1989 Issue 1 - The Last Temptation of Christians - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1989 Issue 1 - The Last Temptation of Christians - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/4

The Last Temptation ofChristians

A Defense of the Faith

by Kenneth

L

Gentry, Jr.

[Editor's note- In the following

material the re.ader will find the first

letters in an exchange between

Counsel

o

Chalcedon

contributing editor, Dr.

Kenneth

L.

Gentry, Jr., and a man who

refers to himself as a "Rev." and who

has a Th.D. degree. This man, who we

shall refer to under the psel).donym "Mr,

Gray," wrote a letter to the editor of a

newspaper, in which

he

castigated those

who would prevent the showing

of

the

film,

The

Last

Temptation

o hrist

Ken Gentry responded with his own

letter to the editor, and, after that, Dr.

Gentry and Mr. Gray" continued corre

sponding with each other personally

through the mail.

I believe many of our readers will

benefit from

this

exchange. "Mr. Gray"

is not an untypical person in our socie

ty. While most

of

his views are as

l i b ~ r l

as

you can get from one claim

ing to be a Christian, nevertheless he is

fairly typical of ministers and laymen

in most of the large mainline denomina

tions, be they Presbyterian, Methodist,

Episcopal or whatever.

It

is

interesting to note, as one reads

through these letters, that as "Mr.

Gray" responds to Ken's remarks, he in

variably reveals additional false views

in each letter, so that, as time goes by,

R.en has more and more faulty doctrine

with which he must deal, in seeking to

straighten out "Mr. Gray's" views in

relation

to

the teaching of the Bible.

In these letters the reader will find

discussions of the nature

of

sin, the

nature

of

true knowledge and the

authority

of

Jesus Christ, as well as

much on textual criticism and the de-

Ken Gentry

is

~ a s t o r

of fhe

Reedy River

Prestiyterian

Church (PCA)

in

Greenville, SC

and author of a

number of fine

books.

pendability

of

Scripture.

Some

readers

may find some

of

this discussion too

technical or too academic for their lik

ing or enjoyment. That is to be expect

ed in a magazine which goes to such a

wide range of people as does

The Coun-

sel o Chalcedon

But many readers will

appreciate the care and precision, not

to

mention

the

charitable attitude, with

which Ken Gentry deals with these

many issues, as he seeks, genuinely,

to

press the claims

of

Christ on Mr.

Gray." Ken acquits himself brilliantly,

to say

the

least

This exchange may lead many

of

our

readers to the conclusion I have drawn

for myself, that we need to be better

informed regarding the views of those

who oppose sound biblical doctrine

if

we

are to be able to lead them to true

faith in the living Christ. Ken's treat

ment

of

these subjects has convinced

me of something I have formerly ques

tioned, namely the necessity

of

study

ing,

at

least to some degree, non-Chris

tian philosophers, the liberal German

theologians, and the whole area

of

tex

tual criticism, linguistic analysis, etc.

This exchange

of

letters

is

quite

lengthy. We will include as much as we

can here and continue in one

or

more

future issues as necessary. Here we

begin with the letter from "Mr. Gray"

to the newspaper.]

Editor:

As the fundamentalist Christian com

munity has certainly had its very full

sa

y in recent weeks concerning the film

"The Last Temptation

of

Christ," per

hap

s

it

is time for the First Amendment

folks to be able to say something.

I must begin by saying that I have

not

seen the film

and

apparently shall

be

p r e v e n t ~ d from doing so, at least in

[my area], by my fundamentalist breth

ren). But,

of

course, they haven't seen it

either I did, however, read Kazantzakis'

fine novel when it

came

out, and have

read a great many summaries of the

film.

In view of the very one-sided picture

of

this issue that is being presented tp

the public, I think it important that

some things be said.

To

begin with, the Gospels were

"heard" in Aramaic, a very ancient lan

guage that has utterly disappeared, and

were then (how many years after the

"hearings?"--

one really doesn't know)

written down in Hebrew and Hebraic

dialects; then translated to "koine" or

common everyday Greek (not the more

precise literary Greek), then translated

again to man-in-the-street Latin (not the

more denotative literary Latin), and,

finally, went through any number

of

"Englishings" over the last 5 years.

