Do you know what a Shibboleth is? You might have heard the term and not known where it comes from…
In modern usage, a shibboleth is an idea, practice, belief, or custom which differentiates one group of people from another. So, for example, if you wanted to know whether someone was politically conservative or liberal, you could maybe ask them about global warming. If they thought global warming is a hoax, they are probably conservative. If they think global warming is irrefutable science, they are probably liberal. In this case, the “shibboleth” is the issue of global warming.
The origins of the word “shibboleth” come from Judges 12:5-6 when there was a war between the people of Gilead and Ephraim. The soldiers of Gilead set up a little checkpoint at a river crossing and whenever a man tried to cross, the soldiers would ask them to say “Shibboleth.” Why? Because the people of Gilead said “Shibboleth” and the people of Ephraim said “Sibboleth” (because they could not pronounce the Sh). If the soldier said, “I am from Gilead” but then could not pronounce “Shibboleth” and instead said, “Sibboleth” then the soldiers of Gilead would know the man was lying and would kill him.
Anyway, that is the origin of the word Shibboleth.
I recently stumbled across a theological Shibboleth regarding the violence of God in the Bible. Almost everybody claims to believe that God is love, that Jesus reveals God to us, and that God does nothing but that which is merciful, kind, and gracious. And yet there are vast numbers of Christians who believe that God commands people to slaughter others, that God drowned people in a flood, and that God is the one who killed His own Son on the cross to appease His own wrath and anger against human sin.
Yesterday I was reading the Gospel of Luke and read Luke 12:5. I did a double-take on the verse because while the pronouns are capitalized in the Bible I was reading, it sure seemed to me that Jesus was not talking about God, but about Satan. Here is the verse (without capitalization):
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear him!
The shibboleth is this: Is Jesus talking about God or Satan in Luke 12:5?
If you check most modern commentaries, they will tell you that Jesus is talking about God. Some argue that the verse refers to Satan. During the first 300 years of the church, it was almost exactly opposite. Many of the early church fathers believed Jesus was talking about Satan, but a few thought He was referring to God.
But what do you think? In Luke 12:5, is Jesus talking about God or Satan?
In the comments below, please feel free to state you opinion, and then also state why you believe what you do about Luke 12:5. And I promise, that whether you answer “God” or “Satan” (Shibboleth or Sibboleth), nobody is going to kill you!
Whose name tag goes on that verse?
I guess I’ll start…
I used to think Jesus was talking about God, but in the last couple years, my theology has changed enough so that I now think Jesus was talking about Satan.
After all, why would Jesus say that God kills when He later says that it is the thief who comes to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10)? Why are we called to fear God when John tells us that there is no fear in love for perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18)? And is it really God who casts people into hell, or is He rather working to rescue people from hell?
2017 UPDATE: After further study and discussion with people in the RedeemingGod.com discipleship group, it is interesting to note that the word for “hell” is Gehenna, which is the smoking trash valley outside of Jerusalem, and the word for “destroy” is appolumi, which is used in Matthew 10:6 in reference to the “lost” sheep of Israel, and then also in 10:39 (cf. 16:25) when Jesus says if you “lose” your life for his sake, you will find it. So other forms of the word can refer to “lose” or “lost.” Notice later that the Jewish leaders plot how they might “destroy” Jesus (Matt 12:14; 27:20). This sort of seems to indicate that other human beings might be in view … but if so, Jesus would be saying “Don’t fear human beings who can take your life, but do fear human beings who can cast you into the burning trash pile outside of the city.” How does this make sense?
Maybe the key is the word “soul” (psuche) in the context, which is not the “eternal principle of a person” but is instead the “life.” That is, your “life” here on earth. Who is it that can destroy your body AND your life by sending you out into the burning trash pile? Only one group: The religious leaders. They often sent people to live in Gehenna. It was one of the places where lepers and outcasts were sent. But how is this worse than being killed?
We have two contrasts here:
body (sarx) vs. life (psuche)
kill (apokteino) vs. destroy (appolumi)
2021 update: I address this text here, and provide my current beliefs about Luke 12:5 and Matthew 10:28
Violence? How about Justice?
yes, justice is important. But how does God carry out justice? By dying…
It was not about justice it was about love. “No greater love has a person than to lay down their life for their friends.”
Is justice merely an eye for an eye? Is it merely retributive punishment of the wrongdoer?
