Table of Contents

Cover

Preface

The Christian Faith

The Bible

Bible Evidence Introduction

Bible Evidence Links

Bible Interpretation

Bible Language and Canon

Alleged Bible Contradictions

The Nature of God

The Trinity

God the Father

Jesus is God

Jesus

The Holy Spirit

The Christian Community

The Body of Christ

Spiritual Birth and Growth

 Spiritual Gifts and wages

Did the Church Replace Israel?

Christian Women

Marriage

Abusers and Excusers

Is eating meat a sin?

Food, Water, and Money

Christians and Government

Controversies

Original Sin

Calvinism

Calvinism to Universalism

Universalism

Conditionalism

Annihilationism

Dispensationalism

Church Councils

Eastern Orthodoxy

Roman Catholicism – Mary

Hebrew Roots
 Paul and the Karaites

The Race to be Israel

Prophecy

Preterism

Prophecies Still to Come

Prophecy Fads and Misconceptions

The Prophet Daniel

The Rapture

Three Prophetic Cities

Two Prophetic Paths

Science

The Bible and Science

Biblical Cosmology

Evolution

God and Time

Non-Christian Beliefs

Atheism

Gnosticism

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses
Mormonism
 Preface
There are various ways to study the Bible: by word, verse, chapter,
book, or topic. This book on topical Bible studies will provide
answers to questions we encounter every day. But no topical study
is complete without an explanation of how to be reconciled to God. If
the Bible is true and Jesus really is God in the flesh who died for our
rebellion against him and then rose again, why should it matter to
us? And what was that all about, anyway?

God originally created humanity with direct, face-to-face communion

with him. But that relationship was broken by the rebellion of the first
human, Adam, resulting in mortality and a cursed world. Every
person since Adam and Eve has been born into this world of
suffering and death, unable to directly relate to God. But God
provided a way for us to be reconciled: He himself would become
human and pay the ransom with his own blood to restore that
relationship. But just as it takes two to reconcile, so also God has
made the offer but it’s up to each of us to accept it or reject it. Here
is what the Bible says:

If anyone belongs to Christ, the new creation has come; the old has gone and the
new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ. He
gave us this message to pass on: that through Christ, God was reconciling the world
to himself, not counting people’s sins against them. So we are Christ’s ambassadors,
as though God were making his appeal through us. We plead with you on
Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin
in our place, to make us righteous before God. (2 Cor. 5:17-21)

That’s the gospel (good news), the message of salvation, the way to
heaven: Be reconciled to God by trusting Jesus Christ. And
accepting Jesus by faith is the only way that can happen. To put
your faith in someone is to have a deep conviction about them, to
“put all your weight” on them. You can’t just say the words, “I believe
Jesus is God who died for us and rose again”, you have to accept
this as a personal conviction. You don’t just believe about him, you
believe in him. You want to be reconciled to God.

Once you have as a personal conviction that Jesus is God who died
and rose again to reconcile you, you are guaranteed to “go to
heaven” after this life. Yes, guaranteed!

Now this God is the one who has given us the Spirit as a down payment. (2 Cor. 5:5)

When you heard the true Word, the good news of your salvation, you too were
sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, the down payment guaranteeing our
inheritance. Praise and honor to him! (Eph. 1:13-15)

There is no other requirement, no hidden fine print, no organization

to join:

By the grace of God you have been saved through faith. This is a gift from God, not
something you earned, so no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)

A worker’s wages aren’t considered a gift, but rather payment owed for work we did.
Instead, we simply trust in the One who made ungodly people righteous; our faith is
what clears us of all charges. (Rom. 4:4-5)

But doesn’t this amount to “a license to sin”? Of course not!

So what should we say in response to all that? Should we keep sinning so God will be
even more gracious? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in
it? Ridiculous! You just don’t get it. Whoever is immersed into Christ Jesus is
immersed into his death, and we were buried along with him as well. Just as by the
grace of God he was raised from the dead, we too will walk with him in a new
life. (Rom. 6:1-4)
We wouldn’t dream of living a life that angers or insults a person we
claim to have reconciled with, so neither should we do this to God.
This isn’t about meeting some minimal requirement to buy our way
into eternal happiness, but an honest desire to be reconciled to God;
it’s all about the relationship. We have this guarantee of eternal
happiness because of the love of God for all the world (John 3:16),
so love is the “meat” of that relationship.

Naturally, the next thing to do is to find out more about God, to know
what pleases him and what does not. That means studying the Bible
and getting instruction from the spiritually mature, who can be
recognized by how well they model the life of Christ and the disciples
He chose to write the Bible. Good deeds will follow from the truly
transformed life. They can be faked by the lost, and the saved are
certainly spiritually “sick” if they have not changed or have fallen
back into a life of sin. But we are to focus on our own spiritual
health, not on whether others meet our personal level of spirituality.
Spiritual maturity is not a means to a high position of rule, but a low
position of service, of being an example to others, of slowly
becoming like our Master and Savior. One very important factor in
our spiritual growth is to hang around with other believers (Heb.
10:24-25). And this is the only way we can use the spiritual gifts God
gives each believer (1 Cor. 12:7), since their purpose is to help other
believers and be helped in turn by them.

So even though the only requirement to be saved is faith in the

risen Jesus, this “rebirth” is not the end but the beginning, the start
of a new life. But don’t think that an easy life awaits you. This life is a
temporary testing ground, and the test is not always pleasant or
easy while you are taking it. But the reward is happiness for the rest
of eternity. We live to please Jesus, in gratitude for salvation, to be
His hands in this world.

Here is a list of all the changes that take place spiritually when we
place faith in Jesus. It’s good to refer to whenever doubts may arise,
since every one of them would have to be undone in order for
us to lose our salvation. “I write these things to you who believe in
the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have
eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

What happens the moment we are saved?

1. declared righteous– Romans 3:28, 4:5, 24, 5:1, 9, Gal. 3:24,
Phil. 3:9
2. become children of God– Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 3:7, 26
3. clothed with Christ– Galatians 3:27
4. belong to Christ, not ourselves– 1 Cor. 6:19-20
5. heirs according to the promise– Galatians 3:29-4:7
6. the flesh was crucified– Galatians 5:24
7. redemption through Jesus’ blood, forgiveness of our sins– Eph.
1:5
8. became God’s own possession– Eph. 1:11
9. sealed with the Holy Spirit who guarantees our inheritance– 2
Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13-14
10. made alive with Christ– Eph. 2:5
11. raised up and seated with Christ in heaven– Eph. 2:6
12. brought near to God, have peace with God– Romans 5:1, Eph.
2:13
13. citizens of God’s household– Eph. 2:19
14. sealed for the day of redemption– Eph. 4:30
15. buried and raised with Christ– Romans 6:4-6, Col. 2:12
16. made alive and forgiven– Col. 2:13
17. died but life now hidden with Christ in God– Col. 3:3
18. protected from the evil one– 2 Thes. 3:3
19. given eternal life– Romans 6:23, 1 Timothy 1:16, Titus 3:7, 1
John 2:25, 5:12-13
20. set free and purified– Titus 2:14
21. born again– Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:3,23
22. given an imperishable reservation in heaven– 1 Peter 1:4
23. ransomed– 1 Peter 1:18
24. kept from falling– 1 Cor. 10:13, Jude 1:24
25. are God’s temple– 1 Cor. 3:16
26. washed, sanctified, justified– Romans 3:24, 1 Cor. 6:11
27. are a new creation– 2 Cor. 5:17
 The Christian Faith

Introduction
Some say that since all gods have similiarities then all gods are the
same. But that’s like saying that since housecats and lions have
similarities, then housecats are lions (see formal fallacies, affirming
the consequent). It’s the differences that matter most, not the
similarities. So when the characteristics of various deities conflict, it’s
impossible for them all to be identical. We will see the ways in which
the Christian faith differs from all others, by examining the following
points:

1. It appeals to evidence and credible witnesses

2. Its founder rose from the dead
3. It teaches that God became man, not that man becomes God
4. It teaches an adoptive relationship with the Creator
5. It teaches salvation by faith alone
6. It teaches that God is a Trinity
7. It’s singled out for hyper-criticism

1. It appeals to evidence and credible

witnesses
Evidence concerning people and events of the past requires
testimony and cross-examination, as well as some physical evidence
such as artifacts (definition and an example from a hostile witness,
Nat. Geo.) and writings (textual criticism). Credibility of witnesses,
especially the testmony of hostile witnesses, is a major factor in
establishing the facts of a claim (see witness credibility), and we
must never presume their character one way or the other. But the
crucial point is that no other “faith tradition” even tries to approach
the same level of appeal to evidence as does the Bible, nor the
same degree of corroboration with historical records outside of their
sacred writings.

