The Woman of Revelation 12: Good or Bad?

1. Introduction
2. The Traditional Christadelphian Interpretation
3. Problems with the Christadelphian Interpretation
4. The Woman's Appearance
5. Identifying the Woman
6. Conclusion

1. Introduction

A couple of years ago I wrote an article entitled The Male Child of Revelation 12: Constantine or Christ? There I challenged the traditional Christadelphian interpretation that the "male child" of Rev. 12:5 is Constantine, the fourth-century Roman emperor, and explained why biblical scholars universally agree that the male child is Christ. Unfortunately, this misidentification of the male child is just one of three major "wrong turns" that Christadelphian expositors have made in their reading of Revelation 12. The other two concern the meaning of the "woman clothed with the sun" (Rev. 12:1) and the "great red dragon" (Rev. 12:3) respectively. Although the dragon is explicitly identified as the Devil (Rev. 12:9), this does not resolve the issue for Christadelphians due to their idiosyncratic understanding of the biblical Devil. In fact, Christadelphians have traditionally regarded the dragon in Revelation as symbolizing the pagan Roman Empire. The dragon will not be discussed in detail in this article (but see note 22). Instead, this article examines the identity of the "woman clothed with the sun" who is the male child's mother in the vision. A translation of the most relevant verses of Revelation 12 is as follows:

1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. 6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days... 

13 When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year. 15 The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current. 16 But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth. 17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. (Rev. 12:1-6, 13-17 NABRE) 

2. The Traditional Christadelphian Interpretation

Christadelphians have traditionally applied a historicist hermeneutic to the Book of Revelation, reading its signs and symbols as prophecies of significant historical events from the first century A.D. (when the book was written) through the present to the future consummation of all things. Within this historicist paradigm, Christadelphians have seen in chapter 12 of Revelation a prophecy concerning the political and ecclesiastical events of the fourth century A.D., particularly the rise of Constantine to the imperial throne and the consequent change of Christianity's political fortunes from persecuted underground movement to State-endorsed religion.

John Thomas, the founder of Christadelphians, wrote a voluminous work on Revelation entitled Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse which set the tone for most Christadelphian interpretation of Revelation to follow.1 Thomas consistently assumed that cosmological terminology (e.g., sun, moon, heaven, earth) in Revelation denotes political realities. Thus he referred to the sun mentioned in Rev. 12:1 as "the Roman Sun," symbolic of imperial power that the pagan State surrendered under Constantine: "The total eclipse of the pagan sun...finally and effectually signalized the departure of the pagan heaven as a scroll rolled up."2 He adds that

the sun of imperial power and majesty emerged again from the hair-sackcloth blackness of the darkening and sanguinary revolution by which it had been obscured...Whatever the woman may signify, this investiture [with the sun] symbolizes the clothing of the thing signified with supreme imperial authority, so that whatever might emanate from the woman would be by the sanction and co-operation of the highest orders of the state.3

Thomas believed that the woman of Revelation 12 had to be interpreted in continuity with two negative female figures mentioned in the book: the pseudo-prophetess Jezebel mentioned in the oracle to Thyatira (Rev. 2:20-23) and the great prostitute Babylon seen in the vision of Rev. 17:1-6. Balancing this desire for continuity with the apparently positive things said about the woman of Revelation 12, Thomas arrived at a complex interpretive scheme in which the woman of Revelation 12 is a twofold woman:

Hence the figurative woman of ch. 12, invested with the Roman Sun, and fleeing from the Dragon, represents the whole ANTIPAGAN COMMUNITY; the vast majority of which answered to Jezebel and her children; while the remainder, with whom alone the doctrine of Christ was to be found, refused to have anything to do with a church in alliance with the "dreadful and terrible beast having seven heads and ten horns." These two divisions of the antipagans, though opposed on the question of church and state alliance, were agreed in their hostility to the ascendancy of the existing Imperial Idolatry, which grievously afflicted them all. The first ecclesiastical separation of these two divisions did not occur till after the birth of the woman's son, who was to rule all the Greek and Latin nations with an iron sceptre. When this event transpired, the anti-state church party repudiated the desecrating alliance with emperors and their courts. They refused to recognize the emperor's claim of being at once the representative of the Sixth Head of the Dragon, and Bishop of the Bishops of Christ. The truth was with this party. They seceded; and by their secession incurred the enmity and bitter hostility of the New Church imperially established. The secessionists became the subject of virulent persecution by this new power, which caused them to take refuge in the wilderness. In this flight they are prefigured by the woman, who therefore leaves behind her the sun and moon, and wreath of twelve stars...But, though "the Lamb's Woman" refused to be,allied to the Roman State, and retired into the wilderness, the State-Church Woman, Jezebel, was not so scrupulous. As "the church by law established" she retained her place in the heaven; and became "the Great Harlot" of the world. Little notice is taken of her apocalyptically until she is exhibited in ch. 17:1, in all the enormity of her profligate career. In this scene, she appears in the wilderness, into which the Anti-State Church Woman fled... What a remarkable contrast between these two apocalyptic women. The one, Jezebel, the Great Harlot and the Mother of Harlots; the other, the Lamb's wife and the Mother of all the Saints.4

Thus, according to John Thomas Revelation 12 foretells a struggle between Christians and pagans, but also a struggle between two women representing two constituencies within the Church: the false woman Jezebel who aligned herself with imperial power, and so became the great prostitute of Revelation 17, and the true woman who refused to so align herself and thus seceded from the Church. What historical individuals and groups does Thomas identify with this true woman?

But when Constantine came to recognize the catholic sect as his Mother Church, what became of the rest of the Anti-pagan Body — "the whole body of the Christians" besides, namely, of the Novatians, Donatists, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulists, Cataphrygians, and others? They were still "the Woman," only minus the catholic sect. Whatever other differences obtained among them, they were generally opposed to the union of church and state; for, as all of them could not be the world's church, they were displeased at any one sect enjoying that pre-eminence over the rest. "What," said they, "has the emperor to do with the church? What have Christians to do with kings, or what have bishops to do at court?" Hence, without ceasing to be anti-pagan, they now became an ANTI-CATHOLIC BODY. This was the Woman" of the sixth verse of this twelfth chapter — the ANTI-CATHOLIC WOMAN.5

In short, whatever non-Catholic sects existed in fourth-century Christianity, Thomas lumps together as "the anti-Catholic woman." He hastens to add that this anti-Catholic woman cannot be straightforwardly identified with Christ's faithful church, "for there were sects in her communion whose principles and practices were both worldly and unscriptural"; nevertheless he infers from Rev. 12:17 the existence of a faithful remnant, whom he likens to the Christadelphians of his own day. Thomas takes particular interest in the Donatists, with whose cause he identifies the flight into the wilderness in Rev. 12:6. He qualifies,

There was, doubtless, error and wrong-doing both with the Donatists and Catholics; but, as from among the Anti-baptist Campbellites was originated...by the laver of the water with doctrine (Eph. 5:26), the CHRISTADELPHIAN DENOMINATION; so from among the anti-catholic Donatists began to be manifested in the three years of their trials before Constantine and his bishops, by the sealing angel that had ascended from the East (Apoc. 7:2), the first of "the remnants of the woman's seed, who keep the commandments of the Deity, and hold the testimony of the anointed Jesus." The name of this first remnant, if it had any other than Donatist, has not come down to us. But it matters not what it was called in its beginning—it was the sect composed of 'the servants of the Deity sealed in their foreheads.' This is the apocalyptic description of it. Arising in the epoch of the Donatist trials, and being with the Donatists intensely anti-catholic, it is very likely to have been confounded with them...6

Let us be clear about what Thomas is doing in this paragraph. He believes the historical circumstances of the Donatists fit the text of Rev. 12:6 well, but he knows that what is known of Donatist doctrine does not align with Christadelphian doctrine. Because he cannot claim the Donatists as the spiritual forebears of Christadelphians, he imagines into existence, without a shred of historical evidence, a group that broke away from the Donatists and shared identical doctrines with modern-day Christadelphians. This is about as fanciful and speculative as biblical interpretation gets!

John Thomas's protégé and successor as de facto leader of the Christadelphian community, Robert Roberts, upheld his mentor's view in his own work Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse. "There is no difficulty," Roberts explained, "in seeing whom [the woman of Revelation 12] symbolizes." She represents "the community of those who belong to Christ", but more specifically "Christ's church or ecclesia in Christ's absence and in the land of his enemies." He emphasizes that the woman here is not in an exalted state but a "mixed state" that includes those "who are in her and of her" but "do not belong to her". As Roberts moves to the sun, moon and stars imagery, the interpretation moves decisively in a political direction. To be clothed with the sun means to have the political ascendancy that comes with the emperor Constantine's friendship. To have the moon under her feet means to have absorbed the pagan priesthood into the Church. To wear a diadem of twelve stars means to bear the power of the pagan emperors of the past.7

It thus appears that, far from merely having "many in her and of her" who do not belong to her, the Church has already been thoroughly corrupted by political and pagan influence at the beginning of the vision. Roberts then discusses the dragon and the male child, understood as pagan Rome and Constantine respectively, before commenting on v. 6. He admits that the woman's flight into the wilderness "seems a strange sequel" to her being robed and crowned with political power, but like Thomas he attempts to explain this paradox in terms of an internal division of the Christian community into the false Christians who "continued in the sun-invested position" of political power and the remnant of true Christians who refused to become involved in political and military affairs but kept the commandments of God as mentioned in v. 17.

Broadly viewed, they were both one community and therefore in relation to the Pagan dragon, one woman. In another relation of things, they were two -- the one the shell, the other the kernel -- the one the shadow, the other the substance. To the one class, Jesus tells us he will say in the day of account, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:23). To the other, he will unite himself in glorious marriage as a bridegroom to a bride. In the ultimate aspect of things, the latter class only are the woman -- the Bride, the Lamb's wife; and although in relation to the aspects of human history, the nominal are part of the woman as well as the true, yet in even the current recognitions of Christ, the true only are the woman. The false are finally symbolized in the Apocalypse as a shameless prostitute.8

Thus the pioneers of Christadelphia understood the woman of Revelation 12 as the Church of the fourth century, a community that had been largely corrupted by political and pagan influence but included a faithful remnant that had seceded from the main catholic Church. In short, the woman of Revelation 12 is largely a negative figure. Indeed she is the same woman as that seen in Revelation 17, where she has become the great prostitute, Babylon.