Or is justice more than that…?
I believe justice is righting all wrongs… And if this is true, then you must ask: How does violence right any wrongs? Not saying it doesn’t… But if justice is righting all wrongs, then punishment can’t be all their is to true and complete justice.
To be overt regarding how I view this: true justice would demand recompense be made to the victim, and that even the wrongdoer be “righted”.
I don’t have any problem with the concept of God being violent 😉
Have you ever considered that that’s what atheist say too? The most common complaint against God in my experience is that He doesn’t wipeout all the evil people.
It seems a lot of people don’t have any problem with God being violent, but if you consider how many evil folk are running around on this planet, even just at the moment, it seems God prefers peacefulness to blasting them away.
Are you concerned that you seem to be on the wrong side?
From those who I know I think it’s less retributive. I think there are many who would emphasize the opportunity for goodness and specifically opportunities for the prevention or alleviation of suffering. I don’t mean to go down rabbit holes of theodices but it may be gracious to give adversaries the benefit of the doubt concerning common place motivations. To assume evil, not good in another man’s heart, is not necessarily something I would prefer to hastily or incorrectly do.
Assume evil and you won’t be disappointed. Of course, happily you might be wrong.
: )
Ah… Assume evil and you won’t be able to lay down your life for the enemy.
Jesus seemed to have no problem.
Brian, if people think spirituality and goodness is wishing the utter destruction of their enemy, then that’s something we might need to question. God defines goodness not our self-rightoues-justifications and “bring about peace” calls for violence.
There are times for singing kumbaya, and there are times for asking, WHAT and REALLY?
I don’t recall “kumbaya” being in any of the seven last words.
Heather, are you assuming you have tickets to the fight and not a place in the ring?
I do.
A delightful question.
A third possible meaning is that Jesus meant the Shibboleth itself–that if you think [___] can cast you into your valley of Hinnom, then who you fear ought to fear or do fear [___].
Maybe it’s a gambit an existential gambit.
Not only does it reveal one’s theology, it also reveals much about one’s exegetical methods? Must Jesus or the Bible say at least one and at most one clear thing in a passage or about a topic? Many think so. Some think the authors and those they represented as speaking didn’t write and speak with such constraint but used ambiguity, mystery, and paradox with intentionality.
Beyond one’s theology and one’s hermeneutics, this little verse can serve as shibboleth of one’s metaphysics. If God made Lucifer and one inches toward nondualistically more concerted conceptions of monotheism, are we just quibbling over whether guns kill or people kill. (Or maybe an armed drone would be a better analogy and perhaps drone is quite good because whether or not Lucifer has the free will to seek repentance, forgiveness, and redemption is a bigger imponderable.) Does the shibboleth reveal how dualistic one is? Is one’s Lucifer a dark side of The Force? Consider that some translators can’t help but step into interpretation, and have the Christ hasten with ontological significance of English capitalization to, “fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell.”
Or maybe Luke’s shibboleth was much more richly to encompass the scope of the inner angst. The chapter begins with a bit of a tilt toward gnostic tendencies. Do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.
More than shibboleth to theology, exegesis, or metaphysics, what people really give away when they say what a verse such as this means is their inner angst, a type of hell and existential prison.
Why do you not judge lfor yourselves what is right? As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. I tell you, nyou will never get out until you have paid the very last penny.
Often, the accuser, HaSatan is deeply within.
Maybe the name tag is the customary sticker of blue on white and it has printed “Hi, my name is” and penned with a Sharpie in as cool of self-identifying script as possible:
“Jeremy.”
Hmm. Interesting! And I think you are on to something. Maybe it is not “God” or “Satan” at all, but “Jeremy” as you point out. Very intriguing! In which case, Jesus meant the statement to raise questions. He was intentionally vague so we would ask, “Wait… who is He talking about?”
Neither God, nor satan, but yourself.
My conclusion maybe a little unusual, but if I briefly state my reasoning I hope you can follow, even if you disagree.
1.Killing is code for not acting peacefully. Peacefulness is the orientating virtue and central to the spiritual life.
For example, in the ten commandments murder expresses the absolute loss of peacefulness, just as stealing expresses the absolute loss of generosity, and not honoring your parents the loss of humility.
Peaceful is privileged because it steers all other virtues, preventing them from being misapplied. For example, our desire to protect may be used to trick us into war; peacefulness keeps our actions in harmony with God. As Hermann Goering famously said:
“”Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Without peacefulness every virtue becomes a fault: our strengths become weaknesses.