For a sample of how the Bible goes out of its way to reference
people and events its contemporaries could examine, take a quick
look at this outline of the life of Jesus. People who invent fictional
heroes don’t do things like that. Now let’s look at what the Bible itself
says about witnesses and evidence:

Acts 1:8, 2:32, 3:15, 4:20, 5:32, 10:38-41, 13:31, 1 Cor. 15:6
John 3:11, 1 Tim. 3:16, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3

How many people saw what Mohammad claimed to have seen? The
same question for Joseph Smith of Mormonism, and there are many
similarities between those two men. How many of their enemies
saw miraculous healings? How many of those enemies wanted to kill
the healer because he was stealing their popularity (John 11:45-50,
12:9-10)?

2. Its founder rose from the dead

We’ve established what evidence is and what credible witnesses are,
and that the Christian faith hinges on the fact that Jesus physically
died, was buried, and physically rose again. There is no Christian
faith without this event (1 Cor. 15:2-8, 14, 19). Many claim that
this never happened, but that it was a borrowed story from older
sources— without any skepticism of those sources, without any
demand for the same level of proof required for the Bible. Take a
moment to read a critique of claims the Bible borrowed its concepts.

According to evidence and careful research, charges of borrowing

are much more easily laid at the feet of the pagan religions, who
either blended Christian teachings with their own, or were wrongly
interpreted by modern critics of the Bible. Many today still make
claims such as that Jesus as the Son of God is really the “sun god”,
in spite of explicit scriptures condemning the worship of the
luminaries (Deut. 4:19, 17:3). This is utter fallacious and ignorant
nonsense. What would be the point of reading the Bible at all if we
can ignore the context, specifically the meanings of words in their
sentences and paragraphs?

3. It teaches that God became human, not

that humans become God
One major theme running through most religious belief is that
human beings can either become gods, or be unified with the divine,
or be absorbed by it. Mormons, for example, believe that they can
become gods. This article quotes their president Hinckley: “as God
is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression.” Here is
another article about theosis, a belief in common with Eastern
Orthodox doctrine. But the Bible is unique in teaching that God
became human, not just in appearance but in actuality. This joining
of two natures is known formally as the hypostatic union, which
incidentally was the real topic of the First Council of Nicaea.

The scriptures showing this unique teaching of our faith are John
1:1-4, 14, Col. 1:15-20, John 14:9, Phil. 2:5-11, and Rom. 8:3.
Instead of making people sacrifice for God, he sacrificed himself for
us, as shown in Rom. 3:25, 5:8, 1 Cor. 5:7, Eph. 5:2, Heb. 7:27,
9:26-28, 10:12, 1 John 2:2, and 4:10. These scriptures show that
Jesus’ death proved he is God: Mat. 26:28, Heb. 9:20, and 16-17.
Let’s express this as a syllogism (deductive reasoning):

1. The New Covenant could not be enacted without proof of the

death of the one who made it.
2. The one who made it was God, so God would have to die.
3. Jesus died and enacted the New Covenant.
 4. ∴ Jesus is God.

God becoming man is the exact opposite of what the world’s

religions teach— even the “unorganized” ones. The distinction
between“organized” and “unnorganized” religions serves only as an
excuse to marginalize, segregate, and quarantine faiths that are
deemed inferior to “spirituality”. The presence or lack of organization
has exactly nothing to do with a faith’s rightful place in discussions of
the supernatural.

The idea that we would need God to stoop down to help us bruises
egos, and some jump to the ridiculous conclusion that Christians just
sit around and do nothing while we wait for Jesus to return and clean
house. But the fact is that Jesus did for us what we could never do
for ourselves, and that being God didn’t stop him from lowering
himself to our level to lift us up. No other alleged god is believed to
have done such a thing. This is not the same as any god
temporarily manifesting in human form; it is God actually taking on
human nature and becoming one of us, then sacrificing himself for
us though he had no obligation to do so.

The implications of the dual nature of Jesus are covered in the next
two points.

4. It teaches an adoptive relationship with the

Creator
There is no other faith that speaks of God adopting us as his
children. Most say all people are already children of God so there’s
no need for a Savior, but none have any teaching like adoption and
inheritance, as shown in Rom. 8:15,17,23, Gal. 3:29, 4:5, Eph. 1:5,
3:6, Titus 3:7, 1 Peter 3:7, Heb. 12:8 (not all are children of God).
Adoption refutes the claim that we should earn our salvation,
because adoption is an act of love and relationship, not a business
transaction. This brings us to THE most important doctrine of the
Christian faith.

5. It teaches salvation by faith alone

Even many Christians don’t grasp this concept, but no non-
Christians accept it. The vast majority of people of any faith believe
they must work for and earn “salvation”. Many are offended by the
idea of humbling themselves to receive a gift, yet a gift it is, per Mat.
9:16-17, Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 4:2-5,16, 2 Cor. 9:15, and Rev. 22:17.

Gifts and wages are mutually exclusive; we can’t earn a gift. Jesus
illustrated this in his parables of the wineskins and cloths; the old
(law) and new (grace) cannot be mixed. Adoption has nothing to do
with how good we’ve been or what we might be able to do for the
one adopting us; it’s about how much we’re loved. Nothing else
matters but whether or not we accept the offer and want to be a part
of a new family, instead of staying in the orphanage. Neither can we
take it by force or buy it with our own efforts; we can only accept it in
humble gratitude, or reject it in angry pride. Name another faith or
spiritual perspective that comes close to that.

It’s important to understand that a gift also can’t be forced upon

anyone. There is no fate or predetermination as to who will receive
this gift of eternal life, regardless of objections and -isms both inside
and outside of the Christian faith. The freedom to make this
conscious, moral choice is crucial, or else God is reduced to a
puppeteer whose delicate ego cannot endure the possibility of
rejection. This doesn’t mean we have the free will to flap our arms till
we fly, or other absurdities; it means God wants our love, and for
love to be genuine it must be free.

6. It teaches that God is a Trinity

Aside from the chapter in this book on the Trinity, take a look at
Isaiah 46:9-10, which can be seen in a Hebrew interlinear. God says
“I am El and there is no other; I am Elohim (plural) and there is none
like me.” If God is simply either one or several, in the strictest sense
of the words, there is no explanation for the mismatch of singular
and plural. Also consider this article on the topic.

7. It’s singled out for hyper-criticism

Last but not least, we have the phenomenon of near-universal
rejection of the Bible more than all other sacred texts— proof that it
isn’t just Christians who think our faith is unique. The excuse used to
be that most critics are familiar with only Christianity, so they attack
it just because it’s the only religion they encounter. But that doesn’t
work anymore; the internet has made all sorts of beliefs and texts
familiar to millions— which is why this study on uniqueness is even
necessary. Almost all others are left alone, or blindly accepted, and
there are no websites, forums, or channels dedicated to their
destruction and mockery, as is the case for the Bible and the
Christian faith.

In fact, western society in particular seems to bend over backwards

to accomodate such religions as Islam or Hinduism or even Wicca,
while the Bible and Christian faith are marginalized, mocked, and
excluded. Most of all, what other text besides the Bible has been
dissected by so many who shouldn’t even care what it says? Where
are the Hollywood movies about discoveries that prove the Vedas
are corrupt? How many people (besides Christians) go around
demanding that Muslims defend the Quran?

There’s simply no denying that a double standard is employed

around the world when it comes to matters of faith and practice.
Yes, people of various religions fight among themselves, but the
fight is to silence the people, not disprove their sacred texts or look
for hidden ancient documents that they insist should be in the other
religion’s canon. The “why” is left to the reader to ponder. But if
someone is a die-hard enemy of the Bible and the Christian faith,
consider the fact that such opposition serves as a strong hostile
witness to further support the uniqueness of this faith. People only
attack fables if they think they’re doing harm, but an idea isn’t
harmful just because someone doesn’t like it, and it isn’t false just
because someone doesn’t believe it. Consider this as well: Jesus is
the only “religious figure” who thinks we’re to die for, per 2
Corinthians 5:17-21:

If anyone is united with the Anointed One, they’re a new creation; the old one has
passed away and become something completely new! Yet it all comes from God, the
one who made this possible and has given us the assignment of bringing people to
him. It was through the Anointed One that God reconciled the world to himself,
meaning he would no longer hold their sins against them. This is the message he
gave us; we’re the Anointed One’s representatives and God pleads through us. So
we’re speaking for him when we plead with you to be reconciled to God. This one
who never sinned was made to be a sin offering on our behalf, so that because of
him we can be in a right relationship with God.
 The Bible

Evidence, Canon, Language, Interpretation

 Bible Evidence Introduction
Not all evidence is scientific. For example, we consider certain
people to be criminals, but on what basis? Paper trails, money
spent, character, associations, etc.— the kind of evidence presented
in a court of law. That’s the kind of evidence that supports the Bible.