This strategy for interpreting the woman of Revelation 12 still prevails among Christadelphians today. David Green, for example, in a recent article on Revelation 12, explains that the woman in Revelation is "The church, chaste as the bride of Christ, a prostitute when apostate".9 He goes on to explain "The dual aspect of the woman":

Why is it that in Revelation 12:1 the vision shows the church as a woman in the political heavens, glorified and powerful, and yet by verse 6 she is seen fleeing into the wilderness? The answer lies in the fact that the Christian church split into two distinct sections, the majority exercising power and the minority being persecuted. So it was that one woman became two.10

Green follows Thomas in arguing that "the woman in the wilderness" of Rev. 12:6 refers to the Donatist schismatics,11 and hypothesizing the existence of a remnant, apparently within the Donatists, that "had a knowledge of the Truth," i.e. held to Christadelphian theology (despite a total absence of historical evidence for such a group).12

To summarise, the traditional Christadelphian interpretation holds that the woman of Revelation 12 is the Church of the fourth century, a community that was largely disobedient, power-hungry and doctrinally corrupt (as the symbols of the sun, moon and stars signify) but that included a nameless remnant lost to history who believed Christadelphian doctrines and were persecuted by the larger Catholic Church.

3. Problems with the Christadelphian Interpretation

I would like to issue a challenge to Christadelphians who favour the interpretation outlined above. This interpretation regards the woman of Revelation 12 as largely evil and in continuity with "that woman Jezebel" in Rev. 2:20-23 and the great prostitute Babylon in Rev. 17-18. In both Rev. 2:20-23 and Rev. 17-18 there is unmistakably negative imagery indicating unambiguously that the woman symbolizes an evil entity. "Jezebel" is named for a wicked Old Testament queen, is accused of practicing immorality and adultery and seducing others to do the same, and is warned of impending judgment if she does not repent. "Babylon" is named for a wicked Old Testament kingdom, is called a prostitute, is accused of sexual immorality and abominations, and her judgment and total desolation is foretold. My challenge to Christadelphians is this: where is this unambiguously negative language in Revelation 12? Where is the woman of Revelation 12 given a bad name, accused of anything or warned of impending judgment? I cannot find anything negative said about the woman in Revelation 12. The alleged negativity seems to be tied up in dubious interpretations of two other symbols in the chapter: the notion that the male child of Rev. 12:5 symbolizes Constantine, and the notion that the sun, moon and stars of Rev. 12:1 symbolize political ascendancy and/or religious corruption. I have dealt with the male child (who is clearly Christ) elsewhere, so will consider the symbolism of Rev. 12:1 below.

The second problem with the Christadelphian interpretation is that it requires the woman of Revelation 12 to be a dual figure who is sharply divided into two women: the Jezebel/Babylon prostitute figure and the Bride, the righteous remnant. However, the text of Revelation 12 does not indicate any such duality. The dual figure seems to rest entirely on assumption about "the rest of her offspring...those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 12:17), namely that this group stands in moral and ecclesiastical opposition to the woman herself, or to the bulk of her offspring. However, the text does not indicate any such moral opposition or division. As will be discussed below, "the rest of her offspring" means besides Jesus himself, the woman's offspring par excellence.

The absence of any negative language used of the woman in Revelation 12 contrasts sharply with female figures in Rev. 2:20-23 and Rev. 17:1-6, whose negative characteristics are described in lurid detail. This contrast, together with the absence of any explicit duality or internal division in the woman, makes it extremely unlikely that the author of Revelation intends the reader to understand the woman of Revelation 12 as a morally compromised figure.

4. The Woman's Appearance

The vision is introduced with, "And a great sign appeared in heaven". Christadelphian expositors typically assume that "heaven" here refers to the "political heavens", a widely used and highly dubious notion in interpretation of biblical apocalyptic. However, the "heaven" described in this chapter is the abode of Michael and his angels (Rev. 12:7). Michael is unquestionably an actual angel (cf. Jude 9), and angels inhabit actual heaven (Gen. 22:11; 28:12; Matt. 18:10; Mark 12:25; Rev. 10:1; etc.), not any earthly political heaven. Throughout Revelation we read of voices from heaven, the God of heaven, God's temple in heaven, etc. Thus it should be regarded as very likely that "heaven" in Rev. 12:1 means "heaven"! Corroborating this, the Bride of the Lamb, the new Jerusalem, is later depicted as "coming down from heaven" (Rev. 21:2, 9-10). This corresponds also with other New Testament passages where a transcendent Jerusalem is described as heavenly (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 11:16; 12:22-23). Rather than viewing the heavenly location of the sign as some indication of the woman's political connections, we should take it as an indication that the woman represents a transcendent reality, namely the elect people of God.13

Rather than relying on the fanciful, speculative political interpretation of the woman's garb, let us seek to ground our interpretation in biblical background. Before considering the significance of the sun, moon and stars, let us consider the significance of her wearing bright clothing and a crown (garland, to be precise). In Ps. 104:1-2, God clothes himself "with light as with a garment". Within Revelation, both the one like a son of man (Rev. 1:16) and a mighty angel (Rev. 10:1) have their faces likened to the brightness of the sun, while clothing, especially white or bright robes, represent purity and sanctity (Rev. 3:4-5; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 7:13-14; 19:14). Most strikingly, Rev. 19:8 states concerning the Lamb's Bride, "It was granted to her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure - for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints." The Greek word translated "bright" here, lampros, can depict the brightness of heavenly bodies, as in Rev. 22:16, "I, Jesus...the bright morning star." There is no instance in Revelation of white or light-coloured clothing symbolizing something negative. Garlands/crowns also have predominantly a positive connotation in Revelation (2:10; 3:11; 4:4; 4:10; 14:14; but see 6:2; 9:7). Thus, prima facie the picture of a brightly clothed, crowned figure in heaven suggests a righteous entity in good standing with God.

What does the sun, moon and stars imagery add to this picture? Prigent observes how 

Isaiah announces to the new Jerusalem, to whom he addresses himself as the bride of Yahweh, the mother of the eschatological people of God, that she will appear in divine light and beauty: 'Your sun shall no longer set, nor shall your moon disappear' (Isa 60:20).14

Joseph's dream recounted in Gen. 37:9, in which the sun, moon and eleven stars represent his father, mother and brothers respectively, also support interpreting the woman's garb as representing corporate Israel, with the twelve stars denoting the twelve tribes.15 Elsewhere in Revelation, imagery involving the number twelve is explicitly associated with the twelve tribes of Israel. In Rev. 7:4-8, the number of the sealed, 144 000, is divided into twelve groups of 12 000 each according to "every tribe of the sons of Israel." Again, the description of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21—which city is explicitly identified with "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:9-10)—includes twelve gates inscribed with "the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel." The number twelve never takes on a negative significance in Revelation. The sun and the moon may represent majesty and beauty.16

5. Identifying the Woman

For these reasons, the description of the woman in Rev. 12:1 best coheres with the interpretation that she denotes the elect people of God. This is the consensus among biblical scholars, although it is debated whether the woman denotes Israel, the Church or both.17 If the woman is Israel, then her plural "offspring" may be understood as Christians,18 or perhaps Gentile Christians specifically. This would correspond with Revelation 7, where the 144 000 sealed on their foreheads represent only the twelve tribes of Israel, with Gentile believers mentioned separately as the "great multitude...from every nation" (Rev. 7:9).19 If, on the other hand, the woman is understood to be the Messianic Community (that which became the Church) without regard to ethnicity, then the woman's plural "offspring" should probably not be sharply distinguished from the woman herself. Perhaps the woman represents the Church in a more idealized or abstract sense, while "the rest of her offspring" refer concretely to individual believers who would suffer persecution in the future.20 For me, in light of Rev. 7:4-9, the most likely eventuality is that the woman denotes the faithful of the house of Israel while the "rest of her offspring" denote Gentile believers. In either case, it is important to note that "the rest of her offspring" who hold to the testimony of Jesus are not "the rest" in relation to other, disobedient offspring, but in relation to Jesus himself, the "male child"—the only other "offspring" of the woman previously mentioned in Revelation 12.21 This coincides with the theology of Paul, who depicts Christ as "the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29) and also understands "offspring" or "seed" in Old Testament promises as both singular (Christ) and plural (his brethren) (Gal. 3:16, 29).

6. Conclusion

If we summarize the symbolic narrative concerning the woman in Revelation 12, it is evident that nothing negative is said about her. Her luminous appearance underscores her transcendent status as the people of God. Her conflict with the dragon-serpent (identified in the text as the Devil, evidently an angelic being)22 concerning her offspring no doubt reflects Gen. 3:15. She gives birth to the Messiah and then flees to a place of refuge prepared for her by God (v. 6). She is given the wings of the great eagle (cf. Isa. 40:31), nourished in the wilderness and protected from the dragon's flood in language that reflects Old Testament narratives such as the story of Elijah and the Exodus (v. 14).

Furthermore, the entirely favourable depiction of the woman in Revelation 12 rules out the possibility that the great prostitute of Revelation 17 (described in lurid terms) is the same woman, as has been asserted by Christadelphian writers. A study of Revelation 17 will have to await a future article, but the woman of Revelation 12 in fact represents the antithesis of the woman in Revelation 17.23

Finally, the dominant and correct interpretation of the woman of Revelation 12 as the people of God does not rule out a secondary interpretation, popular in Church history, in which the woman is identified the Virgin Mary. This is because the Virgin Mary, besides being the literal mother of the "male child" Jesus, is the embodiment of the faithful people of God who await the Messiah, and the new Eve who is victorious over the dragon-serpent where the first Eve failed.

