 |
You scored as John Calvin. Much of what is now called Calvinism had more to do with his followers than Calvin himself, and so you may or may not be committed to TULIP, though God’s sovereignty is all important.
Which theologian are you? |
EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF ISAIAH 14:12
Who is Lucifer? Is he Satan? Is he a Babylonian king? Is the name Lucifer even found in Scripture? It is this particular series of questions that have helped to fuel the fires of one of the greatest debates in modern Christianity. Are modern translations of Scripture accurate? Or are they, as many “King James only” advocates say, merely perversions of the Holy Scriptures? While it would take volumes to answer the latter question regarding translational accuracy as a whole, it can be answered in brief whether Isaiah 14:12, and more specifically the term Lucifer, have been translated correctly in modern versions.
THE “KJV ONLY” VIEW
One of the primary publishers of “King James ONLY” material is Jack Chick Publications (better know as CHICK Publishing). One of the most popular works ever published by Chick on this topic was the now debunked New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger. Riplinger’s self proclaimed biblical scholar status has been repeatedly shown to be not just an exaggeration of her qualifications but also unabashedly deceptive. The fallout that followed the publishing of Riplinger’s book and the refutation of her claims, however, have not slowed Jack Chick’s adamant pushing of “King James ONLY” materials.
In fact one needs only to visit his website and run a search for articles on Isaiah 14:12 to find the often stated accusation that modern translations attempt to call Christ the devil. I recently visited Chick’s website; the following represents my findings. In the article I came across, written by David Daniel (author of the King James Bible Companion, also published by CHICK), he starts to make his case by attacking the so called cryptic nature of modern Bible translations. He writes:
“Throughout the world, if you ask people who “Heyleel” (hey-LEYL) is, most will not know what to answer. But if you ask them, “Who is Lucifer?” you will very likely get the correct answer. People know who Lucifer is. Ask the Luciferians, who worship Lucifer as a being of light. Ask the Satanists, who call their master Lucifer. No one is in doubt as to who Lucifer is….Any translation that says “day star” or “morning star” or “star of the morning” in Isaiah 14:12, like most modern perversions, is bringing confusion. And God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Many people reading the modern perversions end up asking, “If Lucifer is the morning star and Jesus is the morning star, then is Lucifer Jesus?” The modern translations are simply not clear!”[1]
Rather than admitting or considering the possibility that the King James translators used the wrong term or mistranslated, Mr. Daniel immediately attacks the motives of modern versions. He then brings an emotional appeal to Scripture and the nature of God. He also makes a theological mistake of astronomical proportions. One of the first rules of discernment is to never, for any reason, go to the secular (or in this case pagan Luciferians) to interpret your own theology. Why does Mr. Daniel use satanic theology to prove his point that Lucifer is the devil? I pray that it was an oversight, but it would more apparently seem to be poor scholarship matched with bad theological presuppositions.
He takes his argumentation even further by stating that the term Lucifer is not just an acceptable way to translate the name given in the Isaiah passage, but it is the correct way to translate it. He writes:
“The term translated “Lucifer” does NOT at all mean “morning star” or “star of the morning.” That would be two totally different Hebrew words. The word means “light-bearer.” In Greek it’s “heosphoros,” “light-bearer.” In Latin it’s translated “Lucifer,” light-bearer. Whether you say “heylel,” “heosphoros” or “Lucifer,” the meaning is the same: “light-bearer.” But only Lucifer communicates who we are talking about in English.”[2]
The question now becomes, is Mr. Daniel correct in his assertions? Are the modern translations trying to push an anti-God agenda of confusion? Or are they correcting a more than 400 year old translation blunder? Is Lucifer the correct term? The only way to appropriately address these issues and concerns is to do a thorough exegesis of the passage in question, Isaiah 14:12.
THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH 14:12
Before we can begin an exegesis of the passage in question, we must understand the context in which Isaiah was speaking. One of the basic premises of biblical hermeneutics is to understand that a particular passage must be read in context to truly grasp the intent behind the given verse. The section of scripture where this particular passage appears is often times called Isaiah’s “prophecies against the nations,” and is considered to entail Isaiah 13:1-23:18. The Liberty Bible Commentary says this regarding the greater context in which this passage is found:
“This section of Isaiah’s prophecy concerns the message of God’s judgment against Israel’s neighbors. Not only will God judge His people for their sins but He will also judge the pagan nations surrounding Israel…The message…deals with the nation of Babylon, which would eventually carry Judah into captivity. Nevertheless, the prophet Isaiah sees into the future to a time beyond the captivity when Babylon itself shall be taken captive.”[3]
Clearly, the grand context of the passage then is in relation to the future powerhouse nation of Babylon. We see that in chapter 13 Israel is told she will be taken captive. However, things change later in chapter 14. Isaiah 14:1-2 reads:
“For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.”[4]
The focus of the prophecy, then, is no longer Israel’s coming oppression, but rather the fall of the oppressor’s hold over her. In fact, if we look to the fourth verse we find the prophetic words spoken against Babylon becoming directed at an individual, the king of Babylon. Verse 4 reads: “That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased!”[5] This introduces a section of statements regarding the king that helps set up the pivotal passage we will examine later. Verses 5-11 read:
“The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.”[6]
The obvious, immediate context of this passage, then, would be in relation to the king of Babylon. Now that this is established, let us begin to exegetically dissect Isaiah 14:12.
EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 14:12
Prior to our exegesis, let us review what has been established thus far. First, this passage is part of a large section of prophecies against Israel’s geographic neighbors. Secondly, chapters 13 and 14 make up a prophecy against the superpower Babylon, which had not as of yet been realized. Finally, Isaiah chapter 14 sets up the prophecy of the fall of Babylon, and more specifically the fall of the king of Babylon. Now let us begin our exegetical study by first reading Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah 14:12 in the King James reads: “how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”[7]
Edward Young introduces this passage in his commentary by writing: “The Babylonian king had boasted. Yet he, the morning star, the shining one who is son of the morning, has fallen to the ground.”[8] Clearly, Ed Young viewed this passage’s immediate context to be directly and immediately speaking of the king of Babylon. Dr. Norman Geisler agrees and states that: “This passage is a literal reference to the king of Babylon.”[9]
It should be noted that when the passage speaks of falling from heaven, it may not be literally speaking of the celestial. Instead, “to fall from heaven” is often times, in the ancient world, an expression used to denote a fall from a great political position. The Hebrew word used here for fallen is “naphal”. This is in the “qal” form. The idea then presented is that of falling violently, even to ones own death. It can also mean to fall prostrate before someone. This makes sense in light of the Babylonian king’s pride-filled heart. Not only is he falling, but he is falling violently, and being made prostrate. No ruler wants to be humbled to the point of falling before another ruler. This would definitely be a play on words regarding the position of the one falling. This possibly even points towards his fall before the ultimate ruler, Christ Jesus. Further, we must note that this verb is found in the perfect form, meaning that literally speaking, it has already been completed. This is very common in prophetic writing. The prophet (here being Isaiah) would see the future as if it had already happened, and knowing God’s sure word, would then declare it as if it had already occurred.