Now it should also be pointed out that the Bible does not violate any
known, proved, valid scientific laws in its presentation of creation. Of
course miracles, by definition, do violate those laws, but if such
events are confirmed by reliable witnesses, we can’t just dismiss
them with the wave of a hand. As Sherlock Holmes put it, “when you
have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.” ˜Sherlock Holmes Quotations,
(1890) Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (Doubleday p.
111)

So the Bible is not a scientifically-falsifiable book, but we’ll see

that no other texts can present more support than the Bible has
when it comes to both internal and external manuscript evidence.
There is simply no other ancient text subjected to the same degree,
and for as long a time, as the Bible, and the true skeptic must
wonder why.

Manuscript Evidence
Take a look at this source. On the part about measuring layers of
ink, ask yourself these questions: Who goes to this much effort to
examine a document? Who puts any other writings to such extreme
tests? For further documentation we’ll be referring sometimes to this
source. Notice that several links are to refutations of claims that
Christianity plagiarized or adopted earlier pagan beliefs. So the Bible
is, at the very least, much more supported by objective evidence
than any other ancient text. It’s quite ironic when critics try to cite
older documents to debunk it, and they uncritically accept those
documents as true and accurate.

As for internal evidence, that source includes a link to a document

called Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, a founder
of the Harvard School of Law who cross-examined the four Gospel
writers and found them credible witnesses. Similar examinations of
the other writers of New Testament books have shown them to be
reliable as well, as far as anyone can determine. Here are a few
sources:

Testimony of the Evangelists

Trustworthiness of NT Writers
Authenticity of NT Documents

As for the Old Testament, these reliable New Testament writers, and
Jesus of course, quoted often from it as true and accurate, in spite
of the fact that they were quoting the Septuagint (LXX), the early
translation of scripture into Greek. You might also want to check this
source.

Extra-Biblical Evidence
As for alignment with secular history, the evidence presented so far
leaves little doubt that without references to the supernatural, no
one would question the Bible’s accuracy or trustworthiness— which
indicates philosophical bias. Consider this article and another article
from History.com. These are primarily about historical evidence for
Jesus, but the first one includes a link for an earlier document on
people named in the Old Testament. So on what basis does anyone
reject the Bible as a historical source in its own right? We need to
turn a critical eye to secular history as well. Take a look at this video
and these links, which also present very interesting evidence that
there was tampering with the ages of some of the people before the
Flood in the Bible:

Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood? (Masoretic Text vs.
Original Hebrew)
LXX timeline from Adam to Abraham
LXX timeline from Abraham to Moses

Dates for people and events from Abraham forward are easier to
establish, though we have to remember that precise dates by our
standards wouldn’t be the norm until much later. As to the charge
that the Bible as history is unreliable because of alleged bias, that
charge can be made more easily against the Bible’s critics. For
example, in this source we see quotes from Sir William Ramsay,
who was quite convinced that the Bible was unreliable— until he did
his own investigation rather than relying on what his professors and
collegues had told him.

Diligent students of the scriptures need to do their own studies

rather than trusting authorities for everything, but we need to be
consistent and not allow personal prejudices to interfere, especially
while criticizing others for the same thing. If we’re going to be
skeptics, we should have standards by which we can discern
between true and false, including admitting that we can’t always tell.

Conclusion
We can’t leave this topic without a hat-tip to the amazing Robert
Wilson:

The Remarkable Robert Dick Wilson

Wiki article
A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament
 Bible Evidence Links
The following is a collection of links to resources that show the
Bible’s reliability in terms of its manuscripts, translations, and
content.

The Earliest Manuscripts

Old Testament
Dating the earliest NT manuscripts
More about the earliest NT manuscripts
Chester Beatty Papayri–earliest NT copies, published by
Kenyon, Frederic G. (1933-58), The Chester Beatty biblical
papyri
Center for NT Manuscripts
New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room
U of Michigan Papyrology Collection
Part of Gospel of John from 130 a.d., John Rylands
Manuscript, John Rylands Library of Manchester, England
The Bible and Science (Disclaimer: strongly disagree with
the site’s evolutionary bias)
The Canon
Bible canon facts
more Bible canon facts
Did Nicea/Constantine determine Bible canon? (not even
Wikipedia thinks so)
Christian Thinktank on Bible Canon
The Apocrypha, The Septuagint and the canon
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic Gospels?
Contradictions and Reliability
debunking the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible
Testimony of the Evangelists
Did Jesus Exist?
Inerrancy
the Bible, Inspiration, and Inerrancy, 1 of 3
 the Bible, Inspiration, and Inerrancy, 2 of 3
the Bible, Inspiration, and Inerrancy, 3 of 3
Pagan Roots of Christianity
alleged pagan roots of Christianity debunked
Zeitgeist Debunked
Zeitgeist Refuted (full-length video)
Jesus Is NOT Zeus
Tampering
the Phantom Pharisee
more Phantom Pharisees
the alleged Piso family conspiracy
base document choices re. Deut. 3:28
Which OT text is right?
Alleged Evil Teachings (presuming we are more righteous and
compassionate than God)
Jephthah’s Daughter as a sacrifice
strange test for suspected adultery
God ordering the annihilation of an entire population
Extra-Biblical Evidence
Jesus of Testimony (full-length video)
The King of Nations (full-length video)

Regarding the Bible Versions Debate

One of the most divisive teachings in the Christian community has
been the claim that only the King James Version of the Bible is
correct (KJVO or KJV Only), and all modern translations (in English)
are corrupt, Satanic, and heretical. Further, this teaching claims that
the underlying Greek text used for the KJV is superior to all others
by virtue of it being the “majority/received text”, and that the KJV
translation is “authorized” by God rather than an English king with an
agenda. Typical catchphrases used by promoters of KJVO are Bible
believers for themselves and Bible corrupters for others. The
primary character of its proponents seems to be character
assassination, fear, and judgment.
Translation and Interpretation, part one
Translation and Interpretation, part two
King James Onlyism
Perils of Bible Translation
15 myths about Bible translation
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
The Johannine Comma
Defending Wescott and Hort
NT written in Hebrew?
more on Greek as original NT language
 Bible Interpretation
Before reading and interpreting any text, a person must first
understand what the rules should be for analysis, and to consistenly
apply those rules, regardless of what the result might be.
Hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of textual
analysis and interpretation, and Exegesis is when a given
hermeneutic is applied to a text.

The importance of this cannot be overemphasized: People with

differing hermeneutics will never agree on the meaning of a
text. So if one person believes a text to be all allegory before even
beginning to read it, and another person believes one must read the
text to see what it claims for itself, those two people will be unable to
discuss its meaning. The debate over which hermeneutic is better is
never going to be solved by us; all any of us has is our personal
conviction, and no one opinion is superior to another. Every topic in
the Bible will depend on this, since the Bible is literature and should
be analyzed as such, using one hermeneutic consistenly.

The Literal / Historical / Grammatical

Hermeneutic
This method is the opposite of cherry-picking. To put it another way,
“a text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext.” (quote from
D.A. Carson). By definition, the allegory hermeneutic disregards
context because it’s founded on the principle that the words on the
page don’t mean what they say. One source says this:

An allegory is a symbolic story. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery defines a symbol

as an image that stands for something in addition to its literal meaning. It further
observes that it is more laden with meaning than simply the connotations of the
 straight image. An allegory, seen as a symbolic story, uses human characters and
animals or other concepts as images that refers [sic] to something other than
what they are. They have secondary meaning or reference beyond their natural
sense or meaning. (emphasis added)

To clarify, this is not saying that the Bible contains no allegories. But
some insist that the Bible is all allegory. Rather than secondary
meanings, the allegorists claim there is no literal meaning at all.
An example of an allegorical book would be Orwell’s Animal Farm, a
story about rebellious farm animals that’s really about the Bolshevik
Revolution. But to say the Bible is never to be taken literally but
rather always about some spiritual principle, is to reduce the Bible
to fiction, whether there’s a “real” meaning behind it or not.

