Divine Comedy, Inferno: Cantos 23-25, Circle 8, Ditches 6-7 – Hypocrites, Thieves, and Other Snakes
Canto 23
Dante and Virgil proceed along their course but are soon pursued by the demons that were tricked into falling into the 5th ditch. Virgil holds Dante to himself like a mother holds a child, and slides down into the 6th ditch. The demons follow up to the rim, but are not allowed to give chase for Divine Providence has placed the demons in their proper places in the Inferno and has “taken from their souls the power to leave it.”
The 6th ditch is filled with the Hypocrites. They march at an agonizingly slow pace around the circle wearing leaden cloaks like a monk’s habit covered in gold. Dante has once again made a fitting punishment for the sin of appearing holy on the outside but bearing the heavy weight of deceit on the inside.
Virgil gets a bit of a surprise when he discovers a soul in the ditch of the hypocrites who bears a far different punishment than the rest (for this soul had not been there the last time Virgil came through). It is Caiaphus is the high priest who condemned Jesus Christ (Jn. 11:51). He, along with His father-in-law, Annas, and the rest of the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day, lies naked and crucified on the ground with three great stakes. The hypocrites of this ditch march slowly and painfully over the top of these bodies forever because, for their ultimate hypocrisy, they will bear the weight of all hypocrites.
An interesting note here: given his cultural context, it has been said that Dante is remarkably free from anti-semitism. There are no specifically Jewish insults in the Comedy (even here, where many would have seen fit to make them).
Canto 24
At the end of the previous canto Virgil is told, contra Malacoda – the head demon from ditch 6, that all of the bridges over this ditch have been destroyed. Angered, he heads out with Dante to climb the rubble from one bridge. It does not get them to the top of the ditch (indicating how large these “pockets” are!). So after an arduous climb they still must scale the side of the ditch and reach the rim (it is easier to fall into sin than to climb out!). Virgil gives Dante a pep talk about the fame that awaits him and they head off.
Coming to the 7th ditch they hear murmuring but the ditch is so dark they cannot see into it. At Dante’s suggestion they climb down the side (amazing idea after the climb out of ditch 6!). When they do, they come upon one of the most bizarre scenes in the Inferno.
O Power of God! How dreadful is Thy will which in its vengeance rains such fearful blows.
Dante sees great coils of serpents binding the hands of sinners and coiling around them coming out the front, some serpents bite the souls and at that time the sinners explode in fire and are reduced to ash – only to reform moments later for more. In addition, the serpents and men sometimes exchange bodies through several bizarre means such that, as it turns out, the serpents are not just there for punishing the souls – but are themselves souls being punished. In order to recover their human form the serpents must steal bodies from other sinners. Among thieves nothing is permanent, nothing is sure.
As these men stole the substance from others they are now punished by having their very substance stolen from them, and replaced with the form corresponding to their actions in life. Their sinning hands are bound by this reptilian nature. As they chose a bestial life over human, now they will exchange the two bodies forever.
Dante finds one soul to answer for his crimes (here we discover that they are forced to answer truthfully when questioned), but gets a dark political prophecy for his trouble.
Canto 25
The soul Dante speaks to them utters the strongest blasphemy heard in hell so far and adds in obscene gestures toward God (the “fig” is a symbol of the feminine sexual organ, making a fist to mimic this and then sticking the thumb out imitates intercourse – this is something like giving God the middle finger). No sooner has the sinner uttered this then he is chased down by Cacus (here a centaur) who was killed by Hercules for stealing his oxen (and thus why he is here, for the greater crime of thievery, rather than with than his violent brothers above in circle 7).
Dante then watches and records in detail the grotesque transformation of a serpent into a man and vice versa as the man’s nature is stolen from him through a vaporous smoke. Dante holds nothing back here – even devoting a verse to how the man’s sexual organ split in two as he became the serpent. The sinner reports that it is someone else’s turn to crawl through the ditch and goes looking for him next.
Divine Comedy, Inferno: Cantos 20-22, Circle 8, Ditches 4-5 – Diviners, Grafters , and Demons
Canto 20
“Now I must sing of new griefs . . .”
Dante and Virgil now cross over the 4th ditch which contains the fortune tellers and diviners of the future. They walk backwards for all eternity with their heads twisted around to their back. Because they spent their life trying to look forward into things they should speak of, now they are silent and can only look backward. Nor is much sight even possible, for in this state they weep continuously – their tears streaming into their . . . crevice.
Dante feels so horrible at these sinner’s fate that he cries himself, earning for the first time a strong rebuke from Virgil:
“Still? Like the other fools? There is no place for pity here. Who is more arrogant within his soul, who is more impious than one who dares to sorrow at God’s judgment?”
Dante apparently should have learned his lesson by now.