Footnotes

• 1 John Thomas, Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse, 5 vols. (Adelaide: Logos Publications, 1869/1992).
• 2 Thomas, Eureka 4:33.
• 3 Thomas, Eureka 4:34.
• 4 Thomas, Eureka 4:39-41.
• 5 Thomas, Eureka 4:121.
• 6 Thomas, Eureka 4:124-25.
• 7 Robert Roberts, Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse (Birmingham: published by author, 1880), 113-114.
• 8 Roberts, Thirteen Lectures, 117.
• 9 David Green, "Understanding Revelation 12, Part 1: Symbols and background history," The Testimony, November 2005 (2005): 430, accessed at http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/nov2005/green1.pdf
• 10 David Green, "Understanding Revelation 12, Part 2: The interpretation of Revelation 12:1-4," The Testimony, January 2006 (2006): 26, accessed at http://testimony-magazine.org/back/jan2006/green.pdf
• 11 Green, "Understanding Revelation 12, Part 2," 26.
• 12 David Green, "Understanding Revelation 12, Part 3: The interpretation of Revelation 12:5-17," The Testimony, February 2006 (2006): 64, accessed at http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/feb2006/green.pdf
• 13 "The heavenly character and the extraordinary ornaments of the person thus identified pose no problem. Once we admit that every earthly reality of whatever importance has its place in the plan of God and thus has a heavenly counterpart (which is obviously the case for the Church), all of the features of this description lend themselves to an explanation as the echoes of prophetic texts." (Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, trans. Wendy Pradels [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 378).
• 14 Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 378-79.
• 15 "The picture of the woman is based on Gen. 37:9 (cf. T. Naph. 5:3), where sun, moon, and eleven stars are metaphorical respectively for Jacob, his wife, and the eleven tribes of Israel. All these bow down to Joseph, representing the twelfth tribe. The depiction could also reflect the portrayal in Judaism of Abraham, Sarah and their progeny as sun, moon, and stars (T. Ab. [B] 7:4-16); in Midr. Rab. Num. 2:13 the sun symbolizes Abraham, the moon Isaac, and the stars Jacob and the seed of the patriarchs. The twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel. The woman's appearance may also connote Israel's priestly character (cf. 1:6; 5:10), since in Philo's and Josephus's explanation of Exod. 28; 39 they use the imagery of a crown, the sun, moon, and twelve stars in describing the vestments of the Israelite high priests because they represented the twelve tribes before Yahweh in the temple service (see Josephus, Ant. 3.164-172, 179-187; Philo, Moses 2.111-112; 122-124; Spec. Laws 1.84-95). In fact, in these same texts the parts of the priestly garment symbolizing sun, moon, and stars are explicitly said to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel. Such dual imagery was meant to indicate that Israel on earth also had an inviolable heavenly identity." (G. K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, "Revelation", in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 1122 ).
• 16 "In the OT imagery of the sun, moon, and stars has a broad spectrum of connotations, centering primarily on Yahweh's control over the constellations (Jer. 31:35): they praise and witness to God (Ps. 19:1-4; 148:3), symbolize endurance (Ps. 72:5) and are darkened on the day of wrath (Isa. 13:10; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15). In Ps. 104:2 Yahweh 'clothes himself with light like a garment,' showing that the woman being 'clothed with the sun' connotes majesty. 'The moon' in the OT signifies beauty (Song 6:10) and glory (Isa. 24:23; 30:26). The moon being 'under her feet' stresses her reign or dominion. The 'crown' is used in the Apocalypse to show the reign of Christ (14:14), the dominion of the twenty-four elders (4:4, 10), or the future reign of his people (2:10 [the 'victory wreath' of life]; 3:11). For the rider on the white horse (6:2) or the demonic locusts (9:7), the 'crown' is a temporary rule that God has sovereignly allowed the forces of evil. Thus, like the 'moon under her feet,' the 'crown of twelve stars' signifies the victory and glory that God has given people. The 'twelve stars' are generally taken to be the twelve tribes (Kraft, Prigent, Roloff, Thomas, Beale) or the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles (Sweet, Mounce) or the church itself (Lohmeyer 1926: 96 calls this 'ideal Israel'), though some have taken this as a reference to the signs of the zodiac (R. Charles, Beckwith, Beasley-Murray, Aune)."(Grant R. Osborne, Revelation [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 456-57).
• 17 "Could it then be the people of God of the old covenant, the community of Israel which can indeed be seen as the mother of the Messiah and of the Christian Church? Or  more likely still as the faithful Israel, the chosen people whose existence is prolonged by the Judeo-Christian Church? But this identification once again hits a snag, in the form of the observation that the book of Revelation never seems to distinguish between the people of God of the old and the new covenants, except in order to show that the latter fulfill the prophecies detected in the history of the former. Furthermore, we should recall that we have not felt justified in distinguishing in Revelation any trace of the problem of Jewish vs. Gentile Christianity. The present text does not seem capable of overturning these conclusions. We must therefore identify the woman as the Church, although it should immediately be recalled that for our author, the Church has taken root in the history of Israel." (Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 378); "This woman is surely the bride, the heavenly Jerusalem (19:7-8; 21:9-10), antithesis of the harlot (Rome) (17:14; 18:16)." (Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008], 128 n. 1); "The woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (v. 1) sounds like the goddess Isis (so Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11:3-4), but such an identification would not fit this context. In this context, she can only be the people of God who are about to give birth to the Messiah. The imagery of the Jewish people giving birth to the Messiah is found already in Isa. 26:17-18 LXX and at Qumran (1 QH 3:4)." (Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994], 48.); "It is much more likely that he has combined a great many themes from historical and mythical woman/mother images in Israel's and the church's past, present, and future and fashioned them thematically into a representation of the church's corporate existence." (Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009], 225); "Therefore it seems likely that the woman here represents Israel, the people of God (with 12:17, where she represents the church, we can conclude that she represents the whole people of God, Israel and the church)." (Osborne, Revelation, 456); "What can be asked, given the fact that many of John's readers would be Jewish, is what identification would a Jewish individual immediately make with the radiant woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head? For any Jewish reader this would call to mind the dream of Joseph recorded in Genesis 37, a dream that failed to endear Joseph to his 11 brothers. The second of Joseph's two dreams, recorded in Genesis 37:9, saw the sun, moon, and 11 stars bowing down to Joseph; and the similarity of the two visions would be brought to any Jewish mind, especially given the propensity of John to be influenced by the Old Testament. The woman is clothed with the sun, the moon is under her feet, and she has a crown of 12 stars on her head, evidently representing the 12 tribes of Israel... The only effective identification of the radiant woman, then, is to see her as the ethnic offspring of Abraham, the Jewish people. This accounts for the fact that many scholars have claimed that the radiant woman is representative of the Jewish nation, which gives birth to the Messiah." (Paige Patterson, Revelation [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2012], 297); "The woman is not Mary the mother of Jesus but the messianic community, the ideal Israel. Zion as the mother of the people of God is a common theme in Jewish writings (Isa 54:1; II Esdr 10:7; cf. Gal 4:26). It is out of faithful Israel that Messiah will come. It should cause no trouble that within the same chapter the woman comes to signify the church (vs. 17). The people of God are one throughout all redemptive history" (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 236); "There are, indeed, two Jerusalems in Revelation. There is New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven in the new creation. Like the harlot Babylon, the New Jerusalem is both a woman and a city: the bride and the wife of the Lamb (19:7; 21:2, 9) and 'the holy city the New Jerusalem' (21:2), 'the city of my God' (3:12). Babylon and the New Jerusalem are the contrasting pair of women-cities which dominates the later chapters of Revelation. But as well as the New Jerusalem of the future, there is also 'the holy city' of 11:2 and the heavenly woman of 12:1-6, 13-17. The city of 11:2 is not the earthly Jerusalem, in which Revelation shows no interest, and 11:1-2 does not allude to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, when the sanctuary in the temple was certainly not protected from the Roman armies. John is here reinterpreting Daniel's prophecies of the desecration of the temple (Dan. 8:9-14; 11:31; 12:11) and perhaps also the prophecies in the Gospels, dependent on Daniel, which prophesied the fall of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20-4). He is reinterpreting them to refer to the persecution of the church in the symbolic three-and-a-half year period of the church's conflict with the Roman Empire. The holy city trampled by the Gentiles is the faithful church in its suffering and martyrdom at the hands of the beast. The sanctuary with its worshippers is the hidden presence of God to those who worship him in the churches... For the same period in which the sanctuary is protected, in which the holy city is trampled and the witnesses prophesy (11:1-3), the heavenly woman who has given birth to the Messiah is kept safe in the wilderness (12:6, 13-16), while the dragon, frustrated in his pursuit of her, turns his attacks onto her children (12:13-17). Her refuge in the wilderness is an alternative symbol for the same spiritual safety of the church in persecution as is depicted by the protection of the sanctuary in 11:1-2. She is kept safe while the beast rules and puts her children to death (13:5-7). She is the mother of Jesus and of Christians—Eve and Mary, Israel, Zion and the church all combined in an image of the spiritual essence of the covenant people of God. She is the female figure corresponding to the holy city of 11:2" (Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 126-28).
• 18 "The 'offspring' of the woman and their identification as those who 'hold to the testimony of Jesus,' make it virtually certain that two separate groups are intended. The radiant woman, representing ethnic Israel is one object of Satan's fury. But the saints of the church—every follower of Jesus who bears his testimony—become the final object of satanic hatred. Since God remains beyond the reach of Satan, the devil's wrath against God is transferred to the two objects still partially within his sphere; Israel and the church of Jesus Christ" (Patterson, Revelation, 308).
• 19 Marius Heemstra, The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 132.
• 20 "We should remark that the action of the dragon, which is presented here as new, is not fundamentally different from his enterprises against the woman (the people of God, the Church): it is the same intention that motivates the Adversary. That is why one must not distinguish the Christians described in v. 17, those who keep God's commandments and maintain the testimony of Jesus, from those who were implicitly described in the symbolic figure of the woman. When the text now speaks of 'the rest of her offspring', it is obviously by way of allusion to the prophecy contained in Gen 3:15: the time has now come when the posterity of the woman is called to confront victoriously the hostility of the serpent." (Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 395); "Others (P. Hughes 1990: 142-43; Glasson 1965: 78) have said the contrast is between the Palestinian church (the woman) and the Gentile church (the offspring), but there is no basis for that in the book (see Krodel 1989: 246). Still others (Mounce, Michaels, Johnson) believe the contrast is between the male seed, Christ (12:5, 13), and the church (12:13-17). Finally, some (Swete, Ladd, Caird, Krodel, Beale) see a contrast between the woman as the 'ideal church' from a heavenly perspective (12:6, 13-16) and the 'offspring' as the earthly church seen as a whole (12:17). In favor of this would be the depiction of hte woman in 12:1-2 as 'in heavene' and the idea of mother Zion bearing her children in Isa. 66:7-8. These last two options are not antithetical and together provide the solution. The 'rest of her offspring' is the church down through the ages as well as in this final three-and-a-half year period of history... σπέρμα (normally used of the male line) is found only here in the book and alludes to Gen. 3:15, where God curses the serpent" (Osborne, Revelation, 485); "The most plausible view is that the woman in vv. 6, 13-16 depicts the church (and the suffering she undergoes) as she is seen from the ideal, eternal, or heavenly perspective, and her offspring in v. 17 depict the multitude of individual believers (and the suffering they experience) as seen from an earthly or historical perspective." (G. K. Beale, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015], 262-63).
• 21 "Beale (264) thinks that the phrase "the rest of the offspring" implies that those mentions in vv. 6, 13-16 are also the woman's offspring. But 'rest of' could also relate to Christ the male child. They are "the siblings of the messianic son—that is, the church, the same entity symbolized by the two witnesses in chapter 11" (Blount, Revelation: A Commentary, 241-42); "Then the dragon was angry with the woman (= the people of God, up to this point apparently Israel) and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring (i.e., besides the Messiah, Jesus), on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus (= Christians) (v. 17). When Satan is unable to devour the Messiah, he tries to destroy the Jewish people. When he is unable to do that, he goes off to war against the Christians. Chapter 12, then, lays the foundation for the dragon's hostility toward Christians" (Talbert, The Apocalypse, 51).
• 22 Rev. 12:9 identifies the dragon as the Devil/Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. Inasmuch as the dragon has "angels" and does battle with "Michael and his angels" (Michael indisputably being an actual angel), the dragon can only be understood as an angelic being. This is corroborated by his being described in v. 10 as "the accuser of our brethren...who accuses them day and night before our God." This describes a being who has access to the heavenly court to accuse the people of God, reflecting Old Testament narratives in which the Satan functions as a heavenly prosecutor (Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2). For a full argument for identifying the New Testament Devil as a supernatural being, see my forthcoming article in the Journal of Theological Studies.
• 23 "This woman [in Revelation 12] is surely the bride, the heavenly Jerusalem (19:7-8; 21:9-10), antithesis of the harlot (Rome) (17:14; 18:16)." (Harrington, Revelation, 128 n. 1); "Thus the New Jerusalem of the future, the bride of the Lamb, has both a forerunner in the present and an opposite in the present. The forerunner is the holy city, mother Zion. The opposite is Babylon, the great whore." (Bauckham, Theology of the Book of Revelation, 128).