2. The loss of peacefulness creates conflict, environmentally, domestically, and on up to the religious, ethnic and multi-national levels. When we act to create conflict we are no longer following God. Thus, when we are kill (lose peacefulness) we are thrown into hell.
3. Context:
Luke 11:53 The scribes and the pharisees are being aggressive to Jesus.
Luke 12:1-3 Jesus warns the multitude not to follow the pharisees; they are acting as hypocrites, acting aggressively rather than following God’s way of peace.
Luke 12:4 tells us not to be afraid of others, even under the worst violent provocation.
Luke 12:5, according my interpretation, tells us only to fear ourselves, for only we have the power to choose aggression and throw ourselves into hell.
Luke 12:7, reassures: despite all this we should not fear because they are special to God. This is the paradox: we create our own hell, but we are loved by God.
Luke 12:8-11 continues the theme: we should not deny Christ, blaspheme the Holy Spirit or fear the magistrates and authorities if we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us.
Anyway, good question Jeremy.
wow. Brian just had a similar idea, and I thought, “Wow! Great insight!” and now I see you have it too. I think this is the way to go with this, and I love how you have supported it from the context. Thank you!
Very interesting! I’ve always assumed this verse to be referring to God, but I shall have to look into it more now. Thanks for the prompt, Jeremy!
Let me know what you find!
Well, I was just about to post that I don’t think this can refer to Satan, because A, we’re not supposed to fear him, and B, he has no authority to throw into hell, nor certainly to destroy one’s soul there (as the parallel in Matthew 10:28 would imply).
That said, after reading the other comments, I think there is a lot of merit to the idea that “the one” here refers to ourselves.
Satan does everything he can to destroy us, yes, but he has no final authority. God, on the other hand, would have the rightful authority to destroy us, but he does not want to do so. Rather, he does everything he can to save us—but he will not override our free will.
So at the end of the day, we are indeed the ones who have authority to throw ourselves into hell. Through our own sinfulness, we destroy ourselves, body and soul.
By the way, I said “the one” rather than “him” simply because of the translation I was using when looking at this: “But I will show you whom you should fear: fear the one who has authority, after the killing, to throw you into hell! Yes, I tell you, fear this one!” (Luke 12:5, LEB).
It’s an interesting question. Still, if all souls belong to God, then it must be God the Father who has the power to cast into hell. The Bible says in Revelation that Satan himself is first to be cast into the lake of fire at the second death.
Ezekiel 18:4King James Version (KJV)
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Revelation 20:10King James Version (KJV)
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:15King James Version (KJV)
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
We never are to fear satan…but the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom….
Perhaps neither hell. Some have suggested that here that Jesus is suggesting the religious suffer in the torments of the constructs of the mind that they have fashioned and given as burden and yoke to others.
Richard Kearney, for instance, has suggested that more than this verse is shibboleth and that much of the faith can be considered as a wager and a specific kind of wager.
How will one treat the stranger? With hostility or hospitality?
Consider the strangers Rublev’s Trinity and Abraham’s (epiphanic?) encounter by the oaks of Mamre.
Consider the Son of Man being asked:
When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
It is perhaps a shibboleth of the wager of the interaction of the stranger.
Does one see the imago dei, even the face of Christ, in the other?
yes, but is the fear of God the fear that God will throw me into hell? I don’t think so. That’s what makes this verse interesting.
Interesting, Jeremy Myers. What sources did you come across that argued this verse refers to satan? Never heard that approach before. Skeptical of the exegesis (esp. in light of Matt 10:28), but intrigued nonetheless.
Hmm. NT Wright’s commentary on Luke. Walter Wink in his Powers trilogy. Conzelmann’s commentary on Luke. There were several others, but I’m drawing a blank on the rest right now.
The “He” who casts one into Gehenna is neither God, nor Satan.
From the Gospels we know that Satan has no power in either Heaven, nor in Hell.
From the Torah, we know that God judges, but does not execute the sentence.
Angels deliver messages. They can not do anything physical in Heaven, nor in Gehenna, nor on Earth.
Fallen angels can carry out physical acts on Earth, but not in Heaven, nor in Gehenna.
Ok. So what are you saying? I am confused.
>I am confused.