Moving on to the name that spurns as much, if not more controversy than any other name in scripture, it is time to pick apart the title Lucifer. As noted in Young, the proper name here is not Lucifer at all, but rather Helel ben Schachar.[10] Of this name, Helel, Young writes, “the form helel has been derived from a root, “to howl”…In light of the Ugaritic however, the root is best derived from hll, “to shine.”[11] In concurrence with Dr. Young’s assertions, Keil and Delitzsch write:
“הֵילֵל is here the morning star (from ha^lal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form מֵאֵן, Jer 13:10, סֵעֵף, Ps 119:113)…It derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (sun of the dawn), just as in the classical mythology it is called son of Eos, from the fact that it rises before the sun, and swims in the morning light as if that were the source of its birth.”[12]
Much debate has occurred in scholastic circles as to whether this terminology is a quotation of Canaanite poetry, allusion to Venus, or even if it was a reference to Ishtar. Young, however, commenting on the term “morning star,” believes “Isaiah may simply use the phrase to indicate the morning star. Of all the stars it would be the brightest, but that clear star, unique among the stars of heaven, would fall upon the carcasses.”[13] The next phrase, “how art thou cut down to the ground”, comes from the Hebrew word “gada`,” meaning to cut down or shave off. This is in the perfect tense, meaning that is has already taken place in the prophet’s mind. The idea of cutting down here is similar to the thought of bringing down a mighty tree. Like a mighty tree cut down, the king of Babylon would be cut off. Not only would the king be cut down like a tree, but his prideful heart, which thought of itself as being in a “star-like” position, will be cut so low that it will be literally sent to the earth (Hebrew: erets). Ed Young, commenting on the last phrase in the verse, “which didst weaken the nations,” writes: “His reign had been one that threw away and weakened the nations; now he himself is weakened and thrown away.”[14] Just as this king was the one weakening or disabling (Hebrew: chalash) the nations (Hebrew: gowy) so shall he be weakened and made to fall prostrate. It is my sincere belief that because this king set himself up against the Lord’s people and considered himself God’s rival, God then made him fall before him in a humiliating fashion.
THE REMAINING CONTEXT
The verses that follow Isaiah 14:12 further shed light on the nature of this “morning star.” Verses 13-14 read: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”[15] Here we see the king declaring the arrogant intentions of his heart. He says not that he wants to ascend into heaven, but rather that he will! My question is if the prophet was speaking primarily of Satan, as Mr. Daniel contends, then why would he desire to ascend into heaven? If this is indeed the pre-fall devil speaking, then he would already be in heaven. Instead of seeing pre-fall Satan in the passage, as Dr. Young points out, we are actually seeing a contrast between the king’s will and God’s plan! Dr. Young writes: “What a contrast! But thou, we may paraphrase the thought, thou hadst intended a different end for thyself. Falling from heaven was not in thy plan…” [16]
Directly following these unbridled statements of pride, we find again another contrast, this time between the king’s intention and his actual fate. Verse 15 reads: “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”[17] Contrary to his plan of becoming greater than the God of heaven, he will instead find his final resting place in the pit of hell. Further compounding the point that the immediate subject of this passage is not directly Satan comes the description of the king found in verse 16, which reads: “They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms…”[18] I find it interesting that the king here is described as a man, while Satan is a spirit and more specifically a fallen angel. Some would say this term “man” does not mean literal man but rather masculine being. This, however, is less than accurate. The Hebrew term used here, “‘iysh” (pronounced eesh), literally relates the idea of a human male held in contrast to God. The remaining verses within the context of the fall of the king (v.17-21) serve to further illustrate this king’s demise despite his lofty intentions. However, these are not needed for discussion of the issue at hand.
THE ORIGIN OF LUCIFER
We have seen clearly then that the term translated as Lucifer in the King James is not being incorrectly translated in modern versions of the Bible. The question then becomes “where did the name Lucifer come from?” If it did not exist in the original Hebrew, at what point did it find its way into the Scripture? Dr. James White comments, “The term Lucifer…came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s [Latin] Vulgate…”[19] Jerome used Lucifer in his Latin translation because Lucifer literally means “light-bearer”. While this term does relate the idea of the “morning star,” it is less than satisfactory laguage to be used in modern English translations. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Daniel is horribly mistaken in his ascertain that Lucifer is indeed the correct translation. Further, speaking to the correct translation of the Hebrew phrase “Helel ben Schachar”, Dr. White declares that “star of the morning or morning star are perfectly acceptable translations of the Hebrew word.”[20] With all the critical and scholarly information emphatically in favor of the modern versions’ translation of Isaiah 14:12, I believe we can have confidence in the following reading of this passage from the NASB: “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!”[21]
DOES THIS APPLY TO SATAN?
As we have seen, the context, and the language usage does explicitly speak of a Babylonian king. But does it also implicitly speak of Satan? Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, was the first known commentator to interpret the Isaiah passage as being what Christ was referencing in Luke 10:18. Since that time, especially since Jerome’s translation, it has become tradition to interpret this passage as being directly about Satan.
While the passage is not directly about Satan we can certainly draw a parallel between the attitude of the king and that of Satan. Because this king is not specifically given an identity, it is quite possible that this is a prototype of a king that represents both Satan and a Babylonian leader(s). This passage is much like its parallel, Ezekiel 28:11-19. While not immediately about Satan, he is certainly implied. Because of this, we can view Satan as the power behind the Babylonian king in the Isaiah passage, as well as being the power behind the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. Therefore, Mr. Daniel is correct in his belief that this passage applies to Satan. However, he is incorrect to demand that it is the immediate contextual subject.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing all the evidence and materials pertinent to our discussion, we must conclude that, contrary to what Mr. Daniel would like us to believe, the modern versions have Isaiah 14:12 right, and it is the King James translation that is in error. As we have seen, Lucifer is not found in the original text. Rather, it is a Latin interpolation that has attached itself with tradition. Because of this, Mr. Daniel would have us to believe that we must maintain this tradition as opposed to pursuing textual accuracy. I find there to be irony in Mr. Daniel’s insistence upon tradition over accuracy, because this same man detests the Roman Catholic Church for her reliance upon tradition over Scripture, which is the very thing Mr. Daniel is demanding we do. When our forefathers began the Reformation they stood against the inaccurate and unbiblical traditions of the corporate church. Standing against tradition is in our protestant heritage. Because of this I believe we should not fear standing against this tradition for the sake of accuracy. In summary, I believe we can confidently read modern versions (I.E. NASB, NIV), translated by conservative scholars, without fear of a Luciferian conspiracy.
[1] David Daniel. “Bible Versions: Your Questions Answered” http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/lucifer.asp. Accessed October 15, 2006.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Jerry Falwell, Edward Hindson and Woodrow Kroll, Liberty Bible Commentary (Lynchburg: VA, Old Time Gospel Hour,1982), 1322-1323.
[4] The Holy Bible : King James Version. (Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA 1995)
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company,1997),441-442.
[9] Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, IL.: Victor Books, 1992),267.
[10] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 440.
[11] Ibid. 440
[12] Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Vol. 7: Isaiah (Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2000, Findex.Com. All rights reserved)
[13] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 440.
[14] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 441.
[15] The Holy Bible, King James Version.
[16] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 1, 440.
[17] The Holy Bible : King James Version.
[18] Ibid.
[19] James White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 138.
[20] Ibid.
[21] New American Standard Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2001)
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: HISTORY AND LEADERS
Their books are everywhere. Their sermons are broadcast daily to millions via television and radio transmissions. They have become, like it or not, the face of modern American Christianity. The “they” I speak of are the leaders of the Word of Faith movement. While most in the Church would not recognize the classification title of their particular brand of Christianity, they would however, readily recognize the names of leaders in this ever growing movement. What exactly makes one a “Word of Faith” teacher? What are the core doctrines in the Faith movement? Where did these doctrines originate? Our goal will be first, to define what truly constitutes the Word of Faith movement. Secondly, we shall trace its philosophical roots to the modern “founders.” Finally, we will identify some of its major leaders and to evaluate some of their more distinctive teachings.
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: DEFINITION
For practical purposes a working definition of what the Word of Faith movement is at its core must be established. Some have mistakenly claimed that the Word of Faith movement should be equated with the Charismatic and Pentecostal community as a whole. The truth is that not all Charismatics and Pentecostals ascribe to Word of Faith doctrine. However, it is equally true that all members of the Word of Faith movement are Charismatic or Pentecostal. Because there is no specific Word of Faith denomination it will be necessary to look elsewhere for a distinctive that may be used to identify those within this movement. This definition can be formulated by briefly examining some of the generally accepted doctrines found within Faith theology.
