Christians left alive on earth to propagate the gospel of Christ.

The 70 AD advocates have got it wrong.  Christ is indeed reigning over His kingdom.  We know this because people are still dying and He has not yet brought an end to all powers that oppose Him, and His people.

Posted in David Hersey | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Kingdom of God

The Maccabees

The Maccabees

Alexander the Great, powerful king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon,died in A.D. 323. Upon his death, four of his generals (Ptolemy, Antigonus, Cassander, and Seleucus) began their own dynasties, warring against each other for Alexander’s empire. Ptolemy secured Egypt and the land of Israel. For the next 125 years, Israel was sandwiched in the middle of two of these bitter rivals (the Ptolemies and the Seleucids). The Seleucids won in 198 B.C. with Antiochus III defeating the Egyptians and incorporating Judea into his empire. At first, he allowed the Jews to rule themselves, but when the Romans began to defeat the Seleucid empire, Antiochus III began to Hellenize the Jews, making them more like the Greek peoples. This meant they were to trade in their monotheism, belief in just Jehovah God, to the Greek’s polytheism, belief in many different gods. The Jews raised opposition at the threat of idols being introduced into their temples, and his son Antiochus IV, inheriting the throne in 176 B.C., fought back. We may know him better by the name Antiochus Epiphanes, meaning “god manifest.” With the Jews throwing a brief rebellion, he doubled down on his views, and outlawed some of the central tenets of Judaism, such as observing the Sabbath, and circumcision. He also had all copies of the Law of Moses that he could find burned. He also defiled the Temple by creating an altar to Zeus and sacrificing unclean animals (pigs), while also allowing non-Jews to worship there.

The Maccabees

The Maccabees

Many Jews were seduced by Hellenism, but when the king’s officer attempted to force a priest to sacrifice to a pagan god (Zeus), Mattathias the priest struck the Jew who was preparing the pagan sacrifice, and murdered the Greek official. In 167 B.C., the Jews united with Mattathias and his five sons to fight for their liberation. The sons names are John Gaddi, Simon Thassi, Judas Maccabeus, Eleazar Avaran, and Jonathan Apphus.

The family of Mattathias became known as the Maccabees, from the Hebrew word for “hammer.” The Jews refer to them as the Maccabees, but they are historically known as the Hasmoneans.They were said to strike great blows against their enemies, like a hammer. The home of Mattathias, Modi‘im (17 miles northwest of Jerusalem), became the center of resistance. Though the Jews first refused to fight on the Sabbath, and lost a thousand lives because of it, Mattathias insisted that all resisters should fight, even on the holy Sabbath. He then led a guerrilla warfare against Antiochus.  Antiochus had at first underestimated the will and strength of this force, and only sent a small army to put down the rebellion. When that failed, he led a more powerful army, which also failed.

When Mattathias died, the revolt was led by Judas (often called Judah) Maccabee. By the end of the war, Simon Maccabee was the only one of the five Maccabean sons to survive. The Maccabees retook Jerusalem in 164 B.C., and purified the Temple, which gave birth to the Jewish holiday of Hanukah.

After more than two decades of fighting, the Maccabees forced the Seleucids to retreat from the Land of Israel. By this time, Antiochus had died, and the successor, Antiochus Eupater, was just a minor. Lysias, the general of the Syrians, agreed to allow the Jews their independence. He was dealing with fighting elsewhere, and gave the Jews liberty of conscience (belief) and worship. The Jews had been subjugated for over 500 years, but in the years 142 B.C., they once again gained independence. This lasted for 80 years, with the Hasmonean Kingdom ruling nearly as much land as Solomon. Jewish life flourished in this time. This was not the end of the war, however. It soon resumed, and Judas Maccabee sent a delegation to Rome to seek help. This marked the first step towards Rome eventually taking over the nation of Israel. After more than five years of leadership, Judas was killed in battle.

The Maccabees claimed the throne of Judah, but King Alexander Balas (also known as Alexander Epiphanes) called Jonathan Apphus “friend” and appointed him high priest in Jerusalem. This is in contradiction with the Old Testament which teaches only a descendant of Aaron may be high priest (e.g., Exo 28,Lev. 8:12). Because of this, the strict upholders of the Law created their own group, the conservative Pharisees. In time, rival factions developed and threatened the unity of the kingdom, with internal divisions and the appearance of another imperial power putting an end to Jewish independence in the land of Israel for almost 200 years.