By literal, we mean that unless there is a compelling reason to

allegorize or spiritualize a passage, it should be taken as written.
This is the opposite of interpretation according to preconceived
beliefs. For example, if one wishes to see whether the Bible treats
miracles as actual events or simply as moral lessons, one examines
the text to see whether the writer is teaching or simply reporting. On
the other hand, if one has already decided that miracles are
impossible, then that person would be forced to interpret accounts of
miracles as moral lessons, without regard for the context. And when
we consider the fact that the Christian faith hinges upon a colossal
miracle— the resurrection of Jesus from the dead— disbelief in
miracles is completely incompatible with the Christian faith.

What literal does not mean is to ignore figures of speech, analogies,

or genre. If, for example, we read that we are to be salt and light,
the literal hermeneutic does not teach that we must become pillars
of salt or oil lamps. Yet when we read that Jesus rose physically
from the dead, we take it as stated since it is in the context of
eyewitness testimony rather than analogy or a spiritual teaching.
This distinction becomes critical at such points as when Jesus told
his disciples that the bread and cup were his body and blood. It is
equally critical when we read prophecy.

By historical, we mean that a passage must be considered in its

context, which includes not only the writer and subject, but also the
language, culture, era, and particular circumstances. We must also
establish the fact that the Bible is not to be dismissed as historical
record, simply because it’s the Bible. All historical accounts are
subject to the prejudices and cultures of the historians, who are all
fallible human beings. A historian writing about science can be every
bit as mistaken or agenda-driven as any theistic writer. So the
prudent student of history will consult many historians, many
records, and take them as a whole. The character of the historian is
of the utmost importance, because even the most erudite prose is
worthless as historical record if it omits pertinent data or twists facts.

By grammatical, we mean that one must have a good grasp of the

language of a writing. In ancient times, there were far fewer people
writing at all, so there was a greater degree of consistency in a given
era. But languages are always in flux, so the style of writing or use
of grammar is one of the clues used by analysts to determine the
approximate date of a document. So we must consider the
meanings of words as they relate to other words around them, the
style of the writer, the general style of the time, and of course the
topic; words are not written in a vacuum.

The LHG hermenutic is simply what we call reading comprehension.

In fact, every instance of competent translation applies this method.
So if someone agrees that translation must consider context, then to
abandon context in interpretation of the translated result is
inconsistent at best. It would be like reading Animal Farm and only
guessing at the meaning behind it, since we ignore the context in
history that influenced its writing.

Figures of Speech and Genre

Some may say that the LHG method simply picks and chooses
when to take things literally, but we could more easily say that the
allegory method does the same, for example when it takes Jesus’
resurrection literally while making everything he said an allegory. But
as explained earlier, the LHG method takes figures of speech into
consideration. You can see some examples here.

It should also be pointed out that many figures of speech have been
mistaken for doctrine or narrative. There are some examples here of
what are called idioms. We use idioms all the time, such as “cough
up the money” to mean “pay grudgingly”, and the ancients were no
exception. Another misunderstood figure of speech is the idiom of
permission.

The LHG method also recognizes genre. It seems self-evident that if

we’re looking for historical narrative, we wouldn’t go to wisdom
literature or poetry. Or if we’re reading poetry we wouldn’t interpret it
as doctrine. Genre is a vital part of context, and to ignore or dismiss
it is to misinterpret the writing. While a historical narrative might
have a section of poetry, or poetry might contain some prophecy,
this hardly means that the interpretation of the entire writing is
determined by its exceptions.

Context, Context, Context

That expression is an obvious twist on the real estate adage,
“Location, location, location”. Context is everything; it’s where we get
the semantic range of words and how we interpret the words in
relation to other words in sentences. A classic illustration of cherry-
picking is in the combination of snippets from Mat. 27:5 and Luke
10:37; though this example is very clearly wrong, many make the
same error by porting statements from one context to another and
then building a theology from it.
On a larger scale, and of critical importance, is the issue of whether
or not the Bible draws a clear distinction between Israel and the
Body of Christ. Yet even among those using the LHG hermeneutic,
debate rages over whether any such distinction exists. There is a
separate chapter here on this crucial issue. Context has many
layers, and we need to be careful to consider them all, if we have
any hope of resolving that particular point of debate.

Context also is the foundational issue on topics such as free will

(Calvinism), prophecy, and salvation itself. We should know from our
own inability to communicate clearly with people in our own culture,
speaking the same language, to see why this is such an important
principle in Bible interpretation. Figures of speech are especially
problematic, particularly when someone is joking. Communication is
complex, so we need every possible element of context to be sure
we understand accurately. And since we can’t transport ourselves
back into the times of Biblical writings, we have to work even harder
to find as much of the context as possible.

Reckoning Time in the New Testament

One great source of confusion and controversy in NT studies is the
precision, or lack thereof, in stating times of day. This becomes a
critical issue when studying the matter of exactly what day of the
week Jesus died and how long he was in the grave. But it can be
fairly easily resolved by knowing what the writers meant by “hours”.

A 24-hour day in Israel began at sundown and was divided into

segments called “hours” or “watches” (as relates to guard duty).
Each “hour” was really a three-hour span, but it was known by its
beginning; that is, the “third hour” lasted from 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock,
counting from either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. Going by the position of the
sun or moon in the sky made greater precision impractical. But more
importantly, the expressions “the third hour” and “almost/about
the sixth hour” refer to the same three-hour span, with the latter
meaning it was close to the end of that span. According to David
Lipscomb (1831-1917), in A Commentary on the Gospel According
to John, p. 295-296:

The whole time from the third hour to the sixth, that is, from nine to twelve, was
called the third hour; and the whole intervening time from the sixth to the ninth,
that is, from twelve to three, is called the sixth hour. John does not say it was the
sixth hour, but about or near the sixth hour. So when he says about the sixth hour,
and Mark the third hour, we are to understand that Mark takes the whole time of
the third hour, from nine to twelve, and that John puts it near twelve. So in either
case our Lord was sentenced between the hours of nine and twelve.

Thus we see that there is no need to speculate whether this writer

used Roman reckoning and that one used Hebrew, and no basis for
the skeptics’ charge of contradiction. With this knowledge we can
then determine that Jesus was sentenced around 11 am, crucified
by noon, darkness came till about 3 pm, and his death near 6 p.m.
Combined with an understanding of the pertinent religious festivals,
we can reach a more plausible conclusion as to the details of Jesus’
final week as a mortal.

Hebrew Festivals and the Calendar

Israel used a lunar calendar, meaning the beginning of a month was
marked by the first sighting of the waxing (increasing) crescent
moon. Thus the full moon occurred approximately in the middle of
the month. The first month of the year was the beginning of spring
(our March/April) and was called Nisan (or Aviv/Abib, after the
ripening of the barley harvest). This was stipulated by God in the
instructions concerning the Passover Festival in Exodus 12.

That passage, which is about commemorating the passing over of

the death angel when Israel was enslaved in Egypt, states that a
flawless year-old male lamb (or goat) was to be selected for each
family on the 10th. It was to be cared for until the 14th, when at
twilight all the lambs were to be slaughtered and then eaten. This
marked the start of a 7-day period beginning and ending with a
“sacred assembly” (a.k.a. a special or “high” Sabbath), and all yeast
had to be purged from every house for the entire 7 days. The 14th
became known as Preparation Day, and the 15th was the actual
Passover, though the whole festival was also called the Passover. So
regardless of the Gregorian calendar dates, the Preparation was the
14th and the Passover was the 15th.

No work was to be done on any Sabbath except for certain types of

food preparation (e.g., Ex. 20:9-10), and people were not to travel
(Ex. 16:29). By the time of Jesus the rabbis allowed people to walk
less than a mile. So if anyone is said to have worked, done
business, or traveled more than a mile at some point in the Gospels,
we can be sure that it was not a Sabbath day.

The Feast of Firstfruits (the first day of the week following Passover
per Lev. 23:9-16), began a seven-week festival called the Feast of
Weeks (Lev. 23:15-22). Firstfruits was known as “one/first of the
Sabbaths,” and this phrase in Greek is imprecisely rendered “the
first day of the week” in most Bibles. The Day of Pentecost was a
feast marking the final day of the final week.