Other than identifying a few of the tormented souls (and the last of any non-mythical women noted as being placed in the Inferno), little else needed be said. It is interesting that astrology was not at that time considered nearly as bad as Dante makes it out to be. He and Aquinas agreed on this point.
Dismissing the description of this ditch rather quickly, Virgil recounts the history of Mantua (correcting his earlier, magical, account in the Aeneid) which takes up the majority of the canto.
Cantos 21-22
“Awesomely dark and desolate it was . . .”
The fifth ditch gets more description than any other place in the Inferno. Some have said that Dante structures his Comedy like a cathedral, and here we find the gargoyles – the Malebranche (“evil claws”) demons. And, appropriately, it is in these two cantos that Dante employs his coarsest language. here Dante earns his title of the Master of the Grotesque.
This is the place of punishment for Graft – giving advantage to others illicit gain, like taking bribes for political reasons. These “sticky fingers” are kept in sticky goo – boiling pitch. Should they attempt to come up for relief, demons with sharp claws, teeth, and grappling hooks tear them to pieces.
Dante himself was falsely accused of graft, and it is interesting that only in this ditch is he warned of danger to himself. This feature was highlighted very well in Thigpen’s novel “Gehenna”. Dante hides behind some rocks while Virgil speaks with the demons. Although the demons are terrible to behold, Virgil tells them he is on a mission from God “it is willed in heaven.” They all back off after that and even offer to guide the two travellers to the next ditch, for the bridge here was destroyed during the great earthquake mentioned earlier.
The demons are called things like Bad Tail, Hellkin, Dragontooth, Grafter, Grizzly, and Deaddog. Dante is fearful that they are merely lying in wait to go back on their word and get him, but Virgil tells him to cease. They’re all talk once heaven is invoked!
The mood lightens a bit when the demons all stick their tongues out in salute to the leader and his response is making “a trumpet of his ass” producing a “low toot” that Dante will speak of in the next canto.
As Dante and Virgil walk along the ditch, they notice sinners rising to the top of the pitch to get some reflief, but who disappear quickly when they sense the demons are close. One is too slow and gets hooked and dragged up on to shore.
Dante and Virgil try to speak with him, and he tells them a few things about others in the pitch, but all the while the other demons are ripping pieces of flesh off of him and so he remains distracted. Finally, he makes a deal with the demons to fool his friends (fellow grafters) into rising to the surface so that the demons could have several sinners to “play with” in exchange for him. They let him go and he dives under the pitch too fast for them to catch him.
This ruse results in a fight between two demons who end up falling into the burning in the pitch themselves. It is worth note here that the demons are affceted by the pitch – hell was made for them and can affect them too.
As the demons go to retrieve them, Dante and Virgil sneak away.
Is Christian Orthodoxy a Logical Deduction?
A Parsimonious Orthodoxy?
Norman Geisler’s online debates with various parties have become widespread, and much has been said about “the orthodox Christian faith” regarding them. The term “orthodox” has been thrown around so much, it seems it is simply being taken for granted that everyone agrees on what it means. Given the tenor of many of the discussions, however, this does not appear to be the case. What has been helpful about these ongoing discussions is that certain issues are becoming more clear. One of these is the problem of discerning Christian orthodoxy – and this is the most important and far-reaching one. For, as Geisler himself warns:
“The truth is that if orthodoxy is to be preserved, then (a) there must be a standard, and (b) it must be possible to determine someone has fallen short of it, and (c) there must be consequences for falling short of it, and (d) these consequences should be feared (respected) by those desiring to be considered orthodox.”
With this statement I completely agree (as I hope any Christian would!). The issue, however, is what that standard is and how it is grounded. This is where things become difficult – for if agreement cannot be found over the standard or its ground, then there is little hope of using such a standard to solve any real debates.
Good examples of this problem come from Geisler’s own career. In many discussions Robert Gundry’s removal from ETS is mentioned, referring to the time when Geisler successfully argued that Gundry’s position did not satisfy the standard of ETS’s doctrinal statement. What is not as often mentioned is the similar situation that arose about 20 years later with Clark Pinnock’s retention at ETS where Geisler – although he used much the same tactics - was not successful. Now, with the Licona debate, Geisler is pitting the standard of the ICBI (or, some say, his own interpretations of the ICBI) against Licona’s views. I am not interested in commenting on these particular debates here. Rather, I wish to point out that when Geisler argues that his opponents by alleging that they are breaking some standard, he often concludes that such departure is a threat to Christian orthodoxy (whether or not said standard is said to be the standard for Christian orthodoxy per se). The result of this equivocation is confusion on both sides of the debate, for (as all sides should agree), neither Geisler, nor the ETS, nor the ICBI, set the standard for Christian orthodoxy.
Before orthodoxy can be defended it must be defined. What, then, is the standard for Christian orthodoxy?