Posted in Cannon Taylor | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Maccabees

Comfort in the Time of Our Babylon

Comfort in the Time of Our Babylon

Babylon lay on the horizon for God’s chosen people, but none of them realized it. When God extended the life of King Hezekiah, an envoy from a small nation hundreds of miles away came to see the king. Hezekiah showed to them all the golden treasures Israel had amassed. He saw no danger, for when they came, Babylon was a small insignificant nation.  How strange the words of the prophet Isaiah must have sounded to him. “Behold the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left” (2 Kings 20:16-17).

Isaiah had another message which would help those who later would be carried to Babylon. It was about the nature of God in the midst of that terrible trouble they would endure. These words of comfort should be remembered by us whenever great trials come into our lives. They speak so clearly of the eternal, unchanging nature of God.

“I have chosen you…” There was that time when one nation was his chosen people. In the midst of trials, we must see how His mercy has made Christians His chosen ones.

Fear not for I am with you…” The peace He has given us, which surpasses the ability for any mortal to understand, is based on the promise He has made that He will never forsake us. Faith in that promise conquers all fear.

“Be not dismayed, for I am with you…” His presence gives us more than the removal of fear. When trials come on, the ungodly are so often overwhelmed by them. Remember His words, “Be anxious for nothing.”

“I will strengthen you…” When the Almighty One stands beside us, we can rest assured that He will give His strength to us. We are always greater than the enemy, and there is absolutely nothing that is a problem to the God who delivers us from every trial.

“Yes, I will help you…” The inclusion of this word “yes” is God’s way of saying that He is determined to help us. There is no temptation for which He does not provide a way of relief, and our God, who cannot lie, will always help us.

“I will uphold you…” Paul lists those things which cannot separate us from God, and then concludes, “In all these things we are more than conquers through Him” (Rom. 8:37).

“With My righteous right hand” (Isa. 41:8-10). We sit on His right hand, the hand of strength, and it is that hand with which He works in our lives—always working righteously.

Take time right now to read all He says in the bold print above. It will help us all when we are tried.

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Comfort in the Time of Our Babylon

The Coming of Christ

The Coming of Christ

The first letter to the Thessalonians discusses the coming of Christ.  It mentions it a number of times.  There are a number of things we can learn about this event by reading this brief correspondence of Paul.

The coming of Christ is spoken of in at least these areas of the letter:  Chapter 1:9-10, 2:19-20, 3:12-13, 4:15-18, 5:2, 23. Sometimes the actual language “coming” is stated directly, yet, in the first chapter it is inferred as the phrase “wait for his Son from heaven” is used.

The Thessalonians were impacted by the thought of the coming of Christ to the degree that they directed their worship away from idols and toward God.  It was to direct them toward holiness so that they might be presentable to God when Christ returns.  This thought filled the mind of Paul as he envisioned them being a crown and joy in that same holiness.

When Jesus returns the Thessalonians are told very explicitly what will happen upon that day.  They are told what it will look like.  It is explained how they will meet Jesus in the air, that He will not be touching back down upon the earth.  They are told they will meet him in the air, in the clouds.  They will do so with all those who have died in the Lord before them.

Posted in Video | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Coming of Christ

LA BLASFEMIA CONTRA EL ESPÍRITU SANTO

LA BLASFEMIA CONTRA EL ESPÍRITU SANTO

Un artículo al cual tuve acceso a manera de introducción decía que todos los pecados pueden ser perdonados, incluidos los pecados capitales, pero que existe uno el cual Dios no perdona. Esta noción parece estar muy presente en un sin número de personas que de alguna manera vaga recuerdan la mención del Señor Jesús en cuanto al tema. La Blasfemia

Las dos ocasiones donde aparece esta mención se encuentran en Marcos 3:22-30, en Mateo 12:22-32 y en Lucas 11. Los tres  pasajes parecen recoger el mismo evento. Considero que podría acabar la explicación en dos o tres líneas y ser breve o simplista. Pero el tema en sí, ha sido abordado y ampliamente discutido entre círculos evangélicos por lo que considero apropiado darle un poco más de tratamiento al asunto. Para ello observaremos la definición, lo que el texto no está diciendo y por último, el trasfondo y significado verdadero.