One of the primary doctrinal distinctions in the Word of Faith is the belief that not just spiritual healing, but also physical healing was guaranteed in the atoning work of Jesus Christ.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> It is not only believed that physical healing is provided in the atonement, but the potential for financial prosperity as well.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> The power necessary to unlock these benefits of the atonement is the act of “positive confession.” The line of reasoning is that faith is a force of sorts, and our words have the power to activate this force in order to produce positive outcomes, or negative outcomes, depending on how our words are used.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> Further, it is generally taught that Christians are in fact a brand of “little gods”, or “incarnations” of godhood.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> In the same sense that Christ was a physical incarnation of God, so are we. The final, and possibly most troubling common teaching among Word of Faith leaders, is the belief in Christ’s “re-birth.” Many prominent teachers present a doctrine that represents Christ as finishing His atoning work in hell, instead of the cross. The belief is that on the cross when Christ was “forsaken” by the Father, He lost the nature of the Father (deity) and in turn took on the nature of Satan. As result of taking on the very nature of the devil, He died spiritually and ascended in to the pit of hell. While in hell, God the Father raised Him and in that resurrection He became a “born again” man. D.R. McConnell, a believer in Charismatic renewal himself, notes that in Faith theology, “It was necessary that Christ die spiritually because sickness and sin are both spiritual in origin, not physical.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–>
There are many other doctrines that establish the division between orthodox Christianity and the Word of Faith movement. However, for our purposes the focus will remain on the doctrines discussed above as the “bare-bones” essentials of what it means to be a member, or more specifically, a leader within the Word of Faith movement. The next goal, following the defining of core beliefs, is to establish were exactly Faith theology originated.
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS
The roots of the Word of Faith movement are deep indeed. If one were to truly examine history in an effort to find where this widespread belief system originated it would be found in its most basic form as Gnostic in nature. There is much debate as to when Gnosticism first arose, however this topic is not pressing, it is safe to say it Gnostic philosophy has existed for at least 2000 years. Dr. Harold O.J. Brown, of Trinity Evangelical International University, describes Gnosticism this way: “Gnosticism and the Gnostic movement generally are essentially dualistic. In other words, they view reality as a constant interplay between two fundamental principles, such as spirit and matter, soul and body, good and evil.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[6]<!–[endif]–> In discussing “dualism” as it relates to metaphysics, Dr. Norman Geisler writes that: “In metaphysics dualism is the belief that there are two coeternal principles in conflict with each other…”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[7]<!–[endif]–> Gnosticism then is primarily a dualistic approach to reaching and understanding some type of “secret knowledge”, a concept that is intrical to Faith theology.
It is this ideology that in modern times has given rise to a plethora of “mind science” cults. Speaking to the idea of “mental healing,” Ruth Tucker, of Calvin Theological Seminary, claims that the immense interest concerning this topic in Civil War era America was “…largely as a result of the experiments that German physician Franz Anton Mesmer was conducting with hypnosis.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[8]<!–[endif]–> It is her belief that it was this man’s influence that first led P.P. Quimby (1806-1866), considered the father of “New Thought,” into the area of the “mind sciences.” Simply put, New Thought is a spiritual philosophy of the mind. It is the belief that a higher power resides in each individual and that positive thinking and words activate that power, and in turn results in positive consequences. Unlike Mesmer, however, Quimby developed his idea on “mental healing” into a dualistic mind over matter formula. Quimby believed that it would be possible to cure most ailments and ensure health by cultivating positive thoughts and verbal suggestions. This is the root of positive confession.
It was Quimby’s teachings and direct interaction with Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910) that led Eddy to develop Christian Science. While Ms. Eddy denied Quimby’s influence on her own system of “mind science,” other groups readily acknowledge Quimby as their philosophical ancestor. According to D.R. McConnell, “The most significant of these are the Unity School of Christianity, Divine Science, the Church of Religious Science, the Home of Truth, the Church of Truth, the Christ Church League, the Society of the Healing Christ, and the Christian Assembly.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–> As it will be shown later, one could at least draw an indirect connection from Quimby to the Word of Faith movement, and in doing so place the Faith movement into the “mind science” family tree.
The philosophical concepts of Quimby’s “New Thought” teaching had a profound effect upon a man named Charles Wesley Emerson (1837-1903). Charles Emerson left his position as a Congregationalist minister in 1860 only to become a Universalist minister in 1866. After spending about five years as a minister of the Universalist Church in Northfield, Vermont, Emerson left to become Unitarian minister in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Following a brief period of time in the Unitarian Church, Emerson left his position as a minister to further his education at Boston University. In 1879, this still active Unitarian minister founded Emerson College of Oratory, which later became simply Emerson College.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[10]<!–[endif]–> Under Charles Emerson’s leadership the school quickly became a hotbed for Unitarian and New Thought practitioners. This environment was incubated by the faculty at Emerson, who routinely pushed what they believed to be the “true gospel” within the classroom setting.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[11]<!–[endif]–> This “gospel” was not the one found within the New Testament but instead it was a New Thought gospel. It must be stated that, “Whether Dr. Emerson taught New Thought is not subject to question. It is clear that he did…”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[12]<!–[endif]–> As it will be shown later, Emerson College plays a pivotal role in the development of Faith theology.
The common thread that runs through this brief history is the pursuit of secret knowledge. This secret knowledge transcends physical knowledge and would qualify as what Word of Faith leaders call, “revelation knowledge.” This is a knowledge that goes beyond what we can know through our senses (sense knowledge). One Word of Faith leader has been quoted as saying that: “Sense knowledge cannot find God, and would not know God if it found Him.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[13]<!–[endif]–> When we examine the founder of the Word of Faith movement and evaluate some of its current leaders, it will become quite clear that there are a number of parallels between the theology “mind science” cults and Faith theology.
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: FOUNDER
Many today within the Word of Faith movement believe that their theology sprang from the studies and God given revelations of Kenneth Hagin. Even Charisma magazine has dubbed Ken Hagin as “the granddaddy of the faith teachers.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[14]<!–[endif]–> This would however, be incorrect. The modern Faith movement is undeniably rooted in the teachings of E.W. Kenyon (1867-1948). Hagin’s primary role within the Word of Faith movement was to take its teachings mainstream. It will be discussed later exactly how much Kenneth Hagin borrowed from the writings and teachings of E.W. Kenyon.
E.W. Kenyon’s early life was quite ordinary to say the least.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[15]<!–[endif]–> Born April 24th, 1867, he spent his early years growing up in northern New York. At the age of 17 he evidently made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[16]<!–[endif]–> Shortly thereafter, Kenyon began his preaching ministry among Methodist churches.
His educational career was less than stellar. Kenyon never actually graduated from any institution of higher learning. Instead, every degree he has ever received was honorary.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[17]<!–[endif]–> Despite the fact that Kenyon never attained a degree of any kind his college career did indeed have an incredible impact upon his life.
In 1892, E.W. Kenyon moved to Boston, soon thereafter he enrolled at the previously mentioned Emerson College of Oratory. This is quite significant. As noted previously, Emerson College has unabashedly cultic roots. By the time Kenyon had enrolled at Emerson, its founder Charles Emerson could no longer be simply identified as a Unitarian. Instead, “his religion was a veritable smorgasbord of the sources underlying New Thought metaphysics: Platonism, Swedenborgianism, Unitarianism, and Emersonian Transcendentalism.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[18]<!–[endif]–> Further, a lecturer at Emerson College Charles Mallory stated of the school that, “All people should come here…This is a school where the philosophy of life is taught. It ought to be called The First Church of Emerson.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[19]<!–[endif]–> This is, in and of itself, a very telling statement. For as it has been shown previously, the “philosophy of life” being taught at this “church” was nothing more than New Thought metaphysics. The simple fact that Kenyon attended a college whose leader followed New Thought philosophy, and openly taught these principles to his students should raise red flags in the minds of his followers. As D.R. McConnell has observed, “Kenyon did not merely attend a school of oratory at Emerson College, but a school in which both faculty and student body were heavily involved with the metaphysical cults.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[20]<!–[endif]–>
Upon leaving Emerson, Kenyon began engaging in evangelistic tours, as well as continuing his previously established Bethel Bible Institute. At this same time Kenyon ended his affiliation with the Methodist church and became an independent Baptist.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[21]<!–[endif]–> It was at this period in his life that Kenyon developed his cultic theology.