That’s what happens when I drop an unfamiliar approach of looking at the Bible.
The question is who casts one into Gehenna.
I provided four potential suspects, and and alluded to a fifth.
I also showed why those four potential suspects could not carry the act.
Thus, the act is either carried out by the fifth suspect I alluded to, or else by an unknown suspect.
Other than the construction of the pericope, is there any scriptural support for the fifth suspect, that was not explicitly identified? If so, what is it? If not, then is the pericope construction sufficient to convict the fifth suspect?
If there is a sixth, seventh, or more suspects, then who are they, and what is the scriptural support for them.
###
This is why I don’t teach Bible classes.
I use methods of Bible study that rely on seeing the pattern in 1,3,5,11, without explicitly saying that it is there, or what it is.
God is the One Who defines what is….and God is not violent (the dictionary says violence is fierce and furious and without control) God is none of those. God merely does the right thing in all situations without emotional content. Not that God is not emotional or for that matter passionate….but He is never without unlimited control. Thus the word violent is not appropriate….He knows no violence.
I know I don’t understand a lot about God, but how can God do what is right without emotion while still having emotion? Better question… how can God command the violent slaughter of thousands of people without emotion?
That’ a good question, one many Christians ponder. This is where it gets difficut except that God’s ways are higher than ours. Violence may mean something different to God who sees all. I think his act is acceptable though I don’t entirely understand.
Well,I come from a ministry that always taught this verse referred to Satan because he has the power of death and in God there is no evil at all.But I now believe that this verse is referring to God because there has to be justice for evil done.
Interesting. What was the basic theological position of that ministry? I mean…. Methodist? Pentecostal? Calvinistic? Lutheran? Catholic?
Non-denominational.
The verse seems clear enough to me, but you’re right, Jeremy; it turns out to be quite a theological shibboleth after all.
In any given situation you always have two basic choices – to listen to the voice of God, the holy spirit within you, or to listen to the constant demands of your never-satisfied physical self. To go toward the Light, or to jump into the fire. You are your own, personal Satan. If you choose to kill your holy spirit, you descend into your own, personal hell. As Pogo once put it, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”
If you make the wrong voice, you have only yourself to blame for the consequences, not God or Satan.
That should read “if you make the wrong choice”.
The wrong voice might well be the wrong choice.
There is a movie, whose name I’ve forgotten, about a man who died, and on his way to his ultimate destination, pondered on things, I decided he’d simply bypass the first step, and go straight to hell. After all, he reasoned, he hadn’t honoured God whilst he was alive, and hadn’t been exactly honest with his customers. Whilst at the reception desk, the clerk asks if he’d been upstair upon hearing that he hadn’t, said he needed to verify the gentleman’s status. Whilst doing so, a women came from above, and demanded to be attended immediately, and have the obvious mistake cleared up. In doing so, she told the gentleman that she was not surprised to see him down there, since he had never been a good person. The gentleman told the clerk to deal with her first, because he could wait, and patience had never been a virtue of the woman. The clerk looked in his book, and said: “Ah, here you are”, and promptly pressed a button opening a trapdoor, for the women to descend straight down.
The gentleman was told he was due to go upstairs, and as much as he might think he belongs down here, his records indicated otherwise.
(And have no idea what the name of the movie is, nor where I found it.)
Oh, we agree!
: )
😉
Right! As you and others on this thread have pointed out, I think this is the way I am going to understand this verse.
I dont believe God incourages anyone to fear. i believe man makes gods in their image an likeness an gives those gods charactoristics that reflect their own agendas an beliefs. Fear is not of God..respect is. Violence happens in nature but mankind violence is called a felony an God is not the guilty one. Everyone should be respected no matter what they choose to believe.
yeah, that is part of what makes it difficult. Perfect love casts out fear, and since God is greater than the enemy, we need not fear the devil either!
It’s Mark Levin.
ha ha ha!
Dear Brian P you lost me at Gambit. Jeremy, as others have said the devil has no authority as the venom in his stinger has been removed on the cross and resurrection of Jesus.
I looked at the end times scripture in Matthew 22 v 10 to 14. At the feast the person who had not been invited sneaked in and The King said to his aides, with Authority, “throw him out” . In Genesis God said “let there be light” in that case The Word, which we believe was Jesus, switched the light on, so to speak, after God had commanded it so. As John said “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.
As God is all three, God The father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit, it’s up to you who did what.