It

is extraordinarily unlikely -- and

this will be confirmed by linguistic

scholars andby professional translators -

- that

we

have a fully reliable record

of

what

Jesus said, and

what it

was said

that

he

did. We probably have anywhere

from 2nd-to-10th-hand reports, and, of

themselves, summaries or synopses.

Christians who are intellectually honest

know that we have a somewhat hazy

and many times redacted idea of Jesus's

life and times.

But

the

more

central issue is that

Jesus was, indeed, a natural man in co

essense with his divinity, his pre

existence with the

Father

and the Holy

Spirit, and his divinely ordained and

faith-confirmed place as Redeemer and

Messiah. Christian theology has always

taught that for our savior

to

perform a

redemptive act for humankind,

he

would

by definition have to be human.

Similarly,

it ought

rather urgently to

be said that fantasies and hallucinations

are no more than temptations if that

much), and moral theologians since St.

Augustine have taught consistently that

"ten thousand temptations

do

not make

a

sin." That Jesus hallucinatedsexual in

tercourse with Mary Magdalene should

not present any sort

of

problem

to

any

one

who has a normal, balanced view

of

the

body and its functions, not to men

tion the workings

of

the subconscious

mind.

A consistent teaching in moral theo

logy has been that three elements must

The Counsel of Chalcedon, January, 1989

~

P ~ e l S


2/4

be clearly present for the commission

of sin: The matter must be serious; the.

sinner

must be

fully aware

of

its

seriousness; and the sinner must give

full

consent of

his will

in

commission

of the action. Fantasies and hallucina

tions rise from the wellsprings of the

subconscious mind. "Full consent

of

the will is in no way present

The

furor

over this

fl lm

is, to me,

embarrassing, ill-informed, and largely

tasteless. I cannot iinagine what

our

Jewish and agnostic friends must make

of

this

Stubborn refusal to savor the

humanity

of

the

"Word Become Flesh."

Fat

the record; I

am

a believing,

church-going Christian whO has a vi

brant faith that my Redeemer liveth,

and that faith is reinforced constantly by

the knowledge that "The Ineffable

Word" condescended

to

take

on

human

flesh in order to redeem our foolishness.

I shall

no

doubt be prevented from

viewing what is by reports

of

serious

film critics a fascinating and worth

while film since area theater managers

seem

to be completely cowed by the

clout of

the local fundamentalist clergy.

Perhaps all of

us

ought

to

remind our

more conservative brothers and sisters

that we live in

a pluralistic society,

in

which strict separation of church. and

state was so wisely ordained from

our

society's inception.

Mr. Gray

(a pseudonym)

Editor:

I write .

n

response to the letter

by

Mr.

Gray regarding the fllm "The Last

Temptation of Christ." I feel

it

im

perative to correct a few errors both of

approach and analysis in Mr. Gray's

missive.

Due

to pressures

of

space I

will respond only briefly to the issues

in

the

order he

raised them.

1. His

fust

paragraph implied that

only the "fundamentalist" comniunity

is upset with the film. I

am not

a funda

mentalist; I

am of

staunchly Calvinistic

and reformed persuasion. AndI

am

deep

ly disturbed by the film in question.

2.

In

the flrst and last paragraphs he

implies that "fundamentalist"

com

plaints are contrary to First Amendment

protections. Would he deny orthodox

Cluistians the right to express their

dismay and objection?

Do we

not have

a right to boycott? What happens to his

First Amendment concern when ortho

dox Christians are concerned?

But

more importantly, is Mr. Gray

ignorant of the fact that when

the

Con

stitution

and

Bill

of

Rights were adop

ted that every colony

had

civil and

criminal laws against public blasphemy

and continued so for many years? The

Constitution ends with the statement:

Done in the year of our Lord. . . . ,"

no t . "done in . the year of a lustful,

fallible mystic. All early colonial

charters made devout reference to Christ

and God, The ftrst and prototypical

civil

code in America was the 1644 Massa

chusetts Bay Civil Code, which imple

mented Scriptural law-including laws

against public blasphemy. Was this

cultural and legal backdrop contradicted

by the Constitution? Did

the

Constitu

tion

come

out of the void,

or

out

of

the

Christian-influenced culture

of

the era?