Staying true to his metaphysical education at Emerson, Kenyon developed certain principles that were used as the guiding force in his theological growth. For the basis of his theological system Kenyon “Christianized” the Gnostic principle and metaphysical principle of dualistic knowledge. Kenyon believed that there were two kinds of knowledge: sense knowledge and revelation knowledge.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[22]<!–[endif]–> Sense knowledge was that which we attained through our five senses. As previously stated, however, Kenyon believed that true knowledge of God, and the way things truly are, can only be attained by going beyond the sense realm and entering into revelation knowledge. This is Gnosticism in every sense of the term. Kenyon believed that in order to walk in the spirit as a believer one must deny his sense knowledge and instead rely on revelation knowledge. The reason being as Kenyon puts it, “there will always be a conflict between our senses and the world.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[23]<!–[endif]–> This is similar to Mary Baker Eddy who wrote that, “The corporeal senses are the only source of evil and error.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[24]<!–[endif]–> Further than this parallel to the mind cults, Kenyon testified to his status in the revelation knowledge realm by stating, “I am no longer hemmed in by limitations because I am united with the limitless One.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[25]<!–[endif]–> It is this type of thinking that clearly connects Kenyon to Gnosticism. Kenyon also believed in levels of revelation knowledge which inevitably leads to classes of believers. Writing to those whom he deamed “supermen,” Kenyon said, “You have gone outside the realm of the senses, outside the realm of Sense Knowledge, and you have passed into the realm of God, the spirit realm.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[26]<!–[endif]–> It obviously cannot be denied that Kenyon believed in a Gnostic dualism.
Another distinct Kenyon teaching is his belief in Christ’s rebirth. According to Kenyon, “if His [physical] death paid it, then every man could die for himself. Sin is in the spirit realm. His physical death was but a means to an end.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[27]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon teaches that after this purely practical, physical death, Christ died spiritually and ascended into hell.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[28]<!–[endif]–> Finally, Kenyon stays true to his role as father of Faith theology by claiming that, “Jesus was born again before He was raised from the dead.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[29]<!–[endif]–>
In direct connection to the above doctrine, Kenyon taught that during salvation, man takes “the nature and life of God in one’s spirit.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[30]<!–[endif]–> In this doctrine of small scale incarnation, E.W. Kenyon muddies the waters between orthodoxy and New Age theology. It is no wonder that many today within the Faith movement teach various versions of this belief.
Kenyon further meets the “bare-bones” qualifications for what it means to be a member of the Faith movement in his doctrine of positive confession. Kenyon, like Quimby and Mary Baker Eddy, taught that our words activate an impersonal universal force. He believed that “our confession rules us,”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[31]<!–[endif]–> and because of this it could be stated that, “what I confess I posses.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[32]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon described this process and its role in the work of God as follows: “faith-filled words brought the universe into being, and faith-filled words are ruling that universe today.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[33]<!–[endif]–> Clearly, Kenyon held to a belief that faith and positive confession are the keys to activate this impersonal force. This is the very same force that God Himself needed to use in order to create our universe.
Finally, E.W. Kenyon believed whole heartedly that the believer’s prosperity in his most basic needs was purchased by the atonement. Much like P.P. Quimby, Kenyon believed that disease is spiritual in origin.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[34]<!–[endif]–> He has boldly stated that, “it is wrong for us to have sickness and disease in our bodies when God laid those diseases on Jesus.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[35]<!–[endif]–> He pushes this statement to the limit when he writes, “…No believer should ever be sick…he should live his full length of time and actually wear out and fall asleep.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[36]<!–[endif]–>
After leaving Bethel Bible Institute in 1923, Kenyon took his now refined “Christianized New Thought” doctrine to the masses in the form of books and monthly newsletters. He eventually moved to Seattle where he formed an independent Baptist church, a small Bible college, a radio program, and his own publishing group.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[37]<!–[endif]–> His works can still be accessed and purchased today through this publishing group, now called the Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society. Since his death in 1948 Kenyon’s publishing society has gone on the defensive regarding their founder. Just a brief visit to their website reveals an entire page dedicated to defending the teachings of Kenyon. Further, and much to this authors surprise, they also offer a defense of the very man who routinely plagiarized Kenyon in taking his doctrines mainstream; that man is none other than Kenneth E. Hagin.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[38]<!–[endif]–>
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: KENNETH HAGIN
The man most people first recognize as the originator of the word of Faith movement is without a doubt, Kenneth E. Hagin (1917-2003). In fact, almost every leader in the Faith movement directly traces their primary influence back to Kenneth Hagin. “Dad,” as he is affectionately called by Faith leaders, was born in MicKinney, Texas, on August 20th, 1917. Hagin has reported that he was born prematurely and had a congenital heart defect. At the age of 16 he became so ill that he was bedridden for over a year. During this time he reports that he was literally taken to hell a total of three times.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[39]<!–[endif]–> After this third trip to hell Ken Hagin says that he placed his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. In the winter of 1934 while he lay on his death bed, Hagin received a series of visions. These visions were evidently an impartation of revelation knowledge about the “principle of faith” supposedly found in Mark 11:23-24. After this principle was revealed to Hagin he began to confess his healing and supposedly recovered from his ailment within 10 minutes.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[40]<!–[endif]–>
Oddly enough, when Hagin began his public ministry just after high school, he was primarily associated with the Baptist community. However, by 1937 the Baptist community had turned its back on Hagin due to the Charismatic nature of his preaching. After leaving his Baptist roots he became a licensed minister within the Assemblies of God denomination for a total of twelve years (1937-1949). His time as a minister was reportedly filled with all types of supernatural events including resurrections from the dead.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[41]<!–[endif]–> In 1943 Hagin believed that he received “anointing” to be a teacher, which was followed by a 1952 “anointing” into the office of a prophet.
Another claim of Hagin is that he has been personally visited by Jesus Christ. The first visit was said to have occurred while he was holding an evangelistic meeting in 1950 at a small church in Texas. He claims that this visit was followed by at least seven other meetings. During these meetings with Christ, various kinds of doctrine were revealed to Hagin.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[42]<!–[endif]–> These doctrines included those that have been previously defined as the basic foundational doctrines to Faith theology. Unlike Kenyon, who preached the same exact message, Hagin states that, “The Lord said to me, “If you give a message for…a church, or a pastor and they don’t accept it…[t]hey will be responsible…ministers who don’t accept it (the message)…will fall dead in the pulpit.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[43]<!–[endif]–> In Hagin’s theological system, he stands in the position of God, because his message comes directly from the lips of Christ. If that message is denied, people will have to die. It is this threat that has enabled him to spread the Faith message to many who would otherwise deny it. It is through fear that Hagin has propagated his theology.
Hagin’s supposed Christ-given theology includes a belief that, “if anybody anywhere…will put these four principles into operation,” the four principles of positive confession: Say it, Do it, Receive it, and Tell it, “…He will always receive whatever he wants…from God the Father.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[44]<!–[endif]–> Obviously Kenneth Hagin is in agreement with Kenyon in the fact that he believes that God is bound by impersonal, universal, spiritual laws. With these laws we may lay claim to both good health and financial prosperity. Hagin further sides with Kenyon, by teaching that, “[T]he believer is called Christ…That’s who we are; we’re Christ!”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[45]<!–[endif]–> This establishes without a doubt that Kenneth Hagin believed that we are an “incarnation” of sorts. With absolute clarity Kenneth Hagin has made his position known regarding the work of Christ on the cross when he writes, “Spiritual death also means having Satan’s nature…Jesus tasted death-spiritual death-for every man.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[46]<!–[endif]–> It is in this doctrine that Hagin teaches that Christ’s death on the cross did nothing to earn our salvation. Instead, Christ became a demoniac and went to hell. While in hell our redemption was bought when Christ was born again.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[47]<!–[endif]–> As we have seen previously, all these doctrines were being taught by E.W. Kenyon long before Kenneth Hagin’s ministry career got off the ground. While these represent just a few doctrinal similarities between the two men, far more parallels could be displayed. What then do we make of Kenneth Hagin’s theological influence?