Definición

El sustantivo blasfemia, que en realidad es una transliteración del vocablo griego  βλασφημία (blasphemía) aparece unas 19 veces en el N.T. Se compone de dos partes: “ya de blax, lento, estúpido, o, probablemente, de blaptõ, dañar, y phêmê, habla” (Vine). Literalmente, la idea es “habla lento, estúpido, o dañino”. Thayer dice que quiere decir “calumnia . . . habla perjudicial al buen nombre del otro”. Este sustantivo aparece en Mateo 12:31 y Marcos 3:28.

El verbo blasfemar viene de la palabra griega blaspheméo “difamar o injuriar, se usa (a), de una manera general, de cualquier forma de hablar injuriosa, ultrajante, calumniante . . . (b) de aquellos que hablan despreciativamente de Dios o de lo sagrado” (Vine). Este verbo se usa en Marcos 3:28-29 y Lucas 12:10.

Observamos pues que blasfemar contra el Espíritu Santo es decir calumniar, o afirmar una mentira sobre su persona o trabajo no tendría perdón ni en ese siglo ni en el venidero. Pero tanto el Espíritu como el Señor Jesús son deidad ¿Por qué entonces parece ser mucho más severo el castigo de la blasfemia hacia el Santo Espíritu que hacia el Salvador?

Lo que la Blasfemia contra el Espíritu No es.

Siempre he recalcado a los estudiantes a quienes he tenido la dicha de cooperar en su formación como ministros, que el antídoto para la falsa doctrina son tres cosas: primero contexto, segundo el contexto y tercero el contexto. De forma ligera he escuchado afirmaciones sobre lo que es la blasfemia contra el Espíritu que definidamente están fuera del contexto. De una larga lista solamente tenemos tiempo para mencionar 3 de esas ideas erradas. Considere:

1.     “Blasfemar contra el Espíritu es hablar mal de la Biblia”. Los 69 libros inspirados por Dios, mediante su Santo Espíritu que movió a los santos hombres de Dios para escribirlo, ha sufrido ataques desde siempre. En el 303 d.C Diocleciano ordenó que todos los libros cristianos fueran quemados. Él no fue el único con fuego en mano, cientos de años antes, el rey Joacim quemó el rollo con las palabras que había escrito Baruc por boca de Jeremías y el Señor instruye a su profeta a volver a escribir esas palabras. Este recuento lo encontramos en Jeremías 36.  Hablar mal de la Biblia o peor aún, intentar desaparecer las santas palabras de Dios es sin lugar a duda algo terrible, aunque imposible de lograr. Pero ¿Qué tiene que ver esto con el contexto de lo que está sucediendo en Marcos 3 o Mateo 12? Absolutamente nada.

2.     “Blasfemar contra el Espíritu es rechazar el evangelio” Algunos alcanzan esta conclusión mediante un hilo de razonamiento que no es del todo fuerte. Ellos piensan que el evangelio es lo más importante en todo el plan redentor de Dios y que rechazarlo hoy es el equivalente a rechazar toda la obra del Espíritu y por lo tanto, el individuo es culpable de la blasfemia contra el Espíritu. Deseo hacer hincapié en la importancia de las definiciones, pues “rechazar” no es igual a injuriar o difamar. Por lo que esta idea no se sostiene. Los filósofos Irving M. Copy & Carl Cohen en su magnífica obra titulada “Introducción a la Lógica”  en la segunda página establecen que las proposiciones son bloques de construcción de nuestro razonamiento. Una proposición afirma que algo es el caso o algo no lo es, porque solamente existen proposiciones falsas o verdaderas (hasta aquí la referencia anteriormente citada). No estoy del todo seguro que la afirmación en el enunciado n.2 cumpla con los estándares de las proposiciones, pero si lo es, definitivamente ha quedado demostrado que es falsa.