At the end times in Revelation who is to throw the devil into the fire. Ch 20 verses 10 to 15 and verse 16 says and anyone whose name was not found recorded in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. I assume the throwing was done once again by Gods aides under His authority. The soldier at war is provided with the killing weapon and he pulls the trigger but who ultimately is responsible for the death?
Interesting. I’ll have to look at those.
Ooh, I just looked at Wright’s comments. Funny how context makes things clearer! The next verses (13:6-7) explicitly say to *not* be afraid, precisely because we are more precious to God than sparrows! It would definitely be odd to juxtapose this sentiment directly next to fearing God as one who throws into hell. I’m convinced now on the Luke one.
Wright’s own translation of 12:5 says”…fear the one who starts by killing and then has the right to throw people into Gehenna.” His commentary says, “The real enemy is the one who longs to cast people into Gehenna.” I’m wondering if Wright believes this is about Satan, not because God has assigned him the role of throwing people into hell, but because God knows it is Satan’s nature to want death and destruction for all humans. He has the right – or natural inclination -to pull people along toward his own final destination, but his time is short. He is trying to devour as many as he can. Wright says, “…one should recognize who the ultimate enemy is.”
So perhaps Jesus’ point is: Don’t fear people who can merely kill the body. Be aware that there are unseen forces at work, with far more influence than what a mere human has. Be alert and in your holy armor because your enemy is prowling, looking for people to take with him into hell. Revere (with a respectful fear) and honor, love and obey God- not because he’s hoping he gets to throw you into hell, but because he dearly loves and cares for you.
We may never know in this life to which “unseen force” – Satan or God- Jesus was referring. But we can certainly agree that we need not fear people.
As for the third option – myself – as someone to fear, I think that has merit, too. It is our own free will, moment by moment, that determines which operating system – the flesh or the spirit – is driving our lives. I’ll never forget what a priest wrote in a book about learning from your dreams: Perhaps, in your recurring nightmare of being chased by a monster, the monster is you! Next time you dream this, stop and face your monster!
Well, we don’t fear Satan (he has no power). We don’t fear man (we’re told not to, repeatedly). We do fear God (as the beginning of wisdom).
Therefore Jesus wouldn’t be commanding us to fear Satan. And he’s communicating to a middle eastern mind, not our Western post-Christian, nihilistic land overanalytical mindset.
So I had always assumed Jesus was using a bit of hyperbole to show people that the Pharisees (and other people in general) weren’t worth the effort of fearing: all they could do was hurt your body (or reward it). It’s eternal salvation that really counts. And that was the point of the whole thing.
The question is, of course, whether you think Jesus, who deliberately spoke in parables and other figures of speech, would use hyperbole. Since he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, my vote is ‘yes’.
I agree that Jesus uses hyperbole. Maybe this is one of those places. I don’t think “the fear of God” idea from Proverbs fits in this context though, either as hyperbole or not. But either way, I think your point is valid. We should all stop fearing what we fear most – which is death at the hands of men.
I was thinking about it in terms of “That’s not a knife”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWl8EbNN8NM&feature=kp
The text says only what God _could_ do if He wanted to. It says nothing about what He actually would do.
I’m leaning towards agreement with your sentiment there Cathy. When Jesus told the Jews in John 8 that they would die in their sins if they had not believe Jesus, the point was that the Son was saying and doing what the Father said and did. To argue about Lucifer being the father of the Jews would be to miss the point which is the context in which Jesus addressed those who were listening to him. Those who do not honor the Son do not honor the Father.
This is not a knife. huh. I’m going to think on that. Selah!
Hi Cathy,
I have heard the explanation that Satan has been defeated but He still has power now – notice the satanic influences and occurrences around us. In WW2 there was “D” day and “V” day. “V” (victory) day has not yet come. It will be at Christ’s return – that’s when Satan’s power ends.
I am not sure whether you are saying that the Pharisees being compared to a brood of vipers is a hyperbole. Perhaps it is some other figure of speech?
I really like Brian and Willow’s comments, I think that is very elegant solution and fits with other passages where Jesus warns of us causing a hellish experience in our lives. However, here’s my thought’s on another alternative interpretation…let me know what you think:
It’s possible Jesus is warning about the Pharisees in this passage. It fits with the immediate preceding context (end of chapter 11 and first four verses of chapter 12) where He is warning about the Pharisees. And if we take a literal reading of the passage it would be close in english to the following: “4. “So I am now saying to you, My friends, Do not (or: You should not) be afraid of (or: caused to fear from) the people presently (or: in the process of) killing off the body, and yet after these things are not having (holding; possessing) anything more excessive to do.