Despite Hagin’s insistence that his theology came from divine imparting and exceptional knowledge of Scripture, it has been shown at great length by various researchers that “Dad’s” teachings are far more human in origin. One of those who has documented this human origin is D.R. McConnell. In McConnell’s book A Different Gospel, the case is made that Hagin has extensively plagiarized the writings and doctrines of E.W. Kenyon.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[48]<!–[endif]–> While Hagin did eventually admit that there was uncanny resemblance between the two men’s writings (even to the point of using the same title and text almost word for word), Hagin denied that he plagiarized Kenyon in the least. Instead, Hagin suggests that they were, “using different words to express…the same truth.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[49]<!–[endif]–> This excuse is unlikely however, simply because more often than not, they use the same words to express the same “truth”!
In 1966 Hagin took his divinely imparted doctrine to Tulsa, Oklahoma. While in Tulsa, he began a radio program called “Faith Seminar of the Air.” This program was picked up by over 180 radio stations within North America. As a result of the incredible popularity of the program, Hagin decided that he should build a correspondence school to further educate his listeners. In 1974 his plan became reality when Rhema Correspondence Bible School was opened. It is this program, coupled with his Word of Faith magazine that has taken Hagin’s teachings worldwide.
In the 1980’s, Kenneth Hagin and many other faith leaders attempted to codify the Faith churches around the world into an organization that would loosely resemble a denomination. While this attempt never formed into what Hagin and others envisioned, it did however aide in developing a Faith fellowship of sorts, made up of independent charismatic churches. It is this independent connection today that further adds to the difficulty of classifying those leaders and churches that should be designated as part of the Word of Faith movement. This fellowship calls itself the International Convention of Faith Churches and Ministers (ICFCM).<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[50]<!–[endif]–>
After radically changing the world with his popularization of Faith theology, Hagin died in September of 2003 at the age of 87. This would seem to be an incredible blow to the world of the Faith movement, but it is not so. Hagin’s legacy has been secured through the success of the Rhema Bible Training Center (Formerly Rhema Correspondence Bible School). According to Rhema’s official website they now have over 23,000 alumni worldwide as well as having established training centers in 13 countries.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[51]<!–[endif]–> Further, the Faith movement now has a score of leaders who vie for Hagin’s role as the elder of the movement. With the help of Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), founded by Hagin supporters Paul (1934-) and Jan (1937-) Crouch, a handful of faces have emerged as the icons of the Faith movement This new cast of characters has elevated the mainstream acceptance of Faith theology to a height that Hagin and Kenyon could not have dreamed. Due to space constraints just a handful of these leaders will be profiled.
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: CURRENT LEADERS
Today the World of Faith movement boasts a myriad of popular personalities that present themselves and their teachings in books, videos, and study aides. These names include the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen and many others. Multiple volumes could be written about each of their doctrinal positions alone, without even addressing their ministries and level of influence. However, for the purpose as hand, only a brief survey will be taken over these leader’s ministries, influence, and some of their doctrinal distinctions
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: CURRENT LEADERS-KENNETH COPELAND
When Kenneth Hagin died, a shift occurred within some circles of the Faith movement. Followers clamored for a “prophet” and a “teacher” to follow. The man in whose ministry many readily placed their support shared “Dad” Hagin’s first name. It was Kenneth Copeland (1936-) who quickly attempted to assume the role of elder spokesman within the Faith movement. This would only seem fitting. After all, it was Copeland’s memorization of Hagin’s tapes that reportedly “mentored” the younger Kenneth into ministry.
After spending over a year listening to Kenneth Hagin’s tapes, the Oral Roberts University educated Copeland began his own ministry. In 1968 He and his wife began holding Bible studies in their home town. Shortly thereafter the Copelands began holding evangelistic meetings and in 1973 published their first newsletter, The Believers Voice of Victory. This later became the name of both Kenneth Copeland’s radio and television programs.
Copeland and his wife teach all the same fundamental doctrines that have been established as the core basis of Faith theology, and as it will be shown, they take things a step further. Some of Kenneth Copeland’s more bizarre teachings include the belief that, “Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[52]<!–[endif]–> In what seemed to be a an attempt to appear as if he had some secret knowledge about God that others did not, Copeland espoused teaching that was ominously similar to what many Mormon prophets have taught.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[53]<!–[endif]–> Perhaps even more startling is his insistence upon blatantly cultic visualization techniques. Copeland once stated that; “Any image that you get down inside of you that is so vivid when you close your eyes you see it, it’ll come to pass.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[54]<!–[endif]–>
If these were the only instances in which Copeland made such bizarre statements one could perhaps overlook it as a misspoken thought. However, he has a history of radical teachings including that God lives on a “mother planet” of some type.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[55]<!–[endif]–> This again reeks of Mormonism.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[56]<!–[endif]–> The goal here is not to catalog every unorthodox doctrine that Copeland teaches, but rather to give a brief feeling for just how far he goes in the realm of heresy.
His reach is ever expanding and his doctrine is becoming evermore dangerous. Commenting on this issue, Hank Hanegraaff wrote, “Volumes could be written about the dangerous doctrines espoused by Ken and Gloria Copeland. Only from eternity will we understand fully the human suffering that has followed in their wake.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[57]<!–[endif]–> With his ministry now attaining global status, Kenneth Copeland has sufficient enough of a platform to divert countless people away from the true Christ of the Bible, and instead toward his Mormon-like “Christ”.
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: CURRENT LEADERS-BENNY HINN
Today no single ministry can match the sheer sensationalism of that belonging to “Pastor Benny”, as his followers call him. Benny Hinn (1952-), has received international acclaim for his “miracle crusades” around the world. According to Hinn, in December of 1973 he traveled to a healing service being held by Kathryn Kuhlman.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[58]<!–[endif]–> This trip would be followed by many more. Despite the fact that he never met Kuhlman, he insists that she had a profound impact upon his life. Much like Kenneth Hagin before him, Hinn fondly admires Faith healers of the past as those who helped initiate today’s Charismatic renewal. After performing many miracle services of his own in Canada, Benny Hinn moved to Orlando, Florida. It was upon moving to Florida that Hinn met and married the daughter of a local minister. Then in 1983 he began the Orlando Christian Center. He has since left the church and moved his ministry to a state that is quickly becoming a gathering place for heretical teachers, Texas. He has become a mainstay on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and is routinely brought in by the Crouch family anytime they are holding a telethon, or as they call it a praise-a-thon. It is because of his relationship with TBN that Benny Hinn has enjoyed such immense exposure and, consequently, immense success.
In 2002 Benny Hinn Ministries Inc. came under fire after a Dateline NBC report investigated the legitimacy of Hinn’s claims of healing for many of his followers. It further examined the ministry’s financial practices. This only magnified the fact that Hinn has for quite some time refused to join the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[59]<!–[endif]–> Despite the controversy over the use of contributions he receives, and the lack of evidence for any genuine healings, Benny Hinn continues to increase in popularity daily. Some of this ever increasing popularity can be attributed to his ecumenical approach to ministry. Hinn has gone to great lengths to build a bridge from his branch of the Charismatic movement into the various threads of Catholicism around the world today.
Some of his more controversial teachings, beyond the common core Faith doctrines, include a belief that Adam could fly! Hinn, appearing on TBN’s “Praise the Lord” program, stated that: “Adam not only flew, he flew to space.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[60]<!–[endif]–> Hinn claimed that after doing a thorough exegesis of the Hebrew word for “dominion,” he came to the conclusion that Adam could fly. He asserted that when the Bible states that Adam had “dominion over the birds of the air,” that the implication was he had the ability to do whatever they could do. Any exegete of the Scriptures with even minimal training could point out that this is utterly false. As result of this embarrassing display, some of Hinn’s defenders have blamed this “misunderstanding” on the fact that Hinn has no formal Biblical training. Far worse than being a poor student of Scripture, Benny Hinn is also a false prophet.