The Definition of a Catholic according to a Christadelphian Polemicist

I am currently busy with a study of Babylon the Great in Revelation 17 that I hope to publish in the near future. It is fairly slow going, but in the meantime, I want to write briefly on something related to my previous article, Christadelphians and Catholics: Prospects for Dialogue: a certain Christadelphian's definition of what it means to be Catholic. 

There are some Christadelphians who are former Catholics and thus have some firsthand knowledge and experience of Catholicism. However, I think it is fair to say that the great majority of Christadelphians have no minimal firsthand knowledge or experience of Catholicism. Their ideas about the Catholic Church come largely from three sources. The first source is Christadelphian literature and discourse, which takes a strongly polemical stance on Catholicism and views the Catholic Church through the lens of biblical apocalyptic. The second source is the news media, which reports (for instance) on the activities of the Pope and on various other happenings within the Catholic Church that may be of public interest, including scandals. Since "News content is dominated by the negative," as is "clear enough to any regular news consumer,"1 allowing news stories to shape one's perceptions of Catholicism will probably not lead to an objective picture—especially one whose exposure to Christadelphian polemic has already coloured (poisoned?) their perspective. The third source is interaction with individual Catholics—neighbours, coworkers, classmates, friends. In the developed, English-speaking countries where most of the world's Christadelphians are concentrated (U.K., Australia, USA, Canada, etc.), a significant proportion of Catholics are nominal (self-identifying as Catholic but not consistently practicing the faith) in contrast to devout (making a consistent effort to practice the faith). When one's personal interactions with Catholics tend to be mostly with nominal Catholics, there is a risk of mistaking nominal Catholicism for authentic Catholicism. 

This error is well illustrated in a video I recently encountered of one Neville Clark, a Christadelphian speaker in Enfield, Australia, offering his take on "the real definition of a Catholic". You can watch Clark give his definition in the video below (starting at 54:45) or read it in the transcript that follows (copied from here).

You know, it would be a mistake, brothers and sisters, if we didn’t take a personal lesson from this, what is the real definition of a Catholic, isn’t it just someone who is superficially religious? Someone who thinks they will get looked after in the end because they are part of a system, that their baptism in some way, gives them a ticket to salvation, and despite the fact that their life is basically worldly, and completely inconsistent with the principles of this book, they will be accepted because God says he loves them, isn’t that how Catholics think? What would that look like if it crept into the ecclesia? What would it look like in terms of our attendance? Would you say, that it would be like going to the meeting Sunday morning and forgetting every other class of the week because we are just too busy? What would it look like in terms of our spirituality, would you say, perhaps it could be that there was no real need to do the Bible study because that’s the speaker’s job? What would it look like in terms of our worship? Wouldn’t that be the use of modern music that talks all about what Christ has done for us and nothing about what our responsibilities are to him? Isn’t that how Catholicism works? You don’t have to attend anything but Sundays, and in fact, if you can’t make it, that’s fine, just turn up at Christmas and Easter. Bible study? You don’t even need a Bible to be a Catholic, we pay people to do the Bible Study for you, and music?

Let us briefly comment on seven claims that Clark makes within his definition of a Catholic.

1. Catholics are superficially religious.

I am not sure how Clark claims to know this—can he, like Jesus, read people's minds or judge their hearts? However, I think the self-imposed spiritual discipline and charity of many Catholics is evidence of their inner piety. Does a superficially religious person forego the joys of marriage, sexuality and raising children in order to devote oneself to prayer and service of others? Does a superficially religious person willingly undergo martyrdom? The saints and martyrs of the Church provide a powerful testimony to the authenticity of Catholic piety.

2. Catholics are complacent about their eternal destiny because of the system they belong to and their baptism.

Anyone who has read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on topics such as sin, the sacraments, grace, justification and holiness will know that complacency about one's eternal destiny has no place in the Catholic faith. This criticism is ironic in that Reformed Protestants level exactly the opposite criticism against the Catholic Church. They claim that Catholics are insecure about their eternal destiny and are motivated to piety by fear because they lack assurance of salvation.

3. Catholics take God's love for granted and thus live worldly rather than godly lives.

Again, the Catholic Church has a rich tradition of saints of whom many were ascetics and anything but worldly. Of course it would not be difficult to find a nominal Catholic who lives a worldly life, but such a Catholic would find no theological basis for this lifestyle in the moral teaching of the Church.

4. Catholics focus only on what Christ has done for them and not about their responsibilities toward Christ.

Again, this is precisely the opposite of the criticism that Calvinists often level at Catholics, saying that by focusing too much on our responsibilities toward Christ we neglect his finished work on the cross. Once again, reading the Catechism would easily dispel both misconceptions: Catholicism emphasises both the work of Christ and our responsibilities toward Christ.

5. Catholics do not have to attend anything but Sundays, and even attending only at Christmas and Easter is fine.

This is a patent falsehood. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. (CCC 2181)

This means that Catholics must go to Mass every Sunday, as well as certain holy days in the liturgical calendar (including Christmas and Easter). Deliberately not attending without a valid reason is a grave sin, meaning that it destroys one's salvation if one is not absolved from it (through the sacrament of reconciliation, i.e. repenting and going to a priest for Confession).

Catholics do not technically "have to" attend Mass other than on Sundays in the sense of a sacred obligation that one neglects at one's eternal peril. However, the Catechism states that "the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily" (CCC 1389). This is why Mass is held every day in Catholic churches. Besides Mass, the wider moral teaching of the Church strongly mandates involvement of all Catholics in church activities. In my parish, whenever an adult is received into the Church they are required to announce publicly which ministry they plan to join.

6. Catholics do not need Bibles because they pay someone else to do Bible study for them.

It is, needless to say, a rude caricature of the Church's ministerial orders to depict them as people paid to study the Bible by others who are too lazy to do so. That there exists a teaching ministry in the Church founded by Christ is surely beyond dispute on the basis of the New Testament. Moreover, that the Catholic Church has specially ordained and trained teachers of the Word does not mean that lay Catholics "do not need Bibles." The Catechism states that "The Church 'forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ'" (CCC 133). This is no mere lip service to the notion of private Bible reading: Catholics all over the world have a set of daily Mass readings that they would hear read publicly if they attend Mass that day, and are encouraged to read and meditate on privately if they do not.

7. Catholic worship music is self-evidently bad.

I am not sure what Clark's point was about Catholic music, because he expressed it mainly with body language, ending his critical definition of what a Catholic is with "and music?" followed by a dismissive shrug (see screenshot below).

  

Apparently Clark considers it to be self-evident what is wrong with Catholic music. Based on his prior comments critical of "modern music," it may be that he objects to the use of modern worship music in the Catholic Church. I'm afraid I don't follow. I don't know what kind of music Catholics sing in South Australia, but it might interest Clark to know that in my parish in Cape Town, South Africa, we mainly sing hymns accompanied by an organ. Many of the hymns we sing are the same hymns I learned growing up in a conservative Christadelphian ecclesia in Canada. I might add that, as a member of my parish choir, my own experience has been that Catholics put far more effort into singing these hymns as they are meant to be sung—typically with a four-part harmony that has been well practiced by a choir. I would not want to hastily generalise based on my own limited experience, but I think that the style of music in many Catholic churches (hymns set to organ music) would be quite amenable to a traditionally minded Christadelphian like Clark.

Of course, for every Clark who (apparently) dismisses Catholic music for being too "modern," one could find a critic who dismisses Catholic music for being too "old-fashioned" or "traditional."

Conclusion

Clark's "real definition of a Catholic" is uncharitable and he offers no evidence to support his sweeping generalisations—not even any anecdotal evidence from his own experience, much less any evidence that his claims are broadly representative of Catholic teaching and practice.

I couldn't help but notice that at several points, Clark was making exactly the opposite criticism of Catholicism than what I have encountered elsewhere. Clark says Catholic religiosity is too superficial; others say it is too radical (hair shirt or flagellation, anyone?). Clark says Catholics are smug about their eternal destiny; others say Catholics are too fearful about their eternal destiny. Clark says Catholics are too worldly; others say they are too otherworldly or too ascetic. Clark says Catholics focus on the finished work of Christ to the neglect of their own need to work for Christ; others say the reverse. Clark says Catholics are too lax about church attendance; others say they are too rigid to the point of legalism. Clark seems to think Catholic worship music is too modern; others say it is too traditional.

This pattern—that the Church's various opponents assail her for opposite and mutually contradictory reasons—was observed a century ago by the great G.K. Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy:

As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith, from Huxley to Bradlaugh, a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind—the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness. In case any reader has not come across the thing I mean, I will give such instances as I remember at random of this self-contradiction in the sceptical attack. I give four or five of them; there are fifty more. (emphasis added)2

The reader is encouraged to read the full chapter of Chesterton's book, which contains numerous examples of this phenomenon, some of them quite similar to what we have noted above about Clark's critique.

I hope that Clark and Christadelphians who might share his ideas will drop this grotesque caricature of Catholicism and aim for at least a modicum of objectivity in their definition of what a Catholic is. This could be achieved by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church (to get an accurate understanding of Catholic doctrine), by attending Catholic Masses (to experience Catholic liturgy and religious life firsthand), and by befriending devout Catholics. Perhaps this is too much to ask of Clark, but I hope that Christadelphians who are able to recognise the unfairness and inaccuracy of his definition (and other similar statements that are regularly made, and received uncritically, in Christadelphian meetings) will be moved to investigate the Catholic faith for themselves and get their information "from the horse's mouth."

Footnotes

• 1 Stuart Soroka and Stephen McAdams, "News, Politics, and Negativity," Political Communication 32 (2015): 1.
• 2 Gilbert K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1908), 155.

The Incarnation: Contradiction or paradox?

"The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation," writes philosophical theologian Brian Hebblethwaite, "is one of the two central doctrines which set out the unique features of Christian faith in God."1 Hebblethwaite goes on to explain that while many religions believe in an infinite and transcendent God and make possible rich spiritual experiences, Christianity goes further in asserting that 

God has made himself known more fully, more specifically and more personally, by taking our human nature into himself, by coming amongst us as a particular man, without in any way ceasing to be the eternal and infinite God.2

The classic, dogmatic statement of the Incarnation doctrine comes from the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.).3 The doctrine contains three fundamental ontological claims: (i) Jesus Christ is truly man; (ii) Jesus Christ is truly God; (iii) Jesus Christ is one person and not two. Opponents of the Incarnation doctrine call it a contradiction, while proponents call it a paradox. What is the difference? A contradiction is a combination of mutually exclusive ideas, like a square circle, or the mathematical statements x > y and x < y. A paradox is an apparent contradiction that may not really be a contradiction. Take, for example, the saying, "Less is more." This saying is paradoxical since the words "less" and "more" are antonyms, but one can readily appreciate the wisdom of the saying (consider, for instance, the decision whether to offer a short speech or a long speech at a wedding.) Or which of us has never heard someone answer a yes-or-no question with "Yes and no"? We do not typically conclude that the respondent is irrational; we suspect that they perceive complexity and nuance in the question that requires a multi-faceted answer. In a word, they perceive a paradox.