3.     “Blasfemar contra el Espíritu es ser ateo”.  El sufijo “a” en griego significa “sin” y “teos” es la transliteración para “Dios”, por lo que “ateo” literalmente significa “sin Dios”. ¿Por qué una persona que no tiene a Dios ni cree en Él, es culpable de cometer esta blasfemia?, parece que la interrogante construida alrededor de la definición no tiene sentido. Es verdad que los que no creen en Dios con sus vidas blasfeman y con sus palabras injurian al Ser más santo del cosmos. Solamente basta leer al biólogo Richard Dawkins, en su libro “el espejismo de Dios” publicado en español en su página 43 donde se refiere a Dios como un “monstruo implacable”, para darse cuenta de que ellos, los ateos hablan mentira contra el Dios de la Biblia. La idea de ser ateo y blasfemar contra Dios es como comer un taco mexicano sin chile picante. Es decir siempre van de la mano y son inseparables ya que no existe un solo ateo que ame y hable bien de Dios a lo que el salmista tildó como necedad (Salmo.14:1) . Con todo, la cuestión es totalmente ajena a los pasajes que tenemos en consideración con respecto a la blasfemia contra el Espíritu Santo. Para los tres enunciados enlistados aquí la solución es la misma…contexto, contexto, contexto.

Lo que realmente es la blasfemia contra el Espíritu Santo en su contexto.

En el contexto el Señor Jesús había estado realizando tremendas señales. El texto en Marcos 3:22 lee: “Pero los escribas que habían venido de Jerusalén decían que tenía a Beelzebú, y que por el príncipe de los demonios echaba fuera los demonios”. Por su parte el relato en Mateo 12:24 dice:  “Mas los fariseos, al oírlo, decían: Este no echa fuera los demonios sino por Beelzebú, príncipe de los demonios”. Al observar los dos relatos en paralelo notamos que ambos grupos (escribas y fariseos) estaban haciendo la misma acusación  pública. Lucas añade que para tentarle otros pedían señal del cielo, alrededor de los mismos acontecimientos (Lc.11:16).

Hay varios factores en común a través de los relatos. Por ejemplo, encontramos que los escribas y fariseos asocian la obra de Jesús con satán. Esto a raíz de los inconfundibles milagros que había estado realizando. Pero también notamos que se respiraba un ambiente de presión hacía la persona del Señor Jesús. Es muy probable que la multitud estuviera maravillada y por eso hayan pedido señal del cielo. Creo personalmente que esta aclamación de la multitud debió de haber enfurecido a los religiosos por lo que tenían que replicar de una forma exageradamente horrible para “ensuciarle las aguas” a Jesucristo. Bajo este contexto, el Maestro emite una respuesta en el mismo nivel de gravedad que la acusación  que se le achacaba. Habiendo clarificado el contexto, la blasfemia contra el Espíritu Santo realmente era.

1.     Acusación falsa después de haber visto un milagro.  Los milagros que se mencionan en el contexto eran señal evidente de que algo sobrenatural estaba sucediendo. En Juan 10:38 el Señor rogó a las multitudes que creyeran en él basados en la evidencia de las Señales que estaba realizando. Uno principal en la sinagoga llamado Nicodemo reconoció que para llevar a cabo esas señales Dios, necesariamente debía estar con él (Jn.3:2) indicando, incluso que no era el único entre los principales judíos que creían en él como enviado de Dios, cosa que se haría evidente más tarde cuando José de Arimatea, se une a Nicodemo públicamente para bajar el cuerpo del maestro. La acusación planteada de que él echaba fuera a los demonios por el príncipe de los demonios no tenía evidencia alguna que la sustentara. Para que la blasfemia contra el Espíritu sea llevada a cabo en nuestros días tal como está sucediendo en estos pasajes, necesariamente deben estar ocurriendo señales inconfundibles provenientes de Dios, en forma de milagros irrefutables. Esto, en nuestros días no va a suceder, ya que los milagros en el siglo primero sirvieron para un propósito específico y esto es confirmar al mensajero (Heb.2:4). No es que Dios no pueda obrar milagros, sino más bien que Él ya no trabaja de esta forma, pues el canon está completo y es el santo libro quien ahora testifica inequívocamente de las grandezas de Dios (Ap.22:18-19). No solamente hay que estar en presencia de un milagro…