While appearing once again on TBN for the “Praise the Lord” program in April of 2000, Hinn claimed that Christ would soon appear physically in churches across the United States as well as appearing on stage with Benny himself at an upcoming crusade.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[61]<!–[endif]–> Needless to say, this prophecy was never fulfilled. There are many more shocking prophecies and statements made by Benny Hinn, many of which have been cataloged by other authors. For our purposes however, what has been displayed is sufficient enough to call into question the ministry of Benny Hinn.
THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT: CURRENT LEADERS –JOEL OSTEEN
If Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn represent the two most well-established ministries currently dominating the Word of Faith landscape, then we could say that Joel Osteen is the up and coming personality poised to take control.
Quite possibly the brightest and fastest rising star within the Word of Faith movement today is the son of the now deceased John Osteen. Since assuming the role of pastor at Lakewood Church (Houston, Texas.) in September of 1999, Joel Osteen (1963-) has witnessed his congregation grow to well over 30,000. While Osteen does not blatantly teach Faith theology; it is nevertheless apparent throughout his writings. For instance, in his New York Times best seller Your Best Life Now, Osteen writes: “God doesn’t want you dragging through life…barely making it. It is not his preference for you to live in perpetual pain…Become a true believer, knowing that what you believe you will become.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[62]<!–[endif]–> Without betraying his trademark message of self esteem, Osteen manages to slip in Faith theology. Osteen’s subtle approach to presenting Faith doctrine is a trend that many have documented in various critiques of his book.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[63]<!–[endif]–>
This message of self esteem is noticeably void of any references to judgment or the exclusivity of salvation in Christ alone. In fact, in a June 20th, 2005 interview on the Larry King Live show, Osteen was asked whether or not Christ alone is the way to heaven. The following is an excerpt from the interview:
KING: What if you’re Jewish or Muslim, you don’t accept Christ at all?
OSTEEN: You know, I’m very careful about saying who would and wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t know…
KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They’re wrong, aren’t they?
OSTEEN: Well, I don’t know if I believe they’re wrong. I believe here’s what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person’s heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don’t know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don’t know. I’ve seen their sincerity. So I don’t know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[64]<!–[endif]–>
Osteen’s refusal to answer with an absolute yes or no earned him some much deserved criticism. A short time later in an interview with Charisma Now, Osteen clarified his statements on Larry King Live, stating that he does indeed believe Christ to be the only way to the Father.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[65]<!–[endif]–> While this is encouraging, is does not negate the fact that the pastor of America’s largest congregation could not give a direct answer on the nature of salvation. Much like the defenders of Benny Hinn, Osteen’s supporters pointed out his lack of formal Biblical training as a potential reason for his inability to answer King’s rather direct question. It would seem unlikely, however, that during his seventeen years in church administration under his father he never once heard a sermon on John 14:6.
Seemingly in complete ignorance to the event described above, Lakewood Church continues to grow at an incredible rate. Further, the praise for Joel Osteen and his self esteem gospel never ceases from Evangelicals and Charismatics alike. It seems that the sky is the limit for Osteen, and only God can know what the future holds for this “heresy with a smile” preacher.
CONCLUSION
In summary, it has been concluded that from its inception, the Word of Faith movement has been riddled with controversy and cultic doctrine. Its basic concepts are deeply rooted in dualistic metaphysical philosophy and mind science. The movement’s true modern originator was heavily influenced by men entrenched in New Thought. The modern propagator plagiarized the man who truly conceived Faith theology, and called it his own. Its modern leaders are constantly embroiled in controversy and scandal over financial practices. There is no clear statement regarding the nature of salvation, and instead there exists consensus only on doctrines that demean the atoning work of Christ. All that can be said then, is that it appears the philosophy behind the Faith movement goes back much further than its Gnostic roots. Instead, it returns to the first lie ever told, the lie very like Satan spoke in the Garden of Eden. That men could be as gods and could posses’ secret knowledge of the divine. The Word of Faith movement then is nothing more than the most ancient of all heresies, repacked for the church age.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth E. Hagin, Zoe: The God-Kind of Life, (Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Inc., 1989)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Copeland, How to Prosper from the Inside Out, Kenneth Copeland Ministries, http://www.kcm.org/studycenter/finances/pdf/prosper_inside_out.pdf
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Faith (Ft. Worth, TX.: Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1983)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> Benny Hinn. Our Position in Christ #2–The Word Made Flesh [Orlando, FL: Orlando Christian Center, 1991), Audiotape #A031190-2, side 2.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–> D.R. McConnell. A Different Gospel (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 117
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[6]<!–[endif]–> Harold O.J. Brown. Heresies (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 40
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[7]<!–[endif]–>Geisler, Norman L.: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1999 (Baker Reference Library), S. 206
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[8]<!–[endif]–> Ruth Tucker. Another Gospel (Rand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1989), 153
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–> McConnell, 38
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[10]<!–[endif]–> Ibid. 36-38
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[11]<!–[endif]–> Ibid.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[12]<!–[endif]–> John Coffee & Richard Wentwoth. A Century of Eloquence :The History of Emerson College, 1880-1890 (Boston, MA.: Alternative Publications, 1982), 61
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[13]<!–[endif]–> E.W. Kenyon. Two Kinds of Knowledge page 34
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[14]<!–[endif]–> Sherry Andrews, Kenneth Hagin: Keeping the Faith (Charisma: Oct. 1981), 24
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[15]<!–[endif]–> There has yet to be a thorough biography written of E.W. Kenyon. Therefore all information regarding his early life and upbringing must be pieced together from various sources who have inquired into his early years.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[16]<!–[endif]–> The official E.W. Kenyon website: http://www.kenyons.org/who.shtml
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[17]<!–[endif]–> McConnell, 29-30
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[18]<!–[endif]–> Ibid, 35
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[19]<!–[endif]–> Coffee & Wentworth,68
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[20]<!–[endif]–> McConnell, 41
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[21]<!–[endif]–> Ibid, 47-48
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[22]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, The Two Kinds of Knowledge, 11-36
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[23]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, The Two Kinds of Knowledge, 52
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[24]<!–[endif]–> Mary Baker Eddy pg. 489.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[25]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, Two Kinds of Life, 58
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[26]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, The Hidden Man, 158
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[27]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, Hidden Man, 47
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[28]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, Identification, 8
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[29]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon. What Happened, 64
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[30]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, Hidden Man, 26
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[31]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, Two Kinds of Faith, 67
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[32]<!–[endif]–> Ibid. 98
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[33]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon. Two Kinds of Faith, 20
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[34]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, Identification, 15
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[35]<!–[endif]–> Kenyon, Jesus the Healer, 44
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[36]<!–[endif]–> Ibid. 65
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[37]<!–[endif]–> Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 1997), 331
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[38]<!–[endif]–> http://www.kenyons.org/faq.shtml
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[39]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, I Believe in Visions (Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1972), 13
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[40]<!–[endif]–> Ibid. 27-30
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[41]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, Plead Your Case (Tulsa, OK.: Faith Library, 1979), 16-18
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[42]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, How You Can Be Lead by the Spirit of God (Tulsa, OK.: Faith Library, 1979), 29-30
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[43]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, The Ministry of a Prophet (Tulsa, OK.: Faith Library, 1984), 19
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[44]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, How to Write Your Own Ticket with God, 5
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[45]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, Zoe: The God-Kind of Life (Tulsa. OK.: Kenneth Hagin Ministries Inc., 1989), 41
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[46]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, The Name of Jesus (Tulsa, OK.: Kenneth Hagin Ministries Inc., 1981), 31
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[47]<!–[endif]–> Hagin, The Name of Jesus, 29
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[48]<!–[endif]–> D.R. McConnell, 7-14
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[49]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Hagin, The Name of Jesus (Tulsa, OK.: Faith Library, 1981), preface
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[50]<!–[endif]–> A more detailed history and profile of this group is available on the ICFCM website: http://www.icfm.org
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[51]<!–[endif]–> According to the Rhema website: http://www.rhema.org/about/history.cfm, Bible training centers now operate within Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, South Pacific, and Thailand.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[52]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham I (Fort Worth, TX.: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989), audiotape #01-3001, side 1.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[53]<!–[endif]–> Mormon prophets such as Bringham Young taught that Adam was in fact God the Father.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[54]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Copeland, Inner Image of the Covenant (Fort Worth, TX.: Kenneth Copeland Ministries,1985), audiotape #01-4406, side 2.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[55]<!–[endif]–> Kenneth Copeland, The Faith of Abraham I, side 1
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[56]<!–[endif]–> Mormons believe that God the Father leaves on a planet called Kolob.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[57]<!–[endif]–> Hank Hanegraaf, Christianity in Crisis 339
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[58]<!–[endif]–> Kathryn Kuhlman (1907-1976) was a Pentecostal faith healer who was very popular in the United States, especially during the 1960’s-70’s
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[59]<!–[endif]–> The EFCA assists ministries in keeping honest financial book keeping. Their website can be viewed here: http://www.ecfa.org
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[60]<!–[endif]–> Benny Hinn, Praise the Lord (Trinity Broadcasting Network: December 26, 1991)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[61]<!–[endif]–> Benny Hinn, Praise The Lord (Trinity Broadcasting Network, April 2, 2000)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[62]<!–[endif]–> Joel Osteen, Your Best Life Now, 76
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[63]<!–[endif]–> Bob Hunter, Promoting the Gospel of Self Esteem (The Christian Research Journal, Volume 28, number 2, 2005)
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[64]<!–[endif]–> Larry King Live, Interview with Joel Osteen. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/20/lkl.01.html (Retrieved 11-21-06)
<!–[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]–>
<!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[65]<!–[endif]–> http://www.charismanow.com/a.php?ArticleID=11413
THE UNITY OF ISAIAH
No other book in the Canon of Scripture evokes more vivid imagery of the coming Messiah than that of Isaiah. It is the writings of this prophet, Isaiah son of Amoz, which so distinctly point to the coming King, Christ Jesus. As result, Christians hold this book as the crowning jewel of Old Testament Messianic prophecy. Its incredible prophetic accuracy has reinforced the faith of countless believers throughout history, all the while driving the critics mad. Today Christians are faced with a challenge designed by textual critics to undermine the believer’s confidence in the book of Isaiah. The charge is simply this: Isaiah was not entirely written by the historical Isaiah, but instead multiple authors spanning various periods of time. Does this charge have any validity? That is the very question we will examine.