Determining Methodological Orthodoxy
In 2005, Geisler wrote a two-part article in The Christian Research Journal [CRJ] titled The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Part One: A Historical Approach and Part Two: The Logical Approach). Modified forms of these articles were later incorporated into a book Geisler wrote with Ron Rhodes in 2008 titled Conviction Without Compromise [CWC]. At issue in these articles was the identification of the “essentials of the faith” (i.e., orthodoxy). Geisler lists these essentials using his “Logical Method,” and compares them to the results of the ”Historical Method.”
Apart from a merely passing interest in Geisler’s theological method, there is much at stake here theologically. Geisler lists three reasons why it is important to identify the essentials:
(1) the essentials are the basis for Christian unity,
(2) the essentials distinguish cults of Christianity from true Christianity, and
(3) the essentials are the only truths over which we rightly can divide.
The importance, therefore, of discerning the correct list of essentials can be clearly seen.
The problem is that there are several flaws in Geisler’s “Logical Method” which I believe demonstrate that, in reality, the results are simply a restatement of Geisler’s previously-held beliefs. It is important to note that whether Geisler’s list is accurate or not is not at issue here. Rather, it is the dangers of his flawed method that are of concern. I will argue that while Geisler points to the Bible (interpreted according to the “Grammatical-Historical” hermeneutic method) as being the standard for Christian orthodoxy, what Geisler ends up doing (probably unintentionally) is setting up his own beliefs as the standard. It is this move that creates so much of the controversy and confusion among Geisler’s fans and critics alike.
I will address these flaws below after a brief explanation of Geisler’s method.
GEISLER’S “LOGICAL METHOD”
After looking at the “Historical Method” that the church actually used for determining orthodoxy, Geisler suggests another way to discover the essentials – a method he calls “The Logical Approach.” Geisler begins with the gospel message and then lists the doctrines that he deduces are crucially connected to it (i.e., necessary to be true for salvation to be possible, but not necessary to be believed in order to be saved). Based on this method, Geisler comes up with a list of such doctrines:
(1) human depravity, (2) Christ’s virgin birth, (3) Christ’s sinlessness, (4) Christ’s deity, (5) Christ’s humanity, (6) God’s unity, (7) God’s triunity, (8) the necessity of God’s grace, (9) the necessity of faith, (10) Christ’s atoning death, (11) Christ’s bodily resurrection, (12) Christ’s bodily ascension, (13) Christ’s present high priestly service, and (14) Christ’s second coming, final judgment (heaven and hell), and reign.* [CRJ]
*Note that there were 14 listed in the CRJ and 15 in CWC: #14 was split into two items and “Christ’s reign” was dropped from the list altogether.
In addition to these soteriolological essentials, Geisler adds that the Bible as inerrant, infallible, and inspired Scripture is also an epistemological (or revelational) essential, because we could not know the essentials otherwise. Finally, the hermeneutical (or interpretive) essential is listed as the means by which we can properly derive the other essentials from Scripture. While the practical results of this method are not necessarily problematic as such, this method is considerably so.
I will detail the issues I see with Geisler’s method below, moving through each section as mapped above from left to right.
Hermeneutical Essential (for Interpretation): The Grammatical-Historical Method
The grammatical-historical method (GHM) is considered by Geisler to be “the fundamental method that makes possible our knowledge of all the doctrinal essentials” without which “there is no orthodoxy” [CRJ]. According to Geisler, Sola Scriptura itself is dependent on the GHM to function. It is, therefore, a sort of essential-of-essentials.
The first problem here is that the GHM is not stated in the gospel, nor any other passage in Scripture. The best one could do is show that in cases where the Scripture “interprets itself” (a rarity), that its results are the same as those which an interpreter using the GHM would have arrived. This would certainly not work in all cases, though. Consider the example of the prophetic fulfillments of Jesus Christ as listed by Matthew. Most of the fulfillments are more of the ”fully-filling” variety than confirmations of miraculous predictive accuracy. For example, the virgin birth prophecy of Isa. 7 does not (if taken literally) seem to extend past the lifetime of the prophet, and thus would have been false had it only terminated in the birth of Jesus. And Matthew’s citing of Hosea’s “out of Egypt I called my son” passage is even stranger considering that it was originally a reference to a past event. Now, there are no real interpretive or theological problems here, for prophecies can have multiple referents – but these are not something the GHM would have picked up on. So if Geisler wishes to include the GHM in his list of essential Christian doctrines, he needs to explain how he deduced it using his “Logical Method.”
A more important issue for this discussion is that, as an essential, Geisler thinks the GHM can promote unity, detect cults, and be useful for making divisive decisions. But there is plenty of disagreement to be found in the Church today among those who espouse the theological principle of Sola Scriptura and the hermeneutical principle of the GHM (and, in fact, the these often correlate). But this is the very problem an essential is supposed to solve.