Conclusion
Are many Christians willing to do the work needed for accurate Bible
interpretation? Sadly, no. This is partially why there are so many
denominations, translations, variations in theology, and bitter feuds.
Sincere, studied, dedicated people can disagree strongly, because
we’re all flawed, and the day we all humble ourselves enough to
admit that, is the day communication can improve. Even so, there
will always be strong differences in Bible interpretation, until God
Himself returns to set us all straight. It may well be that God’s
purpose in allowing us to disagree is not to see who gets it right, but
to see who behaves with grace and humility with those we believe to
be wrong.
 Bible Language and Canon
This study will provide data from which people can make informed
judgments of the Bible’s content. There’s no point in debating the
meaning of a text before determining what words are in it. When
people argue over the meaning of various parts of the Bible, they
typically base these arguments on translations. But as even the KJV
translators put it,

the very meanest translation of the Bible in English… containeth the Word of God,
nay, is the Word of God. (1611 KJV The Translators To The Reader, sec. 13-1)

So translation is an issue of its own, but the original languages those

translations come from are of the utmost importance. Yet even here
we must proceed with caution, because what many think are original
aren’t necessarily so, and there is evidence of tampering.

Please understand that this in no way undermines the integrity of the

Bible. The fact that we know of tampering proves that the truth is
discoverable, and that the tampering was not perfectly concealed.
This comes under the general principle that it isn’t enough to claim
something is tampered with, we must docment and demonstrate
each instance of tampering.

Language
As far as anyone can reasonably prove, the Bible was written
originally in Hebrew, Greek, and a smattering of Aramaic. What most
know as the Old Testament was first written in Paleo-Hebrew (see
ancient alphabets). There’s nothing nefarious or sneaky about any of
this; it’s just how languages and alphabets change over time. So the
time of the writing is very important to know. Yet it seems that Bible
skeptics only consider such details important for non-Biblical writings
such as the Sumerian Tablets. No skepticism is aimed at those;
they’re just blindly accepted as ancient and true.

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, The Septuagint or LXX,

was translated by Israelites around the 3rd century BC during the
reign of one of Alexander the Great’s generals by the name of
Ptolemy Philadelphus. This was the Bible of the first century AD, the
one Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted from and
considered the very Word of God, even though something is always
“lost in translation”, as you’ll recall from the quote of the KJV
translators.

It should go without saying that since languages and alphabets

change, any alleged codes or hidden messages have also changed.
So unless someone has the full, perfect, unaltered, Paleo-Hebrew
text of the Old Testament in its original order, it’s impossible to
determine if there were any divinely-inspired coded messages in it.

Tampering
The Masoretic Text or MT, from which most Old Testaments have
been translated, was written during the 10th-11th centuries AD, but it
differed little from the Dead Sea scrolls written centuries earlier.
However, it introduced vowel pointing, which compensates for the
lack of vowels in the original alphabet. Yet this very addition became
a commentary as much as a translation, since they could
significantly change the meanings of words without technically
altering the words inspired by God. This was very sneaky and
subversive, but it didn’t stop with the Hebrew scribes and sages.
More about that shortly.

Now this MT differed from the LXX and quotations by historians, and
it shows evidence of altering and obfuscating Messianic prophecies
to counter Christian claims. We should also be aware that the
Masoretes were formerly called Talmudists. An example of
tampering can be seen here (lessons (621-622).

But what of the ongoing tampering? Please see this and this (under
Part 1 “From a review of Epp’s book”) for evidence of more modern
tampering with the New Testament. Footnote 4 is about a woman
named Junia who was held in high regard by the apostle Paul in
Rom. 16:7. Junia was changed to Junias (masculine) without any
manuscript support. The deliberate error was quietly corrected
decades later, again without the required attestation. Keep in mind
this is the text from which all translations were made, so the error
was multiplied in many languages for many years.

Though Wikipedia is typically an unreliable source, the entry on

Junia shows the same sneaky practices as those of the “vowel
pointers”, by the addition of an accent on the end of Junia’s name,
though the earliest manuscripts had no accents. The entry also
mentions another desperate attempt to erase a woman apostle from
scripture, that being that she was simply known to the apostles
rather than being prominent among them, but grammatically this
couldn’t hold up. Since the mention of a female apostle became
undeniable, the next attempt to demean Junia was that she was a
“non-authoritative” apostle— a term not found in the Bible, even by
implication. So we see that the dictionaries or lexicons, and other
tools such as concordances, are also part of the tampering. A
concordance is how one translation uses a given word; it is not a
dictionary, as explained here. Strong’s Concordance, the most
popular, is based only on the KJV.

Now look at the entry for the Greek word toxon in Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance as opposed to the Mounce Greek
dictionary. Notice that if you click on the base word tikto, it means
“to beget, bring forth”; how did anyone get “apparently the simplest
fabric” from that? It all has to do with something bent in an arc, as is
the case for the shape of a pregnant belly, or a stick bent into a bow
for shooting arrows.
As for original language “text families” for the New Testament,
please see this video. The gist of it is that no point of doctrine rests
on a disputed reading among the various Greek texts, and that no
text families omit verses on ideological grounds. Charges that
they did so must be substantiated and not merely presumed or
suspected, or based on personal prejudice. Every criticism against
them has come from either ignorance or misunderstanding of this
highly technical topic. God preserves the scriptures through many
manuscripts in many languages and places, “the preponderance of
evidence”. And when that tactic fails, critics of modern translations
resort to personal attacks on those who either assembled or copied
the documents.

In the next section we will see how a comma and a paragraph break
can completely reverse the meaning of a passage. Keep in mind
that the earliest manuscripts were giant walls of text: all caps, no
punctuation, no paragraph breaks, no verse and chapter numbers.
But the point here about language is that whether by punctuation,
omission, addition, or formatting, both translators and the keepers of
the earliest manuscripts have dared to alter the Word of God on
technicalities. Yet we could never have discovered their tampering
without objective evidence and consistent application of standards.
We must be vigilant in overseeing the “scribes and Pharisees” who
invalidate the Word of God with their traditions (Mark 7:6-13). There
is also material here and here for those concerned about the
debunked JEDP theory of authorship.

Translation and Paraphrase

A paraphrase is a rewording in one language only. For example, the
Living Bible reworded the ASV to modern English, but both were
English, so it was a paraphrase. But the New Living Translation had
Hebrew and Greek as the source languages, so it’s a translation.
How good a translation is a completely different question, but one of
degree rather than kind. One language = paraphrase; two or
more languages = translation; nothing more, nothing less. Beyond
this, the waters become much murkier, as you can see here.

But to find out what God approves we need to look especially at the
LXX, which you’ll recall from the section on Language was what
Jesus himself quoted as scripture. So what approach did those
translators use? The short answer is “It depends upon whom you
ask.” According to Greek/Latin forum, it was likely a formal
equivalence translation, which weighs meaning more heavily than a
strict literalism (a rigid mechanical approach). We see this in specific
passages such as Gen. 1:1, where the Hebrew has Elohim and the
Greek has Theos. Both were generic terms for deity in their
respective languages and cultures. Had the LXX translators used
strict literalism, they would have transliterated Elohim into roughly
equivalent Greek characters, as they would any other formal name.

This is a very important concept, so please take a moment to view

these slides of a hypothetical story. Do you see how people get so
misled by sounds and letters, and not knowing the difference
between translation and transliteration? There are “awake” people
today who think they’re doing research when they’re really only
playing anagrams, or confusing free association with the study of
etymology and jumping to wild conclusions.

Now since Jesus himself approved of a thought-for-thought

translation, and since even the strictest literal approach always
includes some degree of that in order to be readable in the receptor
language, then interpretation is impossible to avoid (see KJV
marginal notes). So the differences in various translations are more
of a sliding scale than sharp distinctions. But since Jesus was here,
there has been no such thing as a perfect, divinely-sanctioned
translation, and not even the KJV translators claimed divine
inspiration for their work. In fact, the presence of marginal notes for
uncertain words or phrases stands as indisputable evidence for their
being flawed human beings like anyone else.
So what exactly makes a translation good or bad, and by what
standard? The answer to that question is seen in the sheer number
of translations that have been done, even within one language.
Language is a tool of communication, not something people must
follow slavishly. It’s in a continual state of change, so translations
need to change as well. And since there are no divinely-mandated
rules for translation, beyond deep respect for the words of God and
mastery of both the donor and receptor languages, translators have
differing ideas on how that should be done. Yet God allows it to be
that way. No matter how strong anyone’s personal convictions may
be, they don’t override other people’s strong personal convictions.
To call other people’s convictions into question simply because they
differ from our own is to lose the debate before it starts.