It is an anti-historical reinterpretation of

the Constitution to appeal to

it

in de

fense of

public blasphemy of the holy

name

of Christ

3.

In

paragraph 4

he

enters into a

pointless and erroneous discussion

in

the area of Biblical Introduction, re

garding the autographs of Scripture and

their transmission history. Though

Jesus spoke Aramaic, to assert that "the

Gospels" (apparently all four) were

originally produced in Aramaic

is

wholly without any scientific evidence.

All the evidence points to their original

composition in the common dialect

of

the eastern Roman Empire; Koine

Greek.

Two

Gospels were written

by

disciples

of

Cluist who lived with him

for 3 years aiid the two others by their

associates. Despite his complaint,

Kaine Greek is

an

extremely precise

language, although differing from Clas

sical Greek (so what?).

Gray's worst error

of

fact is his

implication that the translation history-

from "Aramaic" to Greek

to

Latin to

English--has so separated us from the

original that the intended meaning is

hopelessly lost.

oes he

think that

modern textual and translational scho

lars work from translations of transla-

age16----------------------------------

tions? Absurd All competent English

translations

of

Scripture go back to the

original Greek--the matter

of

Latin,

etc., is an irrelevant smokescreen.

It should be noted that the text of the

New Testament is history's best attested

ancient document, having over 5000 an

cient Greek manuscripts available for

comparison and collation. Some of

them that we have in hand date as far

back as A.D. 5 (Mark) and A.D. 117

(John). Competent textual critics have

declared the text of the New Testament

to have a textual certainty

of

98.33%.

Contrary to Gray we have an extremely

reliable witness to the original teach.:

ings of bur Savior.

But

behind such facts lies the inter

pretive philosophy

of

fact. The Chris

tian apologetic is demonstrative of the

divine inspiration

of

Scripture, which

attributes to its teaching inerrant author

ity II Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 17:17). The

God

of Scripture, Whom Gray claims

to

believe, is a sovereign Lord capable

of bringing His Word into history with

out error and for the good of man.

Thus, on

the basis

of

these two is

sues--one scientific, the other philoso-

phical--it is not at

all

''extraordinarily

unlikely. . . . that we have a fully re

liable record of what Jesus said."

To

use

Mr

. Gray's own words against him. his

discussion of the matter is "embarras

sing'' and "ill-informed." I believe the

New Testament dates further back and is

in

a better position to give us an ac

count

of

the character of Jesus 'than

either Kazantzakis's atrocious novel

or

the perverted ftlm . based on it. How

many ancient manuscripts

of

these can

Gray find? And did

Ka Zantzakis

write in

"literary Greek" ?

4. Now to the matter of blasphemy

in the film. Although Cluis t was fully

man, He was also fully God--and "with

out sin" though "tested in all points"

(Heb. 4:15; I Pet. 1:19). Christianity

has

not

only taught that Christ "would

by definition have to be human" (per

Gray)

but

also would have to be divine

and sinlessly perfect (Heb. 7:26-28).

Contrary to Gray, had Jesus "halluci

nated sexual intercourse"

He

would not

be

a "normal, balanced" man, but a sin

ner. (And since when does Christianity



3/4

consider sin "balanced"?) Jesus Himself

taught that lust was sin (Matt. 5:28).

Gray substitutes a moralistic for a

biblical conception of sin when he

claims: (1)

It

must be "serious" (contra.

James 2:10), (2) the sinner "must be

fully aware of it" (contra. Lev. 4:27-

28),

and

(3) the sinner

must

give full

consent

of

his will in commission"

(contra. Rom. 7:15-21). Actually sin

involves the deontological, teleological,

and dispositional elements

of

ethics.

That is, sin is

defmed by

breach

of

God's objective Law (I Jn. 3:4), is

contrary to the glory of God (I

Cor

.

10:31), and is unmotivated by faith in

God (Rom. 14:23).

5. Gray says: "I cannot imagine what

our

Jewish and agnostic friends must

make

of

this stubborn refusal to savor

the humanity of " Christ So what?