Further, if the essentials are those which we must divide over, are we to divide over any interpretation that seems to threaten the GHM even if it does not directly threaten orthodox doctrine? The fact is that issues acknowledged to be secondary are often fought over more fiercely when linked to an alleged denial of Sola Scriptura or the GHM. Geisler himself has gained a reputation for categorizing theological or interpretive differences as equivalent to such denials; and because the disagreement is linked to “an essential,” Geisler can justify charging his opponent(s) with unorthodoxy or heresy.
Epistemological Essential (for Revelation): The Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible, Bible
Geisler lists the inspiration (and the resulting inerrancy and infallibility) of Scripture as the next-most-important essential. Again, it is not the theological truth espoused here that is at issue. This time the problem concerns how this essential really pans out in the practical reality of determining the rest of the essentials.
As Geisler admits, “An inerrant Scripture is not necessary for salvation. People were saved before there was a Bible, and people are saved through reading errant copies of the Bible” (CRJ). So the Bible is apparently not itself an essential because its truths can and have been communicated prior to its existence (and this is technically true – see Does Christianity Need the Bible?). Geisler also notes that this doctrine is only applicable to the original writings. So, since we no longer have these writings, and because we did not need them to discover the essentials in the first place, the theological truths of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, do not seem to provide much in the way of practically discovering essentials.
Further, since the Bible is really a collection of writings, Geisler, if he wishes to remain consistent, would also have to deduce the correct collection (“canon”) of inspired books without reliance on the “Historical Method.” But this would be difficult, if not impossible - for no logical criteria accounts for every canonical book without either excluding some canonical books, or including non-canonical books (see The Relation of Scripture and Tradition). The essential of “inspiration” is of no help here, for it would be both a circular and practically unhelpful condition for discovering which books were inspired! Further, not only do we not have an inspired table of contents for the Bible, the inspired Bible does not have an inspired list of the essentials either (hence the need for Geisler’s article).
So, while biblical inspiration is certainly a theological position that all Christians should uphold, it is difficult to see how it is practically useful for determining the essentials. But this is the very reason Geisler includes it as an essential.
Soteriological Essentials (for Salvation): The Requirements for Salvation
While Geisler’s actual list of soteriological essentials is decent, it raises some notable problems. Again, it is not so much Geisler’s conclusions, but his method that is problematic. As will be shown, the results of the method are inconsistent, and this is where Geisler’s equation of essential Christian doctrine with his own thinking becomes most clear.
A rather glaring issue is that Geisler does not logically deduce the same essentials in his articles [CRJ ] that he does in his book [CWC]. There were 14 listed in the CRJ articles, and 15 in CWC. Geisler split “Christ’s second coming, final judgment (heaven and hell), and reign” (#14) into two items, but “Christ’s reign” was dropped from the list altogether. Besides the numerical difference (which could be explained by incorporation or expansion), Geisler lists Jesus’s Reign as an essential in his CRJ article, but not in CWC. If Geisler’s process is a logical deduction from necessary doctrines related to salvation, it is troublesome that his results did not match.
Further, Geisler includes doctrines that do not seem to fulfill his own “logical” criteria. Is it truly necessary, for example, for Jesus to have been virgin-born in order to save mankind? Well, there are theological arguments for that position – and Geisler provides some – but could it not have occurred any other way logically? Much of the atonement’s meaning and process has been debated by theologians over the centuries, so this “logical” deduction appears to be fairly theory-laden at the least.
The biggest problem lies in the fact that Geisler fails to include doctrines that are included in the gospel itself! Christ’s burial and appearances are specifically stated to be part of the gospel “by which you are being saved” (1 Corinthians 15:1-5). If Geisler’s essentials are truly deduced from the gospel, how could elements of the gospel itself not be included? Given the alleged correlation between Geisler’s list and the historical Church’s (see below), one would expect that Christ’s burial, at least, would have been included, for it is included in the Nicene Creed. In any case, if these constituent elements of the gospel are not considered by Geisler to be “crucial,” then he will have to explain why.
For each of the above reasons, Geisler’s “Logical Method” leaves much to be desired.
THE CHURCH’S “HISTORICAL METHOD”
Geisler lists and comments upon the great creeds of Christianity in part one of his two-part CRJ article. Geisler notes that when the findings of his ”Logical Method” is “applied to the list discovered by the historical approach, the same basic doctrines emerge.” In fact, Geisler introduces his list by saying, “The list of essential Christian doctrines that emerge from the early creeds and councils includes . . . .” However, while it is true that many of the essentials on his list appear in the creeds, the reverse is not true – and some of Geisler’s connections are questionable at best. Further, there are other affirmations in the creeds (some that meet Geisler’s “soteriological criteria”) that he does not accept.