The apparent contradictions in the Incarnation's three fundamental ideas are immediately obvious. First, whereas all other known persons are constituted by one nature, this doctrine affirms that Jesus Christ has two natures and yet remains only one person. Second, for specifically divine and human natures to co-exist in a single person seems contradictory, since we associate properties with "divinity" and "humanity" respectively that seem mutually exclusive (e.g., eternal vs. created, immortal vs. mortal, omniscient vs. limited in knowledge, omnipresent vs. locally present, etc.) However, as philosophical theologian Oliver Crisp points out,

we cannot know a priori that the two-natures doctrine is incoherent without first establishing (a) exactly what the constituents of divinity and humanity consist in (or, perhaps better, what divinity and humanity do not consist in), and (b) that these constituents are mutually exclusive of one another.4

Unfortunately, Christadelphians and members of certain other heterodox, sectarian movements commonly do dismiss the Incarnation doctrine a priori as logically incoherent. Indeed, I used to take this dismissive view of the Incarnation myself. My advice to those who consider the Incarnation a basic contradiction unworthy of serious thought is, not so fast. Here I will list four reasons why the logic of the Incarnation demands serious attention.

(1) The Incarnation doctrine has an impressive historical pedigree.

The statement from the Council of Chalcedon that definitively expressed Incarnational Christology was the fruit of over four centuries of intense theological reflection, discussion and controversy involving the entire Church. The resolution achieved at Chalecdon has stood the test of time, too. It has been the touchstone of Christological orthodoxy for over fifteen centuries and remains such among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and most Protestant denominations. Indeed, all forms of ancient Christianity that have survived affirm the Incarnation,5 and with the exception of some post-Reformation sectarian movements, all contemporary professedly-Christian groups affirm the Incarnation.

This history, read with a basic principle of respecting elders, forebears and authority,6 ought to make us at least think twice before dismissing the Incarnation as an obvious contradiction. If the Incarnation is basically a stupid idea, how did the entire Church by the fifth century come to a consensus that it was the best Christological synthesis? And how could an obvious contradiction achieve such staying power? It is remarkable, given the heated Christological controversies of the first four centuries of Christianity, that the ecumenical consensus achieved in the fifth century on Incarnational Christology should remain the ecumenical consensus over 1500 years later.7

(2) The Incarnation remains a respectable idea in the academic sphere.

Numerous theologians in Church history have masterfully defended Incarnational Christology (Origen, St. Augustine, St. John of Damascus, St. Anselm of Canterbury, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.) However, for some sectarians, the Church's theological tradition between, say, 200 and 1500 A.D. is shrouded in darkness and superstition, whereas the achievements of modern academic scholarship blaze brightly. While I could say much against this chronocentrism, I would hasten to add that in the contemporary academy the Incarnation has not been relegated to obscurity. It remains an idea worthy of serious attention among philosophical theologians. For example, no less a publisher than Oxford University Press produced a volume of essays in this decade entitled The Metaphysics of Incarnation exploring the philosophical viability of the Incarnation from a variety of perspectives.8 OUP doesn't publish edited volumes debating the merits of obsolete, Mickey Mouse ideas. Several of the contributors to this volume, and many other scholars, have separately published philosophically rigorous defenses of Incarnational Christology.9

Of course, there are also accomplished academics who reject the philosophical viability of the Incarnation. My claim is not that the mere existence of rigorous philosophical defenses of the Incarnation in contemporary academia vindicates the truth of the doctrine a priori.10 One would really need to be trained in philosophy—which I am not—to engage critically with this scholarly debate. However, the existence of the debate at least shows that the Incarnation cannot be dismissed a priori as logically incoherent.

(3) Paradox plays an indispensable part in Christian theology.

Christian theology is inescapably paradoxical. Take eschatology for instance: biblical scholars today widely agree that New Testament eschatology can be summed up with the obviously paradoxical phrase "already and not yet." The kingdom of God, the new age, has arrived and yet it is still coming. One can point to numerous other theological paradoxes whereby seemingly contradictory ideas are held in tension: grace and merit, faith and works, sin and mercy, predestination and free will, and so on. There are also numerous paradoxes within the Bible pertaining to God's nature and character. That God is apparently gentle and loving in the New Testament but warlike and severe in the Old spawned heresies in antiquity (Marcionism) and provides fodder for skeptics today. The perennial problem of evil represents a paradox in Christian theology: the prevalence of natural and moral evil in the world today appears to conflict with the existence of an omnipotent, perfectly good and perfectly loving God.

The New Testament contains, of course, blatant paradoxes specifically in the area of Christology. A crucified Messiah? A crucified Saviour? "A stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles," says Paul (1 Cor. 1:23). The Gospel of John is so audacious as to interpret Jesus's physical "lifting up" on the cross as his "lifting up" in the sense of exaltation as foretold in Isa. 52:13 (cf. John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). So is New Testament Christology paradoxical? Absolutely. We should not be surprised, then, to find paradox in core Christian dogma about God and Christ.

(4) Non-Incarnational Christologies also face philosophical difficulties.

Many liberal theologians and some sectarians (e.g., Christadelphians) assert that Jesus was/is merely human, that is, ontologically no greater than any other human. (Of course, those who affirm a literal resurrection would assert that Jesus's human nature is now superior to ours.) Proponents perceive this as the simplest and most logical Christology. After all, every other human known to history has been "merely human." However, those who see a "merely human" Christology as the default or natural option may overlook that it is not without philosophical problems. Consider just a few:

i. By all accounts, human conception is an ontologically significant event. Does Jesus's unique human conception in the womb of a virgin not therefore have ontological significance? If so, what is the ontological significance of the virgin birth?
ii. Is the exalted Jesus omnipresent? If not, how does he function as mediator between God and humans? If so, how can a physical, bodily person be omnipresent?
iii. How is it that Jesus was sufficiently like us that he experienced the same frailties and temptations we face, and yet sufficiently unlike us that he never once succumbed to temptation but remained perfectly sinless?
iv. Since the success of God's plan of salvation depended on the perfect obedience of a free human agent (Christ), could God guarantee that his plan of salvation would not fail? If not, was it not a mere gamble rather than a foolproof plan? If so, how did God guarantee this without impinging on Christ's free will?

v. Can a person who is not ontologically one with God be granted the very prerogatives and honours that demarcate God's uniqueness? If God extends his unique "God-ness" to a sub-divine creature, does his "God-ness" not lose its uniqueness (and thereby cease to be "God-ness")?

No doubt proponents of a "merely human" Christology would offer intelligent answers to these questions. My point, however, is that the matter cannot just be settled out of court. Both sides have a case to argue and a case to answer.

Conclusion

My point in this article is not that reason compels us to accept the doctrine of the Incarnation. That argument would require a sharper intellect and a lot more space. My point is simply that reason cannot rule out the Incarnation a priori; that reason compels us to at least seriously consider this doctrine. In fact, anyone who rules out the Incarnation a priori effectively ensures that s/he will never be taken seriously as a Christian theologian.

I have, over time, become more and more convinced that our ecclesiology—our understanding of the nature, purpose and gifted prerogatives (or lack thereof) of the Church—determines, to a large degree, our other theological positions. It is a fact of history that the early Church reached a consensus that the Incarnation best explains the biblical and apostolic witness concerning the person of Christ. If I believe that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in her doctrinal deliberations, I will place considerable weight on this historic consensus. If, however, I believe that the Church was left to her own devices and inevitably wandered astray, I will consider it a light thing to cast aside the historic consensus and replace it with my own private judgment (perhaps identified facilely with "what the Bible teaches").

Footnotes

• 1 Brian Hebblethwaite, The Incarnation: Collected Essays in Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 21. He adds: "The other central doctrine is that of the Trinity."
• 2 Hebblethwaite, op. cit., 21.
• 3 "Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession of one and the same Son our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and the same truly man, of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the manhood, like us in all things apart from sin, begotten from the Father before the ages in respect of the Godhead, and the same in the last days for us and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary the Theotokos in respect of the manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation (the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together in one person and one hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, Only-begotten, God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ, even as the prophets from of old and Jesus Christ himself taught us about him and the symbol of the fathers has handed down to us" (trans. Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon: Translated with introduction and notes, vol. 1 [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005], 59).
• 4 Oliver Crisp, Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 166.
• 5 In the wake of post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue, there is now mutual recognition between Chalcedonian Christianity and the Oriental Orthodox (whose rejection of Chalcedonian Christology was the occasion of their existence as a separate communion) as well as the Assyrian Church of the East that historical Christological differences were a matter of semantics rather than substance.
• 6 Of course, sectarian ecclesiology does not usually think in such terms. Sectarians often exult in their minority status and their rejection of established authority and tradition in line with their self-understanding as a "remnant." The notion of a righteous remnant does admittedly have a strong biblical pedigree. Much more could be said about such "remnant ecclesiology," but for now I will just say this: there are many groups today that make mutually exclusive claims to be God's righteous remnant. Clearly, all but one (if not all) of these groups are mistaken.
• 7 When I made this argument recently in a Facebook dialogue, my Christadelphian interlocutor asked, "How is your 'long and illustrious pedigree' any more relevant than the 'long and illustrious pedigree' of Mohammed going to heaven on a horse?" The answer should be obvious. Given that one believes in a heavenly, transcendent God (Allah) and that Mohammed is his prophet, the idea of Mohammed going to heaven on a horse is not very paradoxical. Nor was this idea, to my knowledge, the occasion of epoch-making theological controversy in early Islam. I suspect that very few Christians reject Islam specifically because of the Muslim belief that Mohammed went to heaven on a horse (which is, after all, similar to Judeo-Christian beliefs about the prophet Elijah). It is precisely because of the very contentious and complex debates about Christology in the early church that a 1500-year consensus on the Incarnation is remarkable, and not easy to dismiss.
• 8 Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill, eds., The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). On a similar note, see Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O'Collins, The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
• 9 Thomas V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); Brian Hebblethwaite, The Incarnation: Collected Essays in Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga, Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1989); James K. A. Smith, Speech and Theology: Language and the logic of the Incarnation (New York: Routledge, 2002); Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003); Marilyn McCord Adams, Christ and Horrors: The Coherence of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Oliver D. Crisp, Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Richard Cross, "The Incarnation," in Thomas P. Flint & Michael C. Rea, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Oliver D. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (London: T&T Clark, 2009); Andrew Ter Ern Loke, A Kryptic Model of the Incarnation (New York: Routledge, 2016); etc. Of course, the list would become much longer if we extended our scope beyond the English-language literature.
• 10 I was misinterpreted as making such a claim recently when I made this appeal to scholarship in a Facebook discussion.