2.     Acusación falsa después de haber visto un milagro, por mano de la segunda persona de la deidad.  

También se vuelve trascendental reunir esta segunda condición, y es la de estar delante de Dios hecho carne. Recuerde que, en el relato, tenemos a Dios hijo y Dios Espíritu Santo en consideración. Contra Jesús iban a blasfemar en el proceso de la crucifixión y aquella multitud que estuvo frente a Pilato acusando al Mesías y son ellos quienes más tarde serían perdonados y constituirán la base para el inicio de la gloriosa iglesia de Cristo tras el sermón de Pedro en Hechos 2.  Pero mentir acerca del Espíritu Santo, y relacionarlo con el satán, era algo que no estaba contemplado en el plan redentor y que además socava la base del trabajo de Cristo y más tarde la base del trabajo de los apóstoles y escritores del nuevo testamento. Básicamente si el Espíritu estaba relacionado con el satán, entonces la Biblia no sería suficiente para la salvación y el evangelio no tendría efectividad en lo absoluto. Para cometer la blasfemia contra el Espíritu, uno debe de estar frente a la deidad misma y reunir las mismas condiciones que leemos en los pasajes, cosa que es imposible de realizar hoy.

3.     Atribución del poder satánico a la obra del Espíritu en el ministerio de Jesús.  Habiendo mencionado esto antes, brevemente deseo enfatizar. Las condiciones en el momento eran adversas y las aseveraciones muy graves. El hermano Maxie B. Boren y amigo personal acierta en su observación, él dice:

El contexto de Mateo 12:22ss. muestra claramente que este fue de hecho el pecado de blasfemia contra el Espíritu Santo atribuyendo el milagro hecho por Jesús al poder del diablo. Jesús dijo que fue hecho “por el Espíritu de Dios’ (versículo 28) pero ellos (los fariseos—KB) dijeron que fue hecho por Beelzebub” (nd, p. 1). Está claro que la blasfemia contra el Espíritu era un pecado definido y singular, que podían cometer los fariseos durante la vida de Jesús.

En conclusión, la afirmación del Señor en cuanto a que ese pecado no tendría perdón ni este siglo ni en el venidero, estoy convencido que no es literal en sentido de 100 años como tal, sino más bien figurativamente establece que no hay periodo de tiempo alguno en el que ese pecado sea perdonado. En este sentido  el escritor regular de la prensa Apologética nuestro hermano Kyle Butt señala con gran precisión:

En Marcos 10:30, el escritor del evangelio tiene a Jesús registrado usando la misma frase (“en la era venidera”) para referirse al tiempo en que los seguidores de Cristo heredarán “la vida eterna” (ver Lucas 18:30 para el pasaje paralelo). Esta es una clara referencia a la vida después de la muerte, ya que Pablo dijo que “la carne y la sangre no pueden heredar el reino de Dios” (1 Corintios 15:50). En segundo lugar, el relato de Marcos sobre el pecado imperdonable describe el pecado como un “pecado eterno”. Los traductores de la New King James Version registraron que la persona que comete el pecado “nunca tiene perdón, sino que está sujeta a condenación eterna” (Marcos 3:29). El relato de Marcos, con su énfasis en la eternidad, muestra que la frase simplemente pretende subrayar el hecho de que este pecado “absolutamente nunca” será perdonado (Lenski, p. 484). Es incorrecto, entonces, usar la frase “en el siglo venidero” para referirse al purgatorio. También es tenue usar la frase para referirse a la era cristiana.

Quizás muchos hermanos fieles no estarán del todo en acuerdo con las razones que se proveen en este breve tratado, pero con absoluta claridad me permito afirmar que no existen las condiciones en nuestros días para ser culpable del pecado contra la blasfemia contra el Espíritu Santo. Y cada intento para ligar este pecado especifico a nuestros días es vano, fuera de lugar y sobre todo en total violación al respectivo contexto. Seguramente ninguno de nosotros desea ser identificado como irrespetuosos del texto sagrado sino más bien ser conocidos por nuestro trazo derecho de la palabra de Dios (2Tim.2:15). Para nuestros días no existe pecado alguno que Dios no perdone tras un verdadero arrepentimiento y que las aguas del bautismo no purifiquen (Ap.7:9)

Referencias

Boren, Maxie B. (no date), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,”  Material de Clase , Brown Trail church of Christ, Bedford, Texas, Lesson 4.

Butt, Kyle. (2002), ” The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the “unpardonable sin”,https://apologeticspress.org/blasphemy-against-the-holy-spiritthe-unpardonable-sin-

W. E. Vine, Diccionario Expositivo de palabras del Nuevo Testamento Terrasa, Barcelona España: Editorial Clie., 1984.

Posted in Heiner Montealto | Tagged , , | Comments Off on LA BLASFEMIA CONTRA EL ESPÍRITU SANTO