First, when comparing Geisler’s list to the creeds, one must be careful not to confuse words with word meanings. Geisler occasionally takes a phrase (or even a single word) as equivalent to an entire doctrine. For example, Geisler equates the introductory affirmation “I believe” (credo) with the doctrine of the necessity of faith for salvation. Yet that is hardly what the mere statement ”I believe” implies (for then anyone’s – even an atheist’s – report of some belief could be equivalent to affirmation of the doctrine!). In another example, Geisler takes the phrase “in accordance with the Scriptures” (in reference to the resurrection) as counting toward making “biblical revelation” an essential. But that is not how creed is using the phrase (and of course something can be “in accordance with” biblical revelation without biblical revelation being “necessary for” our knowledge of it).
The second issue is that Geisler also leaves out many items that would be included if the creeds were taken at face value. Not surprisingly, this list seems to track with Geisler’s theology. For example, the creeds seem to affirm (especially when their historical setting is taken into consideration) the following views that Geisler disagrees with: a single resurrection, a single visible church, apostolic succession, and baptismal regeneration. This discrepancy is especially noticeable when those things are said by the creeds to be salvific – such as “Baptized for the forgiveness of sins” in the Nicene Creed. Further, Geisler denies that belief in the content of the creeds is necessary for salvation – even when a creed itself says so (cf. the Athanasian Creed).
Now, none of this argues for the truth or necessity of these creedal affirmations, but it does show that Geisler does not really treat the creeds as having any authority or evidential power outside of his own thinking. When a creed happens to agree with him, Geisler feels free to use it as a test for orthodoxy (example) or as evidence that his method works. But when a creed affirms something Geisler does not agree with, its authority and evidential usefulness ends.
Not only is this an inconsistent theological method, it also raises some difficult questions regarding the trustworthiness of the Church’s creeds (and, consequently, the councils that produced them). Scholars from the Reformed, Evangelical, Lutheran, Methodist, and even Baptist traditions have voiced the same kinds of concerns over the results of failing to acknowledge historically authoritative tradition in the early Church (see the resources used in this study below).
Geisler, however does not take this route. He denies that the “Historical Method” yields an authoritative answer when he writes,
“Early tradition can be a helpful and supplemental source in interpreting Scripture without it being an authoritative source.” ["A Critical Review of The Shape of Sola Scriptura" Christian Apologetic Journal Vol 4, no. 1 (2005): 120].
Geisler offers something of an acknowledgment of the authority of the “Historical Method” when he borrows [part of] Anglican Bishop Lancelot Andrews’s famous statement in affirming that:
“Unity among all major sections of Christendom is found in the statement: One Bible, two testaments, three confessions, four councils, and five centuries.”
This is all well and good, but the question is why only trust the Church up to the fourth council, or for only certain parts of the creeds? Without a principled reason to accept only some of the results of the “Historical Method” it comes across as theological question begging. Geisler needs to account for his “Logical Method’s” limitations on the results of the “Historical Method” (affirmation of which should not be taken to imply acceptance of any particular authoritative tradition such as Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy - for the authority that may be recognized in the dogmatic pronouncements of the united church of the first millennium does not necessarily transfer to those of the various branches of the divided church that exists today; and even if it did, discerning which branch[es] maintain that authority is at least a very different kind of investigation than the one being conducted here.)
In the end there are simply too many holes in Geisler’s method to judge it trustworthy – and for these holes to be plugged, Geisler would need to justify all of the above inconsistencies.
Conclusion
Identifying the essential doctrines that determine orthodoxy is an issue all Christians must deal with – as well as the consequences of the method they choose to do so. Geisler has offered two methods for discerning Christian orthodoxy: one that he tacitly rejects when it does not agree with his views, and another that basically reduces to them. It seems, therefore, that Geisler’s “Logical Method” leaves us with a rather “subjective orthodoxy” (an oxymoron if ever there was one!).
Although it works fine for explaining what Geisler already thinks, other theologians employing the “Logical Method” would simply come up with a different list of “essentials” that corresponded to their own set of theological positions. But that is the very thing a list of orthodox essentials should combat.
Further, whether his theological conclusions are right or wrong, Geisler’s seemingly autocratic treatment of the issues in question threaten both objective orthodoxy and the evangelical tradition he espouses. If Geisler is to succeed as a “Defender of Christian Orthodoxy,” then he will need to come up with a more legitimate means of discovering it. Otherwise it will continue to seem that he is only defending his own views and trying to impose them on others.
Resources
- Allert, Craig D. A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
- Beaumont, Douglas. “The Hermeneutics of Eschatology: Preterism and Dispensationalism Compared.” Christian Apologetics Journal 8, no. 2 (Spring 2010).
- Black, David Alan. Why Four Gospels? Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001.
- Bowman Jr., Robert M. Orthodoxy & Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992.
- Brown, Harold O.J. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Peabody, MA: Hendricksen, 2005.
- Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
- Geisler, Norman L. “A Critical Review of The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison.” Christian Apologetics Journal 4, no.1 (Spring 2005): 117-129.
- ________. “The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Part One): A Historical Approach.” Christian Research Journal 28, no. 5 (2005).
- ________. “The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Part Two): The Logical Approach.” Christian Research Journal 28, no. 6 (2005).
- Geisler, Norman L. and Ron Rhodes. Conviction Without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2008.
- GeislerNorman L. and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995.
- Hall, Christopher A. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.
- Matthison, Keith A. “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes.” Modern Reformation 16, no. 2 (March/April 2007).
- ________.The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001.
- Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
- Nicole, Roger. “The Canon of the New Testament.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no.2 (June, 1997): 200-207.
- Oden, Thomas, ed. The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (multiple volumes). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002
- Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.
- Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007.
- Swinburne, Richard. “Authority of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Edited by Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea, 11-29. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009.
- White, James R. Scripture Alone. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2004.
- Williams, D. H. Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.
Conformation, Transformation, Legalism, Gnosticism, Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
(Romans 12:1-2 ESV)
Why Be Good?
The apostle Paul introduces the transition from the theology of Romans chapters 1-11 to the ethical commands of 12-16 with the above verses. Until recently this passage was troubling for me because I was never clear on why our actions mattered.
Of course, it seems self-evident that we should do good and sacrifice for God, but I had difficulty relating this intuition with the theology I was being taught. First I was taught that we are saved by grace through faith as a gift not by works (Eph 2:8-9), so works don’t matter for the past. Then I was told that because we don’t get salvation by works, so we don’t keep salvation by works (Galatians), so works don’t matter for the present. Fianlly, I was promised that Christians will be sinners until we are glorified and made perfect, so works don’t matter for the future either. Well, that’s the whole package, so – ultimately – works must not matter. This conclusion seemed obviously false, however – and the tension between this form of the gospel message and what Scripture actually teaches is the subject of this post.
First, I discovered that the Apostle Paul says a lot of good stuff about doing good works. Ephesians 2:10 (which completes the 2:8-9 passage quoted above), for example, says we are saved for good works! And there are verses like these:
“God “will give to each person according to his works. To those who by persistence in good works seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom. 2:6-7).
“Present your members to serve righteousness for sanctification” (Rom. 6:19).
“And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Gal. 6:9).
“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, For God is one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work” (Phil. 2:12-13)
“That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life” (1 Tim 6:18-19).
Further, it is widely recognized that Paul’s epistles typically begin with theology (orthodoxy) and end with morality (orthopraxy). My question, then, was why would Paul have so much to say about what we think and do if what we do does not ultimately matter?
Works, Works, Works
The first key to the solution was in in the distinction Paul makes between three kinds of works.
First, Paul uses “works” to refer to sin. These are “works of the flesh,” the sinful attitudes and deeds we all commit (Galatians 5:19; Romans 13:12; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11). Obviously we aren’t saved by or for these!
Second are “works of the law.” These are precepts of the Mosaic Law that were given to Israel in the Old Covenant. These are not necessary for salvation, and acting as if they are is the false teaching of legalism (Gal. 2:3, 12-16; 4:10; 5:2).
Finally we come to “good works,” namely moral and ethical good deeds (Romans 2:16, 21-26; Galatians 6: 7-10). These do matter to salvation, for (as will be shown below) “good works” are the basis on which people will be judged by God and receive either reward or punishment (e.g., 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5:21; 2 Cor. 5:10).
If the distinction between “works of the law” and “good works” is not made then 1 Corinthians 7: 19 would make no sense: ”Circumcision means nothing and uncircumcision means nothing; what matters is keeping God’s commandments.” Circumcision was a command of God, so this verse would be saying that keeping God’s commandments both does and does not matter!
Further, commanding good works, or basing rewards/punishments on them, is not legalism though. Legalism makes the performance of good works a sufficient condition for salvation – obligating God to save based on our own merit. But if good works modify a salvation we already have, then the charge of legalism is moot (this view also keeps one from sliding into licentiousness – bonus!). These works are from salvation, not for it – but they do matter.
Now, on to Romans 12:1-2, which is the hinge between the theological and ethical sections of Romans.
Conformation and Transformation
“Form” refers to what something is (not just its “shape”). To CON-form, then, is to share a form – it is being the same thing. TRANS-form means changing from one form to another – becoming a new thing. As sinners, we are worldly (conformed to the world). As saints we are to become godly (transforming into god-like people).
“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from this world” (Jas 1:27).
“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, . . . predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:28-29).
“And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18).
“You may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (2 Peter 1:4).
Note that this transformation from conformity to the world to conformity with God comes by ridding ourselves of sin - not just changing our thoughts / beliefs. We don’t often hear this because of a fear of legalism that, I think, is itself based on a subtle, ancient heresy.