5. “Now I will continue expressly pointing out to (indicating and even underlining for) you people [him] of whom you folks should be made fearful: Be made to fear (be wary of; have respect for) the person [who], after the killing off, continues possessing (having and holding) the right (or: authority) to throw you into the Valley of Hinnom (Greek: Gehenna; = the City Dump outside of Jerusalem; [= to dishonor you by giving no burial; to treat you as a criminal]). Yes, I continue saying to you folks, Be afraid of this one (or: Have serious respect for this person).”
So the warning is that you could not only be killed, but have your body (literally/physically) thrown into the city dump. This would be a big deal in an honor-shame culture (even in our culture too it matters how we’re buried and remembered).
In Revelation 20 the devil is thrown in the lake of fire (v 10). Then afterward, at the final judgement, those whose names are not written in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire (v 15).
God is deciding the punishment, and possibly angels are carrying out his command.
I have the answer! Read the verses above it. Context is the key to understanding practically everything in the Bible. I have wanted to know the answer to this one for a while. It’s NEITHER! Well, directly, anyway. Indirectly it is the devil. He is warning about the Pharisees and their teachings in the verses above so it stands to reason this is a continuation of that on-going struggle as he talks to his followers in verses below. Their wrong teachings could lead them away from the only true way of salvation (by faith in Himself) and they also had the power to have people put to death for violating their laws. This made them more of a threat than the heathen oppressors, like the violent Romans.
I agree with Stef. It could possibly refer to whomever would do the killing in verse 4. That agrees with the NIV and Young’s Literal translations which both leave out the pronoun and say, “after the killing.”
Jesus teaches us to fear / be affrait of Satan? That does not sound very biblical to me….
Who did the killing in Acts 5,1-11
The answer i have received as I sought the Lord from the beginning concerning this verse is that Jesus is referring to the two evils, one that is done against the natural life of a believer and the other a spiritual evil. He says not to fear those that can take your life by harming your body, but rather be fearful and not befriend the spirit of adversity or Satan as friendship with him could cause us to loose our soul and end up on hell.
I’m so glad to see that others can’t let these few obscure lines go without further investigation. We know that it’s the goodness of God that leads us to repentance we know that God is love we know that God only wants to save and heal us he is The Great I Am we know the verse above and below this verse don’t coordinate. Be careful are you get thrown into the fire but God has counted every hair of your head he cares for you so much. I’ve done an extensive study on fear in the scriptures. It might interest everyone to know that in Deuteronomy where fear of the Lord is mentioned is changed and Mark 410 by the Lord himself who replaces the word fear with worship as far as I’m concerned that means everybody got it wrong except the Lord. I’m violently aggressive towards doing away with fear because I noticed in the Book of Revelations the first ones thrown into the Lake of Fire are the fearful
God. In Luke 12:5, Jesus is talking about God Who is the One who has the authority to cast you into hell. The commentator, Warren Wiersbe agrees:
” All that men can do is kill the body, but God can condemn the soul! Since He is the final Judge, and He judges for eternity, it is logical that we put the fear of God ahead of everything else. Our God knows us and cares for us. He cares for the sparrows, and we are of more value than they, so what do we have to fear from men?”
God. In Luke 12:5, Jesus is talking about God Who is the One who has the authority to cast you into hell. The commentator, Warren Wiersbe agrees:
” All that men can do is kill the body, but God can condemn the soul! Since He is the final Judge, and He judges for eternity, it is logical that we put the fear of God ahead of everything else. Our God knows us and cares for us. He cares for the sparrows, and we are of more value than they, so what do we have to fear from men?”
Question: Who has authority to throw you into hell? (Luke 12:4–6)
See Answers: http://ebible.com/questions/23770?ori=664697
With regard to Luke 12:5, you wrote here that in most modern commentaries, “they will tell you that Jesus is talking about God. Some argue that the verse refers to Satan. During the first 300 years of the church, it was almost exactly opposite. Many of the early church fathers believed Jesus was talking about Satan…” This is a very intriguing thought. Can yo8u point me to some of the early church fathers who held to this interpretation?