If translators are competent in both languages, and if they respect

the text more than their personal preferences, the only remaining
factor is for them to decide where the balance is between accuracy
and readability. Every translation is done by fallible, biased people
with agendas, and sponsors must be satisfied in most cases. There
are problems with practically every translation, but usually at
different places in the text. Some, like the KJV, are pro-monarchy;
some are Cavlinistic; some are Roman Catholic; some are politically
hard left or hard right; some are universalist. But beyond the New
World Translation and the Message, all faithfully present the Bible’s
words with the best translation they could make. Again, to say
otherwise is to charge real people with malice, and that requires
plenty of evidence.

Now there is still one bias that has cut across time and culture and is
found in practically all translations at the same spots: the relegation
of women to secondary status. To even point this out is to be labeled
what we might call “the Christian F-word”, feminist, which has
changed in meaning from simply acknowledging that women are
human beings, to all sorts of twisted gender perversion and leftist
political ideology. It’s a trigger word that shuts down all
communication and rational discussion.
Remember the section on Tampering about how a comma and a
paragraph break can completely reverse the meaning of a passage?
The most notorious of those is on this topic, and it’s found in Eph.
5:18-33 (see this image). Either support/submission is mutual (to
each other), or it’s some to others; it can’t be both. A book and
commentary are availble for further study. But the point here is that
punctuation and formatting alone can materially affect the
meaning of a passage and promote any agenda desired by the
translators. This is why it’s vital to consult the original language text
instead of relying upon translations.

Canon
First, the short version: If a document on spiritual matters was
written by or quoted from a prophet or apostle, it qualifies to be in
the Bible canon. So since:

1. 420 BC to Christ was a time of no prophets (apocrypha, Enoch)

2. 100 AD to present is a time of no apostles (gnostic “gospels”)

then documents from sources during those times are ineligible. Now
before we look at the long version, understand that those long
documents are the kind of research that real truth seekers must
read if they consider themselves qualified to critique the Bible canon.
The canon is not closed because some council or leader decided it,
but because the qualifications for speaking with divine authority can
no longer be met.

1. Tekton Apologetics
2. Christian Thinktank
3. The Intertestamental Period, esp. para. 3 and 4 under “The
Literature of the Intertestamental Period”

Conclusion
As Mark Twain is alleged to have said (though for anti-theistic
reasons), “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that
bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” Objections to the
content of the Bible stem largely from an a priori rejection of its
teachings, not from lack of evidence or standards. For whatever
reasons, God has chosen to put his words into the hands of us “jars
of clay” (2 Cor. 4:7-9), despite our imperfections.

But as stated before, there’s no point in debating the meaning of a

text before determining what words are in it. If nothing else, a good
case has been presented for the Bible as we know it being intact,
trustworthy, and settled. From this point on, every dispute over
interpretation must first agree on content, or else any preferred “wild
card” (e.g. gnostic works) can be invoked to override unpleasant
scriptural teachings.
 Alleged Bible Contradictions

Introduction
Claims of Bible contradictions are nothing new. There are even
entire websites dedicated to finding them, such as the Skeptic’s
Annotated Bible It is available at this site dedicated to refuting it, so
both can be seen at the same time. The SAB confuses internal and
external contradictions, and it’s more an atheist / evolutionist rant
than purely about alleged contradictions. It really is pathetic that
anyone would devote so much of their time to obsess over what
they believe is fiction.

“The day you eat it you’ll die” (Gen. 2:17)

There are at least two plausible explanations, either one of which is
enough to debunk this claim of contradiction. First of all, unlike Gen.
1, “day” in Gen. 2 is not combined with “evening and morning” and a
number, so there’s no compelling reason to demand a solar day for
this passage. Secondly, there was no death before sin (Rom. 5:12),
so the most straightforward meaning is that death entered the
world at that time. The physical world, including people, began to
experience decay (entropy), and people were now spiritually
separated from God, since death is separation.

Another view argues that God extended grace to them. Eve didn’t
drop dead right then and there, and Adam saw this and decided to
believe the serpent as well. God chose instead to confront them and
announce a plan for redemption. There are other instances in
scripture where God relents from his plans, such as after the people
of Ninevah repented and were not destroyed, even though God had
Jonah tell them they would. In fact, Jonah tried to run from God
precisely because he knew God might show them mercy (Jonah
3:10-4:2).

Two creation accounts (Gen. 1-2)

Take a look at one analysis. Keep in mind that ANE (ancient near
east) convention was to give the summary before the main text
body, which is exactly what Genesis does: Ch. 1 is about the Creator
and the sequence of creation, whereas ch. 2 expands on certain
points without regard for sequence. And if ch. 2 had been a different
creation account, it left out significant things such as the creation of
the heavenly luminaries.

We should also point out that a similar issue pertains to Gen. 1:1,
since that in itself introduces the rest of the chapter. In other words,
it’s the title, and the narrative begins in vs. 2. Too many people,
even Christians, try to make an entire history between 1:1 and 1:2,
such as that there was a first creation that “became” void and empty
and had to be redone. This is why study of the context and habits of
ANE writers is so vital— and why lazy critics are so easily debunked.

Contradictions between the order and out of

what substances things were created (Gen.
1-2)
Of course, this is just a point of detail in the previous claim, but now
we’ll take a closer look at creation order since practically all such
critics are evolutionists.

Light was created before the sun, so plants needing light before the
sun was not an issue. (The actual first thing created was water;
compare Gen. 1:2 and 2 Peter 3:5.) As for animals being brought to
Adam in Gen. 2:19, nothing in the text requires that the animals
were created after Adam. Even if the skeptic insists that “formed”
happened just then, the fact remains that Gen. 2 shows no concern
with creation order, as argued also at this Apolgetics Press article.

As for substance, the Hebrew word bara (Greek epoiEsen) means

“to make, cause, prepare”, and the context is what God made:
heaven and earth, sea creatures and birds, and people. Nothing else
in scripture uses the word bara in the simple tense, as we can see
at Blue Letter Bible under “Creation Out Of Nothing”.

God doesn’t know pi (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chron.

4:2)
What part of that says God doesn’t know something? Ten cubits
rim-to-rim is the diameter and thirty cubits is the circumference, so
circ. / dia. = pi, and 30/10 = 3. Did anyone expect decimal places
before the time of Christ? Does the lack of decimal places mean
God doesn’t know them? Was there a little notch in the rim
where the missing decimal places were? How many pixels had to
die for such a claim to even be addressed? This has to rank as one
of the lamest criticisms of scripture, which we can only guess is
offered because it involves math.

Was Jonah swallowed by a whale or a fish?

(Jonah 1:17)
This is another claim not really worthy of consideration. It was a
huge marine creature as you can see if you look it up in both
Hebrew and Greek, and the question confuses original languages
with translations. As for whether it’s possible, remember that this is
the Jonah that God had been talking to, so why not ask that
question first? Miracles aren’t limted by size. After all, the argument
is that since we don’t know of people surviving being swallowed by
sea creatures, then it must be impossible and the Bible is false.
That’s an example of a Black Swan fallacy, which is when someone
says that because of past experience (or lack of it) a certain thing
cannot happen or exist. As a popular saying goes, “Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence”. There is simply no way to
prove that the Bible story is false, especially since there are in fact
sea creatures large enough to swallow a person whole.

The Bible says there were unicorns

(Numbers 24:8)
Again, confusion between original languages and translations. Only
the KJV has “unicorn”, not Hebrew or Greek or any other version
than Early Modern English, as you can see at this parallel.

How many people died in the plague at

Shittim when the Israelites committed
adultery with the daughters of Moab?
(Numbers 25:1,9, 1 Cor. 10:8)
Take a look at Defending Inerrancy.

Who killed Saul? (1 Sam. 31:4-6, 2 Sam. 1:1-

16)
The Amalekite lied about killing him, since he clearly believed he
would be rewarded for killing David’s enemy. The Bible simply
reports the lie, because it’s historical record.
How many stalls for horses did Solomon
have? (1 Kings 4:26, 2 Chron. 9:25)
See analyses here and here.