Gnosticism
The Gnostics were one of the earliest “Christian cults.” They drew a complete distinction between matter and spirit, and claimed that matter was evil and spirit was good, period. This, and other, false beliefs led to some specifically Christian heresies. Theological Heresy #1 was a denial of Jesus’s incarnation – for how could God take on matter? Moral heresy also followed, for actions performed in the body only affected the body and so did not affect salvation – only what the mind thought (gnosis). IN a sense, then, the Gnostics avoided legalism by substituting it with licentiousness.
Today there are few Christians who would affirm Gnosticism per se, but what one of my pastors called a “practical Gnosticism” often remains. Sometimes this comes out in how the Bible is understood. The “flesh” is thought to refer to our physical bodies, when it refers to the sin nature (Rom. 7:5; 8:9 cf. Col. 3:5, and Gal. 5). The “world” is sometimes thought to mean the earth / physical / material realm, when it really refers to sin. But these are both Gnostic-like mistakes:
“If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19).
“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:14).
“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:15).
“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).
Beyond the strictly theological realm, however, in subtle ways the physical often is denigrated in the attempt to be spiritual. Popular Christian culture excuses its low-grade, derivative music and movies because these come packaged with “good messages.” The churches are plain because don’t want to distract people with beautiful imagery. The layout focuses our attention on a lectern because that’s where “the message” (=the preacher’s thoughts) is delivered. We excuse inappropriate clothing because “God looks at the heart.” Worship music is chosen based on what will get people in the door so they can hear “the message.” Sacraments / Ordinances are practiced and in any way we wish because they’re just symbols. Christian leaders can get away with immorality as long as they “teach truth” (= a “good message”).
I think all of these are signs that many Christians today have fallen for the false dichotomy between the material and immaterial. What we think takes almost complete precedence over what we do.
Virtue: Belief and Action
Perhaps the balance between legalism and licentiousness comes in the relation of the body to the spirit. We are both body and spirit– one “thing” with two principles. It is not the case that “we ARE a soul, we just HAVE a body.” Our bodies are not “earth suits” for the soul. The perfect state for humans is not disembodiment. We do not become angels when we die. We are physical beings in a material world that God calls “good” (Gen. 1).
This is why we are resurrected and why Jesus incarnated. He saved ALL of us – not just our minds or hearts. And if the body is important then what we DO is important. This is the basis for an ethical system that I think explains much of what we read in Scripture. It’s called Virtue Ethics, and basically what it teaches is that how we think and act depends on what we are – and what we think and how we act changes what we are.
The easiest way to think about it is what we call habits. Our first habitual act is often difficult because we are not used to it. Habits are formed when we DO something repeatedly with pleasurable results. But habits are not just things stuck on to us – they are us. When we change our actions, our thinking changes too. Our actions affect our will, and our wills direct our minds. When we choose certain actions, these strengthen our wills, thus redirecting our minds. Actions that create pleasure will be seen as making us happy. If what we choose does make us happy we return to it much easier next time. This is the process of transformation/conformation. New habits breed new thinking. How we think and act determine what we are.
Conformation to the world is habitually operating in our sin nature. Transformation of the mind requires new habits: not just new thinking in the mind but new acting in the body. Thus, spirituality is not just about the spirit (our minds) – the physical (our bodies) matters too.
With this understanding of how actions and the mind go together, Romans 12:1-2 made a lot more sense! What we do with our bodies is a spiritual act. And that means the physical matters.
The physical matters in our FAITH. Music matters: I want to worship God, not “rock for Jesus.” Aesthetics matters: I want candles and incense, not lasers and fog machines. Clothing matters: I want robes and stoles, not skinny jeans and trendy print shirts. Sacraments/Ordinances matter: I want the bread and wine, not crackers and juice. Messages matter, true - but so does the messenger: I want a pastor, not a projector.
The physical matters in our WORKS, too. Our works, though they are not for our salvation [i.e., justification], they do matter to our salvation [i.e., sanctification and glorification]. Works matter in this life because they make us what we will be in the next life. God will perfect us in heaven – but what He will perfect is up to us.
The Judgment, Reward, and Punishment of Believers
This view makes sense out of passages concerning judgment and rewards and punishment that are applied to saint and sinner alike. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:9-15 that, “The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” Wow! Works, judgment, rewards, loss, and salvation all in one passage!
And there are more:
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10 cf. Rom. 14:10).
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12).
“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection” (1 Cor. 15:41-42).
“Be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:58).
“For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love” (Hebrews 6:10).
“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. And every man that strives for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible” (1 Corinthians 9:24-25).
“Blessed is the man that endures temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him” (James 1:12 cf. 2 Tim. 4:8).
“It shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. . . . it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Mt. 11:22-24).
“Those who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers . . . will receive the greater condemnation” (Luke 20:47).