Two Christadelphians, Two Evangelicals and Two Catholics answer Seven Epistemological Questions

Preamble
Introducing the Respondents
Seven Epistemological Questions and Responses

1. Do you affirm that the Holy Scriptures, in their entirety, are divinely inspired and teach divine truth without error?

2. Which books constitute the Holy Scriptures, and how do you know that it is precisely these books—no more and no less?

3. Do you affirm the perspicuity of Scripture, namely the idea that the core doctrines of the faith can be correctly deduced from the Holy Scriptures by any individual who studies them diligently with a sincere desire to know God’s will?

3.1. If so, what do you make of people whose study of Scripture leads them to different conclusions than yours about the core doctrines of the faith?
3.2. If not, what else besides sincere, diligent personal study of Scripture is necessary to correctly understand the core doctrines of the faith?

4. Do you affirm that the Holy Spirit enables individuals to understand the core doctrines of the faith by guiding their minds and hearts toward correct interpretation as they study the Scriptures?

4.1. If so, what do you make of people whose study of Scripture leads them to different conclusions than yours about the core doctrines of the faith?
4.2. If not, then is a correct interpretation of biblical teaching exclusively an achievement of the human intellect?

5. Do you affirm that Tradition—defined as apostolic teaching that was not recorded in Scripture but transmitted orally and developed by the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit—has any legitimate place in the formation of Christian doctrine?

5.1. If so, do you regard the authority of such Tradition as subordinate or equal to that of Scripture?
5.2. If not, do you deny that the “rule of faith”—the summary of Christian doctrine that ante-Nicene church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian claimed had been handed down from the apostles—is binding on later believers? 

6. Do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as classically defined in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed? 

6.1. If so, do you affirm that this doctrine is explicitly set out in Scripture, or do you allow that post-biblical reflection on the biblical revelation has legitimately been raised to the status of dogma?
6.2. If not, do you affirm that this central dogma of the Christian faith—as held by consensus continuously for the past sixteen centuries—is a grave error? 

7. Ultimately, what is the ground of your confidence that you are using the correct biblical canon and interpreting its core doctrines correctly, while those who differ from you on the biblical canon and core doctrines are mistaken? 

Preamble

Readers familiar with my account of my journey from Christadelphianism to Evangelicalism to Catholicism will be aware of the role that epistemology has played in my thinking about Christian doctrine. I define epistemology in this context as the study of how we arrive at doctrines worthy of belief or how we distinguish dogma from opinion. It occurred to me that an interesting way of highlighting the epistemological differences between Christadelphians, Evangelicals and Catholics would be to ask members of each group to answer some questions specifically designed to highlight these epistemological differences. So I did. I drew up seven questions (along with some sub-questions) and invited two Christadelphians, two Evangelicals and two Catholics to answer them. These questions and their answers are reproduced verbatim below for the reader's perusal, without any commentary. The purpose of this exercise is not necessarily to show who is right and who is wrong, but to place the different views in sharp relief, side by side. By doing so, I hope that when Christadelphians, Evangelicals and Catholics engage in theological dialogue they will better understand their interlocutor's position and be more introspective about their own.

A few caveats are in order before getting to the respondents and the questions. This is a small, ad hoc, qualitative project. I do not claim that the respondents are statistically representative of their respective religious groups, nor did I make any effort to achieve demographic representativeness (thus, for instance, the respondents are all Anglophone males!) The respondents were handpicked as people I knew on some level whom I thought might be interested in participating and whom I consider to be theologically knowledgeable. The respondents do not claim to be authorized spokesmen for their religious communities. Hence, we do not necessarily have here "the Christadelphian view," "the Evangelical view" and "the Catholic view." We have the views of six individuals, which are however informed to a high degree by these individuals' respective religious affiliations. (Perhaps, as an exercise, the reader can reflect on how s/he would have expressed his/her answers to these questions.) I should also note that none of the respondents saw each other's answers, so they are not directly in dialogue with each other's viewpoints. Finally, a plea to the reader: these six contributors were brave enough to publicly express their answers to these seven challenging epistemological questions. If you choose to comment on any of their answers, please do so in a respectful manner. You may wish to refer to my rules of engagement for online theological discussions for suggestions on how to do this.

Introducing the Respondents

Let me extend my sincere thanks to the six respondents who took time out of their busy lives to offer their views on some challenging theological issues. When quoting the responses in the next section I will use respondents' initials, so I will introduce each respondent by their initials here for easy reference. I asked each respondent to provide some brief biographical information for context.1

DB: Dave Burke was born and raised in a Christadelphian family and is still a member of the Christadelphian community. He is married to Liz, with two children (Johanna and Thomas) and resides in Adelaide, Australia where he works as a freelance business writer. He has 22 years of public speaking and pastoral experience. He is currently studying a Bachelor of Theology degree at a non-denominational Christian university college, and has recently published a guide to Bible study entitled Servants of the Lord: A Bible Study Handbook, which can be purchased from Amazon. Dave maintains an active web presence: see his Academia.edu page, a Facebook page on Christian Origins that he maintains, and two websites to which he is a contributor: Milk to Meat and living-faith.org.2

MM: Mike Macdonald has worked in Banking for 14 years and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Marketing. He and his family reside in the Finger Lakes area of New York. Mike was raised as a Christadelphian, though his parents were not; their family had a Catholic background and they began attending a Christadelphian ecclesia as adults and were eventually baptized. Mike holds beliefs that align with the Unamended community.3 Mike has attended 3 different ecclesias,4 been to many different Bible schools and gatherings,5 and has read from and communicated with many different brothers and sisters of varying beliefs (including from the Amended community), as well as with those of varying religious groups outside of Christadelphia. The website of Mike’s home ecclesia can be found here.6

DD: Derick Dickens is a professor, business leader, Ph.D. student, husband and father who resides in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA. Ordained in 1999 to the Gospel Ministry, Derick has written for several organizations including his own blogs, various news publications, and the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Hoping to begin work on his dissertation in a year, Derick’s passion outside of the Bible is Leadership Development, Human Resource Management, and Cultural Engagement. Derick is best known for his humorous speech, “Fun at the DMV” where he won several awards. In 1998, Derick married Lacie where they set off Pastoring Churches, gaining more education, and refining his theology. His theological interests include ecclesiology, soteriology, historic theology, Presuppositional Apologetics and philosophy. Derick is a Presbyterian and holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith. One of his goals in life is to never eat broccoli again. You can find his websites at www.completeinthee.com and www.iopsychology.us.7

SH: Salvador Hayworth grew up in a Christian home. He made a profession of faith and commitment to Christianity when he was seven. He was born again when he was 19. He has had church backgrounds of Pentecostalism, Independent Methodist, Charismatic and Baptist churches as well as independent assemblies. He is not tied to a denomination. He has been an evangelical missionary among the Zulu and directed and produced a documentary drama on the true stories of four people saved out of necromancy and ancestral traditions to follow the Lord (www.allegiancethemovie.co.za). He is now ministering on the East Coast of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa in an independent evangelical Church. (See the KwaZulu mission website.)8

JdH: Jeremy de Haan was born and raised in the Canadian Reformed Churches. During his fourth year at seminary, on his way to becoming a Reformed pastor, Jeremy was prompted by the conversion account of Dr. Peter Kreeft to look more closely at the Catholic faith. The question of epistemology played a big role in this search, and he concluded that the Reformed faith was inconsistent on that foundational point. He and his wife and children were received into the Catholic Church during Lent, 2017. Jeremy and his family reside in West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. You can read Jeremy’s blog at https://sixteenseasons.wordpress.com.9

CP: Casey Phillips is a self-described Catholic husband, father and Spanish teacher who resides in Kentucky, USA. A former Baptist, Casey converted to Catholicism with his wife Erin in 2014. Since then, Casey has sought to share his Catholic faith through his blog and social media presence (learn more at https://bapticatholic.wordpress.com).10

So, to recap, DB and MM are our Christadelphian contributors, DD and SH are our Evangelical contributors (bearing in mind that DD is a Presbyterian and SH non-denominational) and JdH and CP are our Catholic contributors.

Each contributor received the following instructions pertaining to the seven epistemological questions:

Please answer each question using no more than 150 words (ideally less). In fact, you may wish to answer simply “Yes” or “No” to certain questions if you don’t think your answer requires further qualification. The idea is to clearly state your position rather than to offer detailed arguments in its defence. However, you are welcome to link to or cite material that contains such arguments.

Seven Epistemological Questions and Responses

1. Do you affirm that the Holy Scriptures, in their entirety, are divinely inspired and teach divine truth without error?

DB: Yes.

MM: Yes.

DD: Yes!

SH: Obviously there is a huge issue concerning the transmission of texts from the autographs to the present day. The issue of variants must be acknowledged. But I believe that the authors of scripture were all moved by the Holy Spirit to record the message of scripture and all that they first recorded was without error, inspired and, therefore, authoritative.

JdH: I do.

CP: Yes.

2. Which books constitute the Holy Scriptures, and how do you know that it is precisely these books—no more and no less?

DB: The 66 books of the Protestant canon; Textual criticism and historical evidence.

MM: I don’t know for certain. I believe there are likely divinely inspired writings outside of the accepted canon, but I also trust that the canon that has been given to God’s creation contains His saving Gospel message (I’m not aware of any primary Scriptural belief that needs non-canonical writings for support).

DD: I hold to the traditional 66 books. I am not going to address each individual book, but the general principle. Generally speaking, the question seems to ask, “Did the church make the Bible or did the Bible make the church?” The Bible made the church. When there were faithful teachings of the Scripture, the church sprung up. The early church only recognized what occurred when the books of the Bible were properly exposited. In reality, the early church had very little debate over the Books of the Bible precisely because they were created by the Bible and not the other way around. God in His sovereignty put a high standard where other potential rival books were hidden or destroyed. There are no more because none meets the criteria of being inspired like the canon we have. Is there a book in the Bible that shouldn’t be there? Proving a negative is rather difficult, but in general the creation of the church through the preaching of these texts show the insight of the text itself.

SH: 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New. I believe that the NT canon is agreed upon, except for those who would like to also see the inclusion of 2nd century gnostic literature. I find it interesting that the book of Enoch is alluded to by Jude but that is not included in the Roman Catholic apocrypha. NT books bear the stamp of apostolic authority either of apostolic authorship or of a disciple writing under the supervision and authority of an Apostle. As far as the OT, I see the apocryphal books became an issue because the LXX was used by the NT authors. I have yet to see evidence of the books being wholesale accepted by Palestinian Jews of the first century. Because of the priority of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament, and because of the distinction between the 39 Old Testament books, and the idea that the apocryphal books are somehow deuterocanonical.