What would the

world

think

of

a spine

less Christianity that refused

to

stand

up

for the glory

of

Him in Whom they

trust for eternal life? Further, Gray says

he is a "believing. . . Christian" who

knows "my Redeemer liveth." Given

his view

of

the hopeless errancy

of

Scripture, what does he "believe"? And

how does he ''know"? And just as im

portantly: Why? He needs to build

his

life on the self-attesting Christ and His

Word

as

a Rock (Matt. 7:24ff).

Kenneth

L

Gentry, Jr.

[Editor's note- At this point Mr.

Gray" began corresponding direcdy with

Dr.

Gentry.]

Dear Pastor Gentry,

I should like, if I may, to take

up

a

couple of points in regard to your re

sponses

to

my letter in the [newspaper].

You are of course correct in saying

that I ought not

to

have singled out the

"fundamentalist Christian community,"

and I ought not

to

have implied (if in

deed I did) that

they

were the only ob

jectors to the film "The Last Tempta

tion

of

Christ" I

ought

to have re

marked that the fundamentalist commun

ity has seemed to make the most noise

over the matter.

Taking up the

third

paragraph

of

your

letter, I'm afraid we are ho th "wholly

without evidence." As the Gospels were

The Counsel

of

Chalcedon, January, 1989

spoken/heard in Aramaic, it seems

to

me

a

;ario.d.

likely

that

their first

inscriptions were also in that language.

Of course, I have no

proof

one way or

the other; nor o you

You write that "two Gospels were

written

by

disciples

of

Christ who lived

with

him for two years"; there

is

really

no good evidence for this. None of us

have reliable ideas as

to

who the final

inscribers ("redactors,"

to

use the clum-

sy Germanic word) may have

been.

It is

practically proverbial that scripture

scholars have been at considerable odds

in

this matter. Raymond Brown's recent

translation of

th

J ohannine Gospel

(Anchor Bible, Doubleday,

N.Y.--

and

his extensive notes) has caused a furor

in

scripture studies for this very reason,

raising as it did a great

many

questions

as to w o ~ wrote John.

Internal literary evidence can suggest

Page 17


4/4

quite a number

of

things to us, but

"suggestion"

and proof'

are very

dif-

ferentanimals .indeed

Finally, I wish .you

had

read more

carefully

my

discussion

of

the condi-

tions

that

need to

be

present for the

commission

of

sin, among them,

fWl

consent

Qf

M l.

Hallucinations

arise

from

the

subconscious mind; consent

of

the

will

is

in no way

present.

"Lust" is

the cooscioos and deliberate entertaining

of

sexual day-dreams. Hallucinations

are

neither

willful

nor conscious. I

do

not

of course have

the faintest

idea

whether

Our Saviour may

or

may

not

have

a l l u ~

cinated intercourse with Mary Magda

lene

-- that's Mr. Scorcese's notion -

-

but in any case

hallucinations are

not

conscious acts

and

cannot possibly be

considered sinful.lfyou

hallucinate

that

you

have

stolen

$10,000

or

killed

your

wife, you have not

D.e or

e v e n ~

lQ Q

these things. Sins are

deliberate

~

Should you care to discuss this

fur-

ther, I am

at

your ~ r v i c e

Believe me, your brother in Christ.

Faithfully,

Rev. Gray, Th.D.

(I

write

in

friendship

and

asking

God's blessing

on

your

w o r l c ~

and

asking

for your

prayer

for me

and for

my

family.)

Dear Rev. Gray:

It

was

good

to receive your recent

letter. I very much appreciate the gra

ciousness of your response. I trust you

will receive

my

letter as sen t in a spirit

of

Christian concern. As you might

imagine,

we very much

disagree over

both the facts and the philosophy

of

the

facts.

Regarding the evidence for the origi

nal autographa

of

the canonical

New

Testament writings:

Of

course, no

one

claims that we

have

the original auto

graphs in hand. And

i f

"evidence" re

quires access to the very originals; then

there is

no proof

(as far as we know).

Nevertheless,please consider the follow

ing:

1) My

observation as to

the

of their original compositional

language is

based on the fact that

there

has

been

found any copies

of

any

of the Gospels in Aramaic. Never; f

the

Gospels were originally writ:tert

in

Aramaic, and originally circulated

among Jewish Christians, why are there

no

surviving manuscripts?