While we often talk of “salvation” when referring to the judgment of God concerning one’s “place” in the afterlife (Heaven or Hell), it means much more than that. From the above verses it seems clear that there are also different levels of reward and punishment (loss) for both those in Heaven and those in Hell. And these differing degrees are determined by works. How do we make sense out of these verses if what we do in this life does not modify our experiences of the afterlife?
Finding God’s Will
Pursuit of this reward is not materialistic or selfish – it is God’s will for us.At the end of the passage in question, Romans 12:1-2., Paul says that by not being conformed to the world and by transforming our minds, we will know God’s will. And here it is: “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3).
Our bodily sacrifices are spiritual worship that result in personal sanctification. By doing good works we are sanctified – transformed into godlikeness. When we are godlike we desire what God desires – goodness. To the degree that we love goodness we will be rewarded in heaven - by partaking in goodness. But if we miss out on this process, and remain conformed to the world, much of what we desire and love will not be available to us – for God is all we will have.
So, if Heaven is not going to be a place of any suffering (Rev. 20-21), then God will have to purify us – get rid of the all that is conformed to the world so that we can love only the good and be completely satisfied by it. How much of us will be left? Will we just barely make it (“saved as if through fire”)? If so we will have our reward in full – but our fullness will be lessened because we are lessened. All of our cups will “runneth over” – but how big will our cups be?
So why do good? Why endure suffering? So that we can “glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” This life is not just for getting people off the sinking ship of the world, and neither is it for polishing its brass. We remain alive in part, at least, to prepare our souls for Heaven by being transformed through our lives (which is also by God’s grace – Phil. 2:12-13). Our reward / loss will be the result of what we are conformed to when we get there.
Divine Comedy, Inferno: Canto 19, Circle 8, Ditch 3 – Black Hole Stone
Canto 19
Simon the Magician (“Simon Magus”) was the person in Acts who tried to purchase the gifting of the Holy Spirit for gain (Acts 8:9-24). Since then, persons who try to buy/sell ecclesiastical favors/positions are known as simoniacs.
In ditch three, the simoniacs are placed upside down in holes which Dante says are the size of “those in the font of my beautiful San Giovanni built to protect the priests who come to baptize.” Thus are those who mocked the priesthood themselves mocked. As they stuffed their pockets with ill-gotten gains, they are now stuffed into holes themselves. The reference seems to be to features in baptismal fonts that kept the priests from being mobbed during the annual baptism times. Apparently Dante (in real life) had rescued a drowning child who got caught in one of these fonts by breaking it. He was accused of sacrilege, and asks that this account suffice to exonerate him. Unfortunately this font style / feature has been difficult to prove (and some believe the few alleged remaining examples are not what Dante was talking about either). 
As if being stuffed upsaide down into a hole in the black rock of the Inferno was not bad enough, the simoniacs feet are also burning with an “oily fire” (note the double reference to Holy Spirit symbolism – Dante, you are the man!). The flames are worse for the worse sinners (yet again showing the concept of corresponding punishment). Eventually other simoniacs will come along and stuffed into these holes, at which time the sinner is pushed through the hole into crevices in the rock. This, in fact, is what the worst of the simoniacs, Nicholas III (a Pope!) is waiting for Boniface VIII (another Pope) and one after him, Clement V (the current Pope of Dante’s day who was involved in moving the Holy See to Avignon).
Virgil carries Dante down a path that would have been difficult for a goat to tread so that he may converse with this simoniac Pope (in the manner of a priest giving last rites to assassins who were buried upside down). For the second time in the Inferno, Dante himself delivers stinging rebuke. His litany against this Pope is startling given his previous timidity, and Virgil loves it! As Dante winds down, he makes an interesting distinction between Popes and the Papacy when he says he would have used even harsher words but for his “reverence for the Great Keys you held in life.” Following Roman Catholic thinking, for Dante the holy office is not itself threatened by the evil men who sometimes hold it.
During his diatribe, Dante mentions holy men of old who did not sell out for the ministry given them, such as Peter and Matthias (“Matthew”). Matthias was the disciple who was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot as the twelfth apostle (Acts 1:15-26). No more is heard of him in the New Testament. Tradition does not help much either. Clement of Alexandria says some identified him with Zacchaeus; he is sometimes identified as Barnabas or Nathanael (cf. Gospel of John) as well. According to various traditions he may have preached in Ethiopia, Judea, Cappadocia, or the Caspian Sea area.
Dante continues by identifying this corrupt Pope as the Woman of Revelation 17 (who seems to stand for Pagan Rome according to John) and reviling the greedy Pope himself as an idolater:
“Gold and silver are the gods you adore – In what are you different than the idolater, save that he worships one, and you a score?”
Dante finishes by decrying the wealth associated with Church offices since Constantine’s time, and is then carried by Virgil back up to the bridge over the next ditch.