JdH: The 73 books of the Catholic canon are Scripture. I have faith that this is true because I believe that the Spirit works through the Church to establish the truth, and the Church declared at the Council of Trent that these 73 books constitute God's written Word. I can, however, grow in understanding and appreciation of this truth through historical study, as well as by simply reading the books themselves.

CP: I affirm the 73 books that compile the canon which is accepted by the Catholic Church. I hold these books to be Holy Scripture because of their historical use among the Christian faithful, and, more importantly, because they were recognized as such by the Catholic Church. By virtue of the authority granted Her by Christ, only the Catholic Church has the ability to recognize and proclaim what books belong in the canon.

3. Do you affirm the perspicuity of Scripture, namely the idea that the core doctrines of the faith can be correctly deduced from the Holy Scriptures by any individual who studies them diligently with a sincere desire to know God’s will?

DB: Yes.

MM: Yes.

DD: Yes and No! The doctrine of Perspicuity is not universal and is somewhat veiled to the non-Christian. Is the Bible generally clear? Yes! Does that mean there are no difficult passages? No! The other issue here is the word “Individual.” I believe that in general, that true churches have correctly interpreted the Bible. Individualistic interpretations have wandered further. Individualism is not a solid Christian doctrine and should be rejected. While we have the priesthood of the believer, we were called into the church to learn from others who have been deemed faithful in handling the truth. When Calvin opposed the Roman Catholic Church, he was careful to show how the church had held to the doctrines he was espousing. For him, he did not want to be seen as coming up with something new.

SH: I affirm Scripture’s perspicuity for born again believers concerning core doctrines. There are several factors that contribute to the perspicuity of scripture. A person must be born again with a spiritual birth that comes about when one personally trusts in Jesus. For scripture is written that we may believe in Jesus and by faith we are saved. Believing, we have life in Jesus' name. The Holy Spirit needs to illuminate, and open our eyes that we may see wonderful things in the word. We need to accept scripture's judgment over us and if we obey the doctrine we will know that the doctrine is of God. We also are in community with other born again believers and we sharpen one another to search scripture out. We must never believe something just because we were told so. We are more noble minded if we search out scripture to see if these things be so.

JdH: No, I do not affirm that idea.

CP: No. Although many core doctrines can be deduced, it does not follow that all can. Individual interpretation, limited knowledge of context, among other hindrances limit an individual, no matter his or her sincerity, to correctly divine all the fundamental truths of scripture.

3.1. If so, what do you make of people whose study of Scripture leads them to different conclusions than yours about the core doctrines of the faith?

DB: I believe they are mistaken, just as they believe I am. I further note that many people who believe the Holy Spirit is necessary for the correct interpretation of Scripture, disagree with each other on essential and non-essential doctrines. This ongoing contradiction militates against the idea that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christians in the correct understanding of Scripture.

MM: There are many reasons why studying the same Scripture can lead to different conclusions, e.g. God’s election/calling, translation/version used, pre-conceived beliefs from human resources used and other influences: familial, societal, cultural, experiences with people of different religions, etc (I can’t imagine anyone whose beliefs haven’t been at least somewhat influenced by at least one of these factors). I respect anyone who has studied Scripture diligently and come to their conclusions, even if different from mine.

DD: See my explanation of the difference between the corporate interpretation and the individual interpretation. Do I still handle differences between churches? Of course, but there is a grounding in Scripture (Sola Scriptura) that is informed by the church (See later answer on the differences between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura). Perspicuity does not mean that all doctrine is clear, but doctrine in general is clear. The Westminster Confession notes,

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130)."

SH: For many different reasons: Presuppositions that blind me. Uncritical commitment to another authority alongside scripture, such as a preacher, pastor or a magisterium. Through gaining a revelation of a truth and taking it beyond the scriptural context and building a whole system on that doctrine without holding it together with other doctrines in biblical tension. Also when we see our understanding is wrong it is easy to embrace a pendulum swing to an opposing view or to take on board the whole body of teaching that those who opposed our understanding hold to without realising that there may be elements within that body of teaching that are not biblical though we gain a revelation of things like sovereignty, free will etc.

3.2. If not, what else besides sincere, diligent personal study of Scripture is necessary to correctly understand the core doctrines of the faith?

DD: Again, the Westminster Confession notes,

"Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

JdH: The doctrines of the faith are themselves the lens through which to properly read Scripture. Each of the NT books were written to an audience already possessing the faith and thus equipped to understand the book properly. There is no indication from the Apostles that "diligent, personal study of" their writings alone will give you a sufficient knowledge of the faith, since prior knowledge of the faith is a necessary prerequisite for understanding those writings. Rather, to correctly understand the Christian faith, you must be taught that faith by those to whom it was entrusted. That is, to receive the Christian faith as it really is, you must find the Church. Only then will you understand both the faith and Scripture. Apart from the Church, you lose both.

CP: An infallible authority. As a Catholic, I recognize this authority is the Catholic Church itself, which scripture points out to be the pillar of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

4. Do you affirm that the Holy Spirit enables individuals to understand the core doctrines of the faith by guiding their minds and hearts toward correct interpretation as they study the Scriptures?

DB: No, and many Christians—including evangelicals—agree with me: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/05/the-holy-spirit-interprets-the-bible/ https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/641-holy-spirit-illumination-theory-a-critical-review-the http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/01/what-does-the-bible-mean-is-the-holy-spirit-necessary-for-biblical-interpretation

MM: Yes & no (and frankly, uncertain as to identifying when and how this may be done).

DD: Yes! Which is why perspicuity does not necessarily extend to non-Christians. However, it should also be noted, that the Holy Spirit is not perspicuous, only Scripture.

SH: The Holy Spirit does do so.

JdH: As this question is worded, I do affirm it. I wrote in the previous question that I believe that correct interpretation comes from reading Scripture through the lens of the Christian faith. But the correct understanding of the truths of God are available only to those who look with the eyes of faith, which is a spiritual reality. In the same way that man cannot enter into friendship with God apart from the transforming work of God's Spirit, so man cannot understand the truths of God apart from the same transforming work (1Cor. 2:14). Apart from the work of the Spirit, we can understand neither Scripture nor the Christian faith.

CP: The Holy Spirit can do anything, and so a person could be led to the truth but that would not be the normative way.

4.1. If so, what do you make of people whose study of Scripture leads them to different conclusions than yours about the core doctrines of the faith?

MM: I believe that calling & election are one way in which a person arrives at Scriptural truths and I certainly wouldn’t exclude the Holy Spirit’s work in that means, but to what extent and when this is done, we can’t say. This is probably the most difficult question for me- I’ve asked for guidance and wisdom concerning beliefs that differ even within Christadelphia and I’m sure those on the other side of these beliefs have done the same. I’m just as sure that this can be said within all religions as well, let alone between varied religions.

DD: I think this goes back to perspicuity. Perspicuity does not mean a lack of problem passages or debatable points, but it merely means that in the essence of the Christian Doctrine, we must and should agree and it is clear. The Spirit does not operate apart from Scripture, which means it corresponds well with the doctrine of perspicuity. The Holy Spirit is also not perspicuous apart from Scripture. Therefore utterances of the Spirit help in interpretation.

SH: The illumination of the Spirit is both individual and communal. Through fellowship and disagreements we begin to discern those who are approved and we must study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of Truth. I must give account for my own life and doctrine. Differences may come in for many different reasons. I take a multifaceted approach to this subject. Thus the Holy Spirit uses the intellect but intellect is not to be trusted alone. Prayerful attitude, teachability and an awareness of my dependence of the Lord are important. The Lord may reveal through a new believer another aspect of His word, academic study can also aid, sound hermeneutics and charismatic leading are all different tent chords that when held in tension are all ways we can be lead by the Lord.

JdH: I don't believe that any reading of Scripture that runs contrary to the faith as defined by the Church is a reading that has been guided by the Spirit. Such a reading is, by definition, heresy.

4.2. If not, then is a correct interpretation of biblical teaching exclusively an achievement of the human intellect?

DB: No, I believe we can ask God for guidance as well. I simply deny that direct Holy Spirit intervention is necessary. When the Ethiopian eunuch asked for help to understand Scripture, Philip didn’t tell him that he needed the Holy Spirit. He simply explained the passage to the eunuch himself. He didn’t need the Holy Spirit for this. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand Scripture correctly. If this was true, why did the Reformers disagree with the Catholics and Orthodox? Shouldn’t they all share the same interpretation? Protestants and evangelicals have attempted to answer these questions, but their responses inevitably boil down to:

(a) variations on the No True Scotsman fallacy (‘They were not born again/they lacked faith/they were not spiritually mature/they were ignorant of the whole Word of God’)

(b) claims that the individuals in question required additional knowledge from uninspired resources (‘They should have used better Bible study aids’) and/or did not know how to use the resources they possessed (‘They lacked training/their hermeneutics were poor’)

(c) claims that the individuals in question were too reliant on tradition

Thus: https://www.gotquestions.org/interpretations-Christian.html

MM: Certainly not exclusively, but I think that calling & election may sometimes be simply an opportunity and oftentimes we need to search things out and filter through the “strong delusions” and lies with our God-given intellect.

DD: There is mystery, which is one of the debates even among the reformed (Clarkians and Van Tillians/Vos-ians) and non-reformed. However, interpretation is not anti-intellectual either. Because Scripture is not purely intellectual does not mean we say it lacks logic and engagement in the cognitive. Rather, it is to say that that Scripture is logical but it is more than logical too. God is logical but not contained in logic.

CP: No. Christ established a Church with the authority to preach and teach in His name (Matthew 28:19). That said, it makes sense to assume that He knew some would be led astray and would need the Church to guide them. Our faith embraces the great "both and." The Holy Spirit does guide us into all truth as long as we remain within the bounds of Christ's Church.

5. Do you affirm that Tradition—defined as apostolic teaching that was not recorded in Scripture but transmitted orally and developed by the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit—has any legitimate place in the formation of Christian doctrine?

DB: I would if we had any evidence of it. To date, I have seen no such evidence. However, I do believe that tradition— defined as apostolic teaching that was not recorded in Scripture but transmitted orally, and developed by the Church with or without the help of the Holy Spirit—has a legitimate place in the formation of Christian praxis.

MM: No.

DD: Tradition is a subordinate standard, but the struggles of the church throughout time help inform us. In Reformed circles, we emphasize Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) but reject Solo Scriptura (Only Scripture). Here is the difference. Sola Scriptura means that we learn through preaching as the preacher exposits the text. We can also learn through commentaries and good books on various topics. Solo Scriptura, the view we reject, means that we don’t need preaching to help with interpretation—there can be an individual or private interpretation. Many theologians (reformed and otherwise) have stated concerning theology, “If it is true, it is not new. If it is new, it is not true”; therefore, we believe the church has spoken on the topics throughout history. Because of Sola Scriptura, “Bereans” can and should verify beliefs using Scripture.