The Critical View: A Summary
It is primarily the naturalistic presuppositions that critics come to the text with that lead to a denial of the single author view of Isaiah. Due to their presuppositions they deny the possibility of predictive prophecy as seen throughout Scripture and more specifically the predictions of the prophet Isaiah himself. Prophecy instead is viewed as nothing more than culturally and historically contextual musings by a so called prophet, that relate directly to his current time and nothing future. This thought is reflected in the words of the now deceased A.B. Davidson, when he writes; “The prophet is always a man of his own time and it is always to the people of his own time that he speaks, not to a generation long after, nor to us.”[1] It is this denial of the supernatural that leads to the first of three basic objections to Isaianic authorship. The first objection could be summarized as follows: given the fact that chapters 40-66 describe Israel’s return from captivity and even mention their “deliverer” (Cyrus) by name, it could not have been written by a prophet who lived centuries prior to Cyrus and the exile. This anti-supernaturalism is that which first spurns the desire to separate Isaiah from its prophetic power. In fact, if one were to look at the history of the critical view it would become quite apparent that “The critical position runs parallel to the rise of anti-supernaturalism among European philosophers.”[2] In commenting on this very issue Dr. Oswald T. Allis said of the critical position:
“In text-books that represent the “critical” or “higher-critical” viewpoint it is regarded as a matter of prime importance to explain the supernatural, which often means to explain it away, and to deal with the Bible in such a way that the supernatural will really cease to be supernatural.”[3]
It can be stated then that the critical view of Isaiah’s authorship is inseparably linked to a denial of supernatural predictive prophecy.
Aside from this naturalistic presupposition, critics often cite literary differences found within the book as reason enough for separating Isaiah into at least two separate volumes. The common critic will note the seeming differences between Isaiah chapters 1-39 (“Proto-Isaiah”) and Isaiah chapters 40-66 (“Deutero-Isaiah”). There are even some more extreme critics that attempt to make a case for yet a third Isaiah (“Trito-Isaiah”). However, due to a lack of scholarly support for this position, I will not address the Trito-Isaiah view and instead focus on the more common Deutero-Isaiah view.
The claim is that Proto-Isaiah is filled with a vividly illustrative writing style, while Deutero-Isaiah has noticeably less of this type of material. Instead, Deutero-Isaiah is filled with rhetorical statements, and argumentative dialogue between God and His people. This leads to the second objection that states that the literary, stylistic, and subject changes from chapter 40 to the end of the book point to the existence of, in the very least, a “second” Isaiah.
The third and final common objection we will examine relates to the difference in theological focus found between the first and second halves of the book. The argument is simply this: the first 39 chapters focus on God’s majesty and judgment, while the remaining chapters stress God’s unique attributes and His role as deliverer of His people. Therefore, it must be assumed that multiple authors wrote from varying theological perspectives.
The basic charge boils down to this: predictive prophecy is impossible, and given some seeming literary differences and varying theological focuses found in the Isaiah scroll, we must conclude that the book should be divided into multiple parts with multiple authors from various points in history.
The Case for Unity: The Historical Witnesses
As we begin to examine the historical case for unity, it should be noted that at no point prior to the early 19th century was Isaianic authorship of the entire Isaiah scroll ever called into question by anyone except for a few radical scholars. The fact that this book in its entirety was without a doubt considered to be written by the prophet himself, even by those living within a few generations of his lifetime, should speak volumes to its unity.
One of the first historical references that may be displayed in defense of Isaianic authorship is a reference of Isaiah 61:3 in the Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (Circa 180 B.C.). Ecclesiasticus 48:24 reads: “By the spirit of might he saw the last things and comforted those who mourn for Zion.” The “he” spoken of here is the prophet Isaiah. Geoffrey Grogan, Principal of the Bible Training Institute in Glasgow Scotland, states that; “The last clause clearly refers to Isaiah 61:3.”[4] It can be assumed then that the author of this second century B.C. book believed that the Isaiah of the first 39 chapters was the same Isaiah of the final 27 chapters. Why else would the Apocryphal writer quote the Isaiah of chapter 60 as being the true historical Isaiah?
Further historical support can be garnered from the writings of the first century historian Flavius Josephus. In his work The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, writing of Cyrus, declared that Cyrus knew of his destiny by reading the book of Isaiah. Josephus records:
“This was known [his destiny to free the Jews] to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies… This [the prophecy] was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written…”[5]
While it can not be verified whether or not Cyrus sought to fulfill these prophecies intentionally or if he did so inadvertently, it can be concluded however that Josephus and the Jewish community believed these prophecies, which came from the latter portion of the book, were predictive in nature and undoubtedly written by the historical Isaiah himself.
Another, and quite possibly the most historically damning argument against the critical view of Isaiah, is the witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran, are nearly without exception, dated to the second century B.C. According to Edward J. Young this particular manuscript (the Isaiah scroll) dates to “about 125 B.C.”[6] This copy of Isaiah is the oldest known extant manuscript we have of the prophet’s writing. Therefore, it constitutes the eldest witness to the book’s unity in authorship. Upon examination of the scroll it is found that nothing blatantly speaks to a division of authors in the mind of the scribe recording it, instead the opposite could be said true. When the traditional point of critical demarcation between authors is examined it becomes quite clear that “There is no gap in the scroll between chapters 39 and 40.”[7] In fact, as noted by Dr. Young; “Chapter 39 concludes just one line from the bottom of the column, leaving a space for about seven letters. Chapter 40 begins on the last line of the column and without any special indentation.”[8] Obviously the scribe, who was surely copying from an earlier manuscript, believed this scroll was authored by one man, Isaiah. With this information in hand I would say Dr. Young is correct in his estimation that; “The evidence both of Ecclesiasticus and the Qumran scroll…assert that in the third century B.C. the tradition of Isaianic authorship was well established.”[9]
We therefore, must conclude that the historical witness for the single authorship of the book of Isaiah is quite sound. Historically speaking, the single author view is the most testified standpoint both in historic tradition and record. It can be confidently stated that Isaiah in the form it appears today existed, at the very least, by the third century B.C.