2)

There

is

abundant manuscript evidence for their

Greek

originals.

(3) By

the very nature

of

the era. surely even you would

agree

that

Jesus and His disciples were at

least bilingual (Greek and Aramaic).

What

is

the

great difficulty

in

believing

that,

in

light of points 1

and

2, Jesus's

words were either spoken in Greek (on

occasion)

or

recorded

in

Greek?

Your subscription

to the

Tubingen

created redaction critical theory lies at

the heart of your difficulty

in

this area,

I believe. The various form, source,

redCJCtion,

etc., critical schools are so

varied, contradictory, and hypothetical

as to be

J)reposterous. You cite

the

Anchor Bible series as evidence

of

your

concern in this area. There are few Bible

conunentaries more liberal and anti

supernaturalistic, as well as extrava

gant. For instance,

my

doctoral disserta

tion dealt with the question of

the

date

of

the

writing of

Revelation. The most

extreme theory of composition history

for Revelation that I encountered in

the

modem

literature was J. Massyngberde

Ford's

Revelation

in

the Anchor Bible.

She avers that much

of

Revelation was

the

work of John the Baptist and his

disciples Even

as

liberal a scholar as

John

A.T. Robinson was surprised at

her

bold theory.

In

addition, the ques

tion as to who really wrote John is not

necessarily a redactional question--the

Gospel

of

John never expressly states

that the Apostle John wrote it. This is

an

interpretive matter,

not

a redactional

history matter.

Of

course,

I

believe the

evidence strongly suggests John the

Apostle wrote the Gospel, and that the

Apostle Matthew wrote "Matthew."

I am

very sorry that you felt

I

did

not

carefully read your comments on sin.

I

understand why

you

think

that;

it is a

reasonable conclusion based

on

the

letter

printed

in

the paper. Unfortunate

ly,

the redactional history

of my

own

letter (ha ) is the problem: the [news

paper} editor

cut my

letter almost

in

a g e l S ~ ~

half.

It

so happens .that one area

that

suffered was the matter

of

the nature of

sin.

I

believe

I

read and carefully con

sidered your statements. (Please see

enclosed copy

of my

tetter.)

You

will note that strive to derive

my

understanding

of

sin from Scripture

itself,

not

from any

modern

psychology

of n1an

view.

I think you

will find

carefully expressed

in my

letter why

I

believe your view of sin

is

faulty. The

necessity

of

deliberation, seriousness,

etc., have nothing to do

with the fact of

sirt. Please

not my

Scrfpture refer

ences; I very tnuch disagree with your

statements that "sins

are deliberate

acts"

and that they involve "full consent

of

the will." Your view confuses the onto

logical question (what is) with the

epistemological question whl,lt is

known).

It

substitutes a tnoralistic view

of sin with a bibtico-theological view.

Regarding the matter of hallucina

tions

it

should be noted that biblically

and theologically Jesus

had

no "sin

na-

ture" to feed his apparently uncontrolled

(in

your view) sub-conscious. As noted

also in

my

original letter,

I

would

rather suspect that the ancient Gospel

writers were nearer to Christ than Scor

cese, and therefore

in

a better position

to comment.

As

I

close,

I

want to ask with deep

conviction and concern: How

do

you

.knm. l your "Redeemer liveth"?

Do

you

not

fear

Albert

Schweitzer,

et

al.

may

have

been

right

in

suggesting that Jesus

never

existed at all?

f

the Biblical

record

is

so edited and faulty, how do

you

know your Redeemer lives? Are

you involved in a mere Kierkegaardian

leap-of-faith? Further, what is the na

ture

of

your Redeemer: is he the

Redeemer revealed in

Holy

Scripture

ot

a "Redeemer" created in the image of

the modem liberal theologian? Humbly

I suggest to

you

that based on your

own philosophy

of

life you

cannot

know

your Redeemer liveth.

Thanks for your letter. I

trust

that

mine

will

be received

in

the spirit

in

which

it

is sent: with genuine concern

and humility.

Sincerely,

Kenneth L.

Gentry,

Jr.


Documents

1989 Issue 1 - The Last Temptation of Christians - Counsel of Chalcedon