SH: I reject the idea of an oral Torah, whether for the Old Testament or New. I believe that Jesus spoke against such a concept when He said that the Pharisees negated the word of God for the sake of their traditions. He did not allow the traditions of the elders to rival scripture and even broke with the seminal teachings that would develop into the notion of the Oral Torah.

JdH: I am unsure about the phrase "developed by the Church." If it means that the Church's understanding of the deposit of faith develops over time, then I affirm the above.

CP: Yes.

5.1. If so, do you regard the authority of such Tradition as subordinate or equal to that of Scripture?

DB: If we had any evidence of it, I would consider it equal to Scripture. To date, I have seen no such evidence.

DD: Tradition and history is always subordinate to Scripture. It is a powerful testimony as if all of Church history spoke in one accord on a doctrine, it is highly unlikely that your new interpretation will be true.

JdH: Paul teaches us that all his teachings are authoritative, even those he did not write down: "Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). The Apostles do not indicate in their writings that there is any difference in authority between their oral and written communication.

CP: In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 the apostle Paul urges us to hold fast to both oral and written tradition. Scripture and Tradition compromise the complete deposit of faith left by Christ to the apostles.

5.2. If not, do you deny that the “rule of faith”—the summary of Christian doctrine that ante-Nicene church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian claimed had been handed down from the apostles—is binding on later believers?

DB: There is no single rule of faith summarising the beliefs of Christian doctrine according to the ante-Nicene fathers. A few commonalities notwithstanding, Justin Martyr’s rule of faith (the simplest) differs from Irenaeus’. Irenaeus’ rule of faith (the most detailed) differs from Tertullian’s. I believe their respective rules of faith are mostly correct, but somewhat in error. I see no reason why any ANF rule of faith should be binding upon believers. The Christian rule of faith should be distilled from the words of Christ and his apostles in Scripture.

MM: No, I do not deny, if by “rule of faith” it is meant that the Holy Scriptures only are the source of Christian doctrine.

DD: I am not Roman Catholic nor Greek Orthodox. Tradition is important but not infallible. See my discussion of Sola Scriptura above.

SH: I believe in the rule of scripture. I find some agreement with some of what church fathers on some things and reject others things they held to. For me, all church fathers are subject to scripture as I am. I must give my own account for my faith before the Lord. The church fathers pre-Augustine tended to be Chiliasts. I would agree with chiliasm maybe not in the form they held to but it's basic premise, not because the "fathers" believed it but because I see such truth in scripture. The writings of Church fathers may be somewhat helpful in studying scripture, as with studying with other believers but I must base my dogmatic stance on scripture and I cannot use the pre-Nicene fathers as authority to convince someone of the truth of my belief. I can quote some church father to give credence for my source but that is not the same thing. Thus, I hold to the rule of scripture.

6. Do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as classically defined in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed?

DB: No.

MM: No.

DD: Yes!

SH: My understanding of the trinity is that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Not three gods but One God. But the Father is distinct to the Son and to the Holy Spirit in that the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

JdH: I do.

CP: Yes.

6.1. If so, do you affirm that this doctrine is explicitly set out in Scripture, or do you allow that post-biblical reflection on the biblical revelation has legitimately been raised to the status of dogma?

DD: Yes, it is explicit in Scripture and necessary to be a Christian church. Here we should note, an explicit teaching does not mean it is phrased the exact way the Council of Nicea used. There is a fallacy of the 1800’s that was derived from a philosophy that primarily wanted very refined and singular statements that summarized an entire doctrine or else, they believed, the doctrine is not taught. This did horrible damage to Systematic and Biblical Theology. The Trinity is explicit and clear. There are few doctrines more clear in Scripture, but there is not one verse that outlines it just like the Council of Nicea. Sola Scriptura mandates we hold to the Trinity.

SH: The truths concerning this are self-evident in New Testament scripture. It is clear that the Son spoke to His Father and the Holy Spirit was sent from the Father and the Son. The Son was regarded by Thomas as "My Lord and My God" Jesus is the Word who was God in the beginning. I don't believe that anybody reading the Bible by itself without indoctrination can come to the idea that Jesus is not God and that He is not distinct from the Father.

JdH: I don't think either of those is the case. I wouldn't affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is explicit in the same way that Christ's dying on the cross is explicit, or that the institution of the Eucharist and the command to baptize are explicit. But I also wouldn't affirm that "post-biblical reflection on the biblical revelation" is itself dogma. Rather, it is through reflection that the Church deepens her knowledge of dogma, that is, grasps more clearly the contents of the Christian faith. It was by reflecting on the apostolic deposit of faith that the Church affirmed that the doctrine Trinity was part of that deposit.

CP: In this case, post-biblical reflection has correctly and legitimately defined the revelation of the trinity.

6.2. If not, do you affirm that this central dogma of the Christian faith—as held by consensus continuously for the past sixteen centuries—is a grave error?

DB: Yes, I do, just as the Protestants argue that the Catholics and Orthodox were in grave error until the Reformers emerged, while the Catholics and Orthodox point to the innovations of Protestantism (which contradicted at least 600 years of doctrinal consensus) as grave error.

MM: Yes.

DD: I believe the Trinity is an essential element of the Christian faith. Denying it is to apostatize the Christian faith as it makes God into a different God altogether.

7. Ultimately, what is the ground of your confidence that you are using the correct biblical canon and interpreting its core doctrines correctly, while those who differ from you on the biblical canon and core doctrines are mistaken?

DB: My confidence is grounded in: (a) the belief that God intended Scripture to be understood by normal, everyday people without supernatural assistance (b) the merits of Biblical scholarship, which informs my interpretation of Scripture.

MM: My confidence lies in a combination of things: the grace of God, faith in God’s provision of His word for the world, not merely accepting teachings but proving them (the fact that I have changed my mind after research on certain beliefs helps this confidence), being able to support my beliefs with Scripture, and seeing other sound, wise, and logical people support the same conclusions I have reached. These reasons may be no different than reasons given by someone of another religion, or every religion. What are we to do then? I hope every believer in God searches Him and His truth out diligently. Our beliefs drive our actions and give purpose to our life. In the end, we all must be confident of our stance to the point where we are ready to stand before our Judge, whom I believe is the Lord Jesus Christ. One thing I know is that judgment will be righteous and the Creator of the Earth’s will will be done, it is not always for us to have the answer. I pray that my life/walk, based on my beliefs, will find sufficient grace to be given the reward of serving Him eternally.

DD: My ground of confidence is presuppositional (everyone’s view is at some degree). Without the Bible, it is impossible to prove anything about Christianity or life or even tradition. The Church, doctrine, logic, or any other realm must presuppose an infallible and the primacy of Scripture or else nothing can be proven or known about God. The Bible is perspicuous but that does not mean it is not complex (clarity in teaching versus complexity in thought). For example: the Trinity is clear in Scripture (perspicuous) but it is extremely complex. Perspicuity applies to core doctrine which all Christians agree. Minor issues is where we disagree, which is healthy. When disagreements occur, that should point us to discuss the issues theologically and Scripture focused. While I cannot address all disagreements, I find that among the essential elements of the faith we often align. The other issues should bring us into studying Scripture further.

SH: Unless I can see something taught and/or practised by the Apostles I don't have to believe what any teacher or Magisterium says. If the majority of NT readers were Greek speaking, it would make sense that there was a heavy reliance on the LXX. Sometimes, someone like Matthew favours the MT or another variant. But no one can doubt that the LXX was used. This in itself cannot prove that the apocryphal books were to be regarded as scripture. I found it interesting that when Jerome favoured the priority of the Hebrew Text over Greek that the place of the apocrypha was questioned. Although problems arise with a move to Hebrew roots, I strongly believe that something of the Biblical and Apostolic view was lost in Churches that built on Patristic authority that eschewed the Hebrew roots of the faith, which grew in a supersessionist theology and then later in an amillennial or Postmillennial theology. No authority can be so high as to rival the authority of scripture. All scripture is God breathed. That I cannot say for the notion of an Oral Torah of Judaism or that of an oral tradition within a Magisterium.

JdH: The ground of my confidence is the belief that the Spirit has given His yes or no on a given doctrine not ultimately through my judgment, but through the judgment of the Church. I find no indication in Scripture that my scriptural conclusions are to be the standard of orthodoxy for myself, much less for all Christians – which would be the case if mine truly were the Spirit-enlightened ones. No, Scripture itself points to the judgment of the Church as being the judgment of the Spirit (Acts 15:38), so that is where my confidence lies.

CP: As 1 Timothy tells us, "the pillar and ground of truth" is the Church that Jesus established. Historically speaking, there is no doubt that Catholic Church is the only church that can trace its origins back to the 1st century, and thus the only church that can be labeled as the pillar of truth. If no authoritative voice exists which can adjudicate the canon and the appropriate interpretation thereof, then no one can know the truth. Individual interpretation of scripture has led to rampant divergence and disagreement among the Christian faithful.

Footnotes

• 1 In the biographies I was less concerned to reproduce the contributor's words verbatim, so I did some light editing here and there to ensure the level of detail in the biographies is similar.
• 2 Editor’s note: Dave and I have never met in person but have interacted extensively online over the years. Our theological disagreements have been many, but I respect his efforts toward defending the intellectual credibility of Christadelphian theology.
• 3 Editor’s note: the Unamended community is a “fellowship” or separate communion within the Christadelphian community.
• 4 Editor’s note: local Christadelphian congregations are called ecclesias.
• 5 Editor’s note: these terms refer to Christadelphian inter-ecclesial conferences. A Bible school typically lasts a week while a gathering (called a "fraternal" in some countries) is only a weekend.
• 6 Editor’s note: I know Mike better than any of the other contributors. We are long-time friends and I hold him in high esteem as a man of integrity and conviction, not to mention a classic dry sense of humour.
• 7 Editor’s note: Derick and I have never met in person; I linked up with him through the Christian Bloggers Network, where he is one of the moderators. He is evidently very busy with his Ph.D studies and a recent move, so I am very grateful for his willingness, as a passionate proponent of Reformed theology, to participate in this project with a Catholic whom he hardly knows.
• 8 Editor’s note: Salvador and I met through King’s Evangelical Divinity School, where we were studying contemporaneously through distance learning—two of just a handful of students in South Africa studying with this U.K.-based institution. My wife and I were able to visit Salvador and his wife Di briefly in Vryheid where they were ministering at the time and also met them in Cape Town on another occasion. Salvador was a couple of years ahead of me in the program and provided helpful advice about module choices and study strategies.
• 9 Editor’s note: Although Jeremy and I are both Canadians with strong connections to Hamilton, Ontario, we’ve never met in person. I linked up with him after reading the story of his conversion to Catholicism at Called to Communion, which resonated with me.
• 10 Editor’s note: Casey and I have never met in person but linked up through the Christian Bloggers Network on Facebook. I am, like him, a "BaptiCatholic" who is passionate about sharing my faith through social media. Unlike him, I’m not able to do so in multiple languages!