The Case for Unity: The Literary Witness
Having already seen the historical information decisively in favor of the conservative view of Isaianic authorship, we turn our attention now to the literary data. It is the claim of the critics that the literary style changes in the latter chapters of Isaiah. Is this claim substantiated? A brief examination reveals this position to be lacking any true substance. Discussing the literary styles found within Isaiah, Geoffrey Grogan notes that; “A survey of the whole book reveals the high literary quality of so much of its material…there are also passages where the style is somewhat more pedestrian; but there are few of these, and they are not confined to any one part of the book.”[10] Speaking further to this issue Grogan states that “Variety of style is a characteristic of all great authors who write on diverse themes over a considerable period of time.”[11] The simple fact of the matter is that Isaiah is considered Hebrew literature of the highest quality by most, if not all scholars. This high level of writing is consistent throughout the entire book. It would seem apparent then that a single author is responsible for this high level of literary craftsmanship.
The book of Isaiah does more than just present consistently high levels of literary material; it also makes repeated use of specific language and theological terms. For instance, the phrase “the Holy One of Israel,” Isaiah’s favorite term for God, is used throughout the entirety of the book. It appears twenty-six times and is almost evenly distributed, with it appearing twelve times in chapters 1-39 and a total of fourteen times in chapters 40-66. Even a brief look at just a few chapters will reveal the consistent language found within Isaiah. As Dr. Gleason Archer has noted, “Conservative scholars have pointed out at least forty or fifty sentences or phrases which appear in both parts of Isaiah, and indicate its common authorship.”[12] In the following chart Dr. Norman Geisler summarizes just a few of the similarities in language found within both halves of the book.
Similar Phrases in the Two Parts of Isaiah[13]
|
Chapters 1–39 |
Chapters 40–66 |
It can be plainly seen that the language used within the first 39 chapters of the book is mirrored in the final 27 chapters. There should be no reason to question the fact that based upon language usage it would appear as if this book was written by a single author.
Finally, it should be noted that along with consistent language usage throughout the book, Isaiah uses theological consistency, despite what the critics may say. The theological argument has always been considered a weak accusation to say the least. This is especially true when it is pointed out that Isaiah consistently declares God is sovereign (24:1-3, 37:15-20; 48:8-11), further, Isaiah frequently puts forward God’s holiness throughout his writing (2:11-18, 37:23-25; 66:1-3). It is true however, that some of Isaiah’s theological emphasis changes through the course of the book. This fact should not be surprising. When the focus of God’s action toward His people changes surely the attributes of God revealed through His actions would change.
What we have seen thus far is only a microcosm of an incredible amount of literary information in support of Isaiah. Without even discussing the significance of references to certain trees (41:19, 44:14), and particular language use (i.e. 46:11, 52:11) that blatantly speaks to the origin of the Isaiah scroll being Palestine; we must conclude that the argument of literary and theological differences falls short of presenting any real information that would provide a sufficient reason to doubt Isaianic authorship.
The Case for Unity: The New Testament Witness
Now we come to what I believe is the most compelling argument for the conservative view of Isaianic authorship, the New Testament witness. How the New Testament authors view Isaiah is absolutely critical. As we shall see, they believed that the author of the first 39 chapters is the very same author of the final 27 chapters. Speaking in regards to the New Testament recognition of Isaiah, Dr. Allis notes that “Isaiah is quoted by name about twenty times…furthermore, in those books where he is quoted most frequently, citations are made from both parts of the book.”[14]
In the Gospel of Matthew we find a quotation of Isaiah 40:3. In Matthew 3:3 it is revealed that this prophecy was of none other than John the Baptist. Matthew, under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, recorded this as without a doubt a prophecy from Isaiah himself. Matthew further quotes Isaiah by name in Mt. 4:14 (Isa. 9:1), Mt. 8:17 (Isa. 53:4), and Mt. 12:17-21 (Isa. 42:1-4), just to name a few. It is quite obvious that Matthew believed Isaiah was the author of both halves of the book. Isaiah can also be seen being quoted in other Gospels.
For instance, in John’s Gospel we find both Isaiah 6:10 and Isaiah 53:1 quoted as being from the prophet’s pen. This provides attestation to both halves of the book once again. In Luke’s Gospel, we find emphatic evidence from the very lips of Christ in favor of Isaianic authorship. Recording Christ’s actions in the synagogue, Luke writes “The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written…”[15] Christ, in this passage, is unrolling the scroll to what we now recognize as Isaiah 61:1. Luke 4:18-19 picks up where Christ reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[16] Christ recognized this prophecy not only as being fulfilled in Him, but as also being a fulfillment of what the prophet Isaiah himself had spoken. This fact is undoubtedly established by Luke’s record of Christ’s explanation of the passage in verse 21, which reads: “…He began by saying to them, Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”[17] It is quite apparent that the Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, believed that Isaiah in its entirety was written by the historical prophet.
We find further witness in the writings of the Apostle Paul, the very man who wrote the majority of the New Testament. Paul, in the book of Romans alone quotes from the prophet a total of five times[18], spanning the entire book of Isaiah! Based on this information alone we can have absolute assurance that Paul believed firmly in Isaianic authorship.
After reviewing the New Testament evidence, we are left with only two options. First, we can accept the New Testament record as accurate and stand along side the likes of Paul and the Lord Jesus in our affirmation of Isaianic authorship, or we could accept the second option and side with the textual critics. If we stand in the camp of the critics we are then denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the New Testament, and not only that, but we are also making the Messiah into a fallible man. I believe we would be wise to be in agreement with Dr. Allis, who after reviewing all the New Testament information stated that; “Such evidence indicates with sufficient clearness that none of the New Testament writers dreamt that the name Isaiah was of doubtful or ambiguous meaning.”[19]
Conclusion
As we have seen naturalistic presuppositions are the driving force behind the denial of Isaianic authorship, rather than any real facts. Instead, the cold hard facts speak out against the critical view. The critics must overcome their lack of historical evidence for dual authorship. The witness of history is clearly in favor of there being only a single author. The lack of manuscript support for their position is another hurdle they cannot get around. The simple truth is that no manuscript has ever been found that divides the book of Isaiah into separate sections; instead we find the oldest manuscript witnesses in favor of the single author view. In literary form, it has been shown that the author of Isaiah was consistent in his language and use of specific terminology. It has also been shown that he brings forth certain theological concepts routinely throughout the book. Finally, it has been shown that the New Testament writers and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself believed the historical Isaiah was the author of the entire book. So we are left in a position that requires us to either accept the overwhelming evidence for Isaianic authorship, or to deny it totally and in turn declare both God the Son, and God the Spirit in to be in error.
[1]James Hasting, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible Vol. 4 (Honolulu: HI, University Press of the Pacific. 2004), 4
[2] Jerry Falwell, Edward Hindson and Woodrow Kroll, Liberty Bible Commentary (Lynchburg: VA, Old Time Gospel Hour,1982), 1298
[3] Oswald T.Allis, The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy (Eugenge: OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 1
[4] Geoffrey Grogan, The Expositors Bible Commentary Vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: MI, Zondervan Publishing. 1986), 9
[5] Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Electronic Edition STEP Files (Hiawatha: Iowa, Parsons Technology, Inc. 1998) XI. i.2.
[6] Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 3(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company,1997), 539
[7]Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Book House.1999), 368
[8] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 3, 539
[10] Grogan, The Expositors Bible Commentary Vol. 6, 10
[12] Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: IL, Moody Press. 1994), 382
[13] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 367
[14] Allis, The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy, 42
[15] New International Version (Grand Rapid: MI, Zondervan Publishing. 1985)
[18] Ro. 9:27 (Isa. 10:22), Ro. 9:29 (Isa. 1:9), Ro. 10:16 (Isa 53:1), Ro.10:20 (Isa. 65:1), Ro. 15:12 (Isa. 11:10)
Recent Comments