In Ezekiel 26:7 the prophet predicts that

Nebuchadnezzar would conquer and destroy
the city of Tyre, but Ezekiel 29:18 says he
failed.
See Defending Inerrancy.

Was Jesus born before 1 b.c. or around 6

a.d.? (Luke 1:5, Luke 2:1-2)
The skeptics don’t seem to know much about history, especially that
there was more than one Herod; see the chapter on Jesus for the
timing of both his birth and death.

Why are the Genealogies of Matthew and

Luke so different?
See Zondervan Academic.

How did Judas die, by hanging himself (Mat.

27:5) or by being smashed after a fall (Acts
1:18)?
See Evidence for Christianity

Was Jesus on the cross at the 3rd hour (Mark

15:25,33) or the 6th hour (Mat. 27:45, Luke
23:44, John 19:14)?
A 24-hour day in Israel began at sundown and was divided into
segments called “hours” or “watches” (as relates to guard duty).
Each “hour” covered a three-hour span, but it was known by its
beginning; that is, the “third hour” lasted from 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock,
counting from either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. Going by the position of the
sun or moon in the sky made greater precision impractical. But more
importantly, the expressions “the third hour” and “almost/about the
sixth hour” refer to the same three-hour span, with the latter
meaning it was close to the end of that span; see David Lipscomb
(1831-1917), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p.
295-296. So Jesus was condemned at about 11 a.m. and crucified
at about noon, with the darkness lasting until 3 p.m., at which time
Jesus gave up his spirit. Then his body was taken down by Joseph
of Arimathea and Nicodemas, who wrapped and buried it (John
19:38–42). This was at sundown on Nisan/Abib 14, just before the
Passover itself began on the 15th. Here’s a handy chart.

Did the women buy burial spices before

(Luke 23:56) or after (Mark 16:1) the
Sabbath?
There were two Sabbaths that week. The first on Nisan/Abib 15 was
the “special Sabbath” or Passover, and the second on Nisan/Abib 17
was the normal weekly Sabbath. The women bought and prepared
the spices between them, as they could not have worked during
either Sabbath. There is more detail at Stack Exchange
(hermeneutics), and the 2nd answer (“I believe the other answer is
not a good understanding…”) has the best reasoning. Much hinges
upon whether the women knew Jesus would die and bought the
spices before he was crucified, but I see no support for that in the
Gospel accounts.

Conclusion
In every case where contradiction is claimed, a careful study and
attention to detail show no such thing. The real issue is why, among
all the world’s sacred texts, only the Bible gets so much scrutiny,
from so many people, for so many generations, in spite of how
many other texts and beliefs are well known to the skeptics, who
would never allow themselves or their writings to be held to the
same standards.
 The Nature of God

The God of the Bible is Unique

 The Trinity
The concept of God as a Trinity of “persons” sharing one will is hotly
debated, even among professing Christians. To find the truth, we
must look at what the Bible itself tells us. After all, there is no point
in debating the nature of the Christian God without using the Bible
and presuming its divine authorship.

One important aspect of God as a Trinity, which is not expressly

stated as such but strongly inferred from many references, is that
God has only one will. There is never an instance in scripture where
the will of God is plural (that is, the “wills” of God). The sole
exception is that of Jesus, who has had a dual divine/human nature
since his incarnation. The reason this is important is because
hierarchy cannot exist in a single will. It is only Jesus’ human nature
that has its own will and is subordinate to God, just as all other
humans are subordinate to God.

The Unity of the One True God

(against tritheism, meaning three gods)

The Father and Son are one God— John 1:1, 18, John 10:30,
John 17:21-23, Phil. 2:6, Col. 1:15-20, Heb. 1:3
All three are the one Creator— Gen. 1:2, Deut. 32:6, Col. 1:15-
20
The Father and Spirit conceived the incarnate Son— Mat. 1:18,
Luke 1:35
Jesus raised himself from the dead— John 2:19-21
God raised Jesus from the dead— Acts 2:24
The Father raised Jesus from the dead— Gal. 1:1
The Son is God and became human— Phil. 2:5-11
The Son and Father cannot be separated— 1 John 2:23
The Diversity of the Persons
(against modalism, meaning one God with three roles or
manifestations)

The Father begets the Son— Psalm 2:7

All three present at once— Mat. 3:16-17
The Son speaks of his Father— John 8:54
The Son prays to the Father and was sent by him— Luke
23:34, John 11:41-42
The Son sends the Spirit— John 15:26, 16:7
The Son and Father both mentioned— 1 John 2:23

The Shared Authority of the Persons

(against strict and exclusive roles among the Persons)

The Father sends the Son— 1 John 4:14

The Father sends the Spirit— Luke 11:13, John 14:26
The Father glorifies the Son— John 8:54
The Father is one in whose name people are to be baptized—
Mt. 28:19

The Son sends the Spirit— John 15:26, 16:7

The Son sends the Father— Mt. 26:53, Luke 23:34, John 17:1
The Son is called “the everlasting Father ”— Isaiah 9:6
The Son is one in whose name people are to be baptized— Mt.
28:19

The Spirit sends the Son— Mt. 4:1

The Spirit anoints the Son— Acts 10:38
The Spirit goes as he wills— John 3:8
The Spirit inspired all scripture— Acts 1:16, 1 Peter 1:12, 2
Peter 1:21
The Spirit indwells believers— Acts 2:4
The Spirit teaches— Luke 12:12
The Spirit gives gifts— Heb. 2:4
 The Spirit indwelt John the Baptist and Jesus— Luke 1:15, 4:1
The Spirit must not be blasphemed— Luke 12:10, Mt. 12:32
The Spirit gives orders to people— Acts 13:2-4, 16:6 20:28
The Spirit seals believers— Eph. 1:13
The Spirit is one in whose name people are to be baptized—
Mt. 28:19

The Divinity of the Son

Many references have people offering worship to Jesus.
Though the Greek word for ’worship’ is often used for a fellow
human with higher social rank, it is also used for deity. But it
should be noted that inRev. 22:8-9, whatever John was doing
toward the angel should only be done toward God.
In Mat. 22:44 Jesus quotes Ps. 110:1 to the Pharisees, who
agree that it is about the Messiah. Jesus asks them how the
Messiah can be David’s descendant when David calls him
"Lord", and they could not answer. In that verse we see that
there is a "Lord" of David who says something to David’s "Lord",
and even the Pharisees interpreted itas that the Messiah must
be more than human, or they would have said something.
In Mat. 28:18 Jesus instructs the disciples to baptize people in
the name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit. Clearly the Son is as much God as God’s own Spirit.
John 1:14 states that "the Word became flesh and lived among
us".
John 17:5 quotes Jesus as saying to the Father, "Glorify me in
your presence with the glory I had with you before the world
began". This is the same book of John that began with the
statement, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God".
Phil. 2:5-11 states that Jesus temporarily set aside his privileges
as God to become human, then returned to his place with God.
Col. 1:15-20 states that Jesus created and sustains everything,
and that the totality of God is embodied in him.
 Heb. 1:2 states that the Son created the universe. Vs. 3 states
that the Son "is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact
representation of his being". Vs. 6 says to "let all God’s angels
worship him". In vs. 8 God says about the Son, "Your throne, O
God, will last forever". Vs. 10 says that "In the beginning, Lord,
you laid the foundations of the earth". Ch. 9 vs. 15-20 says that
the only way to enact the new covenant was by the death of the
one making it, so Jesus had to be God.
Isaiah 9:6 says, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given...
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Here the Son is called the
Father and the Mighty God.

The Divinity and Sentience of the Holy Spirit

(being both God and a Person)

The HS can be blasphemed— Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10

God pours his love into our hearts through the HS— Rom. 5:5
Our bodies are the temple of the HS— 1 Cor. 6:19
We are sealed with the HS as a guarantee of our salvation—
Eph. 1:14
We must not grieve the HS— Eph. 4:30
The HS lives in us— 2 Tim. 1:14
The HS gives us rebirth when poured out on us via Jesus—
Titus 3:5-6
The HS speaks to us— Heb. 3:7-11, 9:8
The HS commisioned the apostles— 1 Peter 1:12
The HS gives prophecies— 2 Peter 1:21

Here is the logical proof:

1. Only persons can be grieved, and only divinity can be

blasphemed
2. The HS can be grieved (Eph. 4:30) and blasphemed (Luke
12:10)
 3. ∴ The HS is a divine Person

The Holy Spirit is referred to as “she” in the Hebrew, and “it ” in the
Greek. But regardless of the grammatical gender of pronouns, it is
clear from the totality of scripture that the Holy Spirit is not a mere
force but is in fact a Person of the Trinity just as much as the Father
and Son. But just as clearly, the Holy Spirit is not gendered, just as
the Father is not gendered (Num. 23:19, John 4:24). Though God is
described as having body parts in various passages, these are
anthropomorphisms (ways to describe in human terms). Only Jesus
in his incarnation is gendered (Phil. 2:5-11), since he alone has the
dual nature of both God and human.

Conclusion
There is one God, composed of three Persons, each of which is fully
God and not a physical or gendered entity. Jesus alone has a dual
nature as both divine and human, the latter of which was physical
and gendered at his incarnation. Critics of this view, whether
believers or unbelievers, have to ignore or reinterpret all of these
passages in order to claim otherwise.
 God the Father
In Christian theology there is very little controversy about the nature
of God as regards “the Father”, the eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing
Creator. Yet the very word “Father” indicates a change of
relationship at a point in time (see Heb. 1:5,5), since parents
must have existed prior to their children. Thus terms such as
“eternal Father” or “eternal Son(ship)” are oxymorons on the order
of “original copy” or “true lies”. The eternal existence of God in three
Persons does not, and could not, mean that a father/son relationship
was also eternal.

This brings us to the matter of alleged hierarchy among the

Persons, with the Father at the top. A prerequisite of hierarchy is the
existence of more than one will, yet never in scripture do we see the
will of God as plural (wills). As shown in the Great Commission of
Mat. 28:19 the Father, Son, and Spirit have one shared Name,
though the three Persons are distinct. Please see the chapters on
Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity as a whole. Our inability to
fully grasp how three can be one is no excuse to ignore scriptural
descriptions of God as such.

Only one Person added human nature to God as described in John

1 and Phil. 2, the one we call Jesus. Failure to remember his dual
nature is the root of many false teachings, not the least of which is
that God’s one will is somehow hierarchical. Jesus, as a mortal,
showed by example how people should relate to their Creator: as a
benevolent yet just and powerful Father, deserving of both our love
and our respect. What Jesus did not model for us is how some
people should be under permanent authority of others (especially
not in marriage), or that God has a split will. This answers the
question of how Jesus could be God if he prayed to God.
As distinguised from other so-called gods
Look again at the first three sections in the chapter on the Trinity to
learn why, unlike in other religions, the Persons of the Trinity are
neither one Person with three manifestations (i.e. “wearing different
hats”) nor three separate gods.

As the One who offers to adopt us

As explained in passages such as John 3:16 and 2 Cor. 5:18-20, the
one true God reaches out to us and offers to adopt us out from this
flawed “orphanage”. This offer is a gift (Rom. 4:2-5, Eph. 2:8-9); it
cannot be earned or forced, as other religions and heresies teach.
This is the God of the Bible, the one whose attributes leave all other
gods behind.
 Jesus is God
The debate over the deity of Christ is certainly not new. It was one of
the main reasons for convening the first Council of Nicaea in the
fourth century. Over time, various views disputing Christ’s deity
arose; here are some of the main ones:

Subordinationism: The Father ranks over the Son, who ranks

over the Holy Spirit. Neither the Son nor the Spirit are of the
same divine nature as the Father.
Arianism grew out of Subordinationism, and adds that the
Father created the Son, who created everything else.
Socinianism takes the next step of saying that the Son was a
mere holy man who did not exist prior to his earthly conception
— which paints the Gospel writers as liars. It also denies the
personhood of the Spirit, and by extention the Trinity. Thus the
Son could not be the substitutionary sacrifice for mankind,
which is the key to the dispute.

To Athanasius, the 20th bishop of Alexandria who was prominent in

the debate against Arius at the 1st Council of Nicaea, Christ’s
divinity was no trifling matter. Salvation itself was at stake, because
only someone who was fully human could atone for human sin, and
only someone who was fully divine could have the power to save us.
The logic of the New Testament doctrine of salvation assumes the
dual nature of Christ.

There are other -isms than these of course, but it demonstrates the
fact that this debate has been raging ever since the apostles died.
With that being the case, we shouldn’t think that we’ll settle the
dispute any time soon. What we can do is present our arguments
and let the readers weigh the evidence for themselves, paying
careful attention to whether a claim can be ruled out. I would also
ask the readers to weigh between that which is explicitly stated, and
that which is only implicit. Ockham’s Razor is a good guide on any
complex or controversial topic. Or as it was put by Dr. David L.
Cooper (1886-1965), founder of The Biblical Research Society,

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;
therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the
facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic
and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

This isn’t a special rule for the Bible; it’s just good reading
comprehension.

God, Lord, Father, Son, Savior, Messiah

We’ll begin our study with Zech 12:10 (Hebrew and Greek), which
states that “they (house of David and citizens of Jerusalem) will look
upon me and mourn for him”. Whether one wishes to interpret this
as a Messianic prophecy or not, such a meaning cannot be ruled
out; it has as much validity as any alternative.

Now look at Isaiah 52:13-53:12. If you try and substitute Israel

throughout the passage it makes no sense. Again, though some
interpret the passage as referring to Israel in some metaphorical
way, the literal interpretation cannot be ruled out, and it’s the
simplest, most straightforward explanation.

Look also at Isaiah 9:6, where the Son is called the Everlasting
Father and the Mighty God. To invoke metaphor is to beg the
question, as is the idea that these titles are merely honorary. The
same holds true for Deut. 32:15, Isaiah 43:11, and Hosea 13:4,
which say that God is the only Savior.

New Testament references to these titles are found in Luke 2:11,

John 4:42, Acts 5:31, 13:23, Phil. 3:20, and Titus 2:13. Regarding
that last one, grammatically speaking, both of the nouns (God and
Savior) modify Christ. The koine (1st cent. common) Greek rule
called the TSKS construction (see Sharp’s rules), is that whenever
we see (1)the definite article, (2)a noun, (3)and, (4)a noun, they
always refer to the same person. Therefore the expression “the God
and Savior Jesus” refers only to Jesus. So here we have an explicit
affirmation of the deity of Christ, and no valid reason to ignore the
grammar or twist it to split God and Jesus.

Next take a look at Mt. 22:41-46, where Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1
and asks the Pharisees how the Messiah could merely be a
descendant of David. They were stumped— which was no easy
task, if you know anything about the Pharisees. But see also Ps.
110:4, which identifies this “Lord” as an eternal priest in the order of
Melchizedek, a priesthood not part of the line of Aaron and Levi. For
anyone interested, there’s much more about this priesthood in Heb.
chapters 5-7, and of course Gen. 14:18-20.

Visibility
An often-overlooked factor in this debate is the matter of
appearances or visibility of God. As you study some of the pertinent
passages, 1 Cor. 10:1-4, Col. 1:15-20, and Col. 2:9, you see that
any time God “appears” it must be Jesus. This includes all Old
Testament theophanies.

A good man
Would a mere “good man” or “not God” say the words in these
references? Take a look at Mark 2:5-7, Mark 14:61-64, John 2:19-
21, John 8:23-24,58-59, John 14:6-9, John 10:28-33, Rev. 1:8, Rev.
21:6, and Rev. 22:13,16. It should be very clear that no mere good
man could utter those words. In addition to those, we have the clear
declarations given in these passages: Mat. 1:23, John 1:1-5,14,29-
30,45, John 17:5, John 20:28, Phil. 2:6-7, and Heb. 1:2-10. Note
also that both Mat. 2:2 and Rev. 19:10 use the word for worship
(G4352 προσκυνεω). It was directed at Jesus as a baby, and when
John tried to direct it to the angel in Rev. he was told it was only for
God.

At a point in time, Jesus added human nature to God nature.

Genetically speaking, mitochondria are DNA passed on only through
the female. They enable the body to aerobically respirate, so without
them we could not survive. Jesus had to have the mitochondrial
DNA of Mary in order to live as a human. Biblically speaking, Jesus
had to share in our human nature; see Rom. 8:3, Phil. 2:7, Heb.
9:16-17, 27-28.

This explains how Jesus could both be God and pray to God. Now
as you also check Heb. 2:17, Acts 13:33, Heb. 5:5, and 1 Cor. 2:7-8,
what other explanation can be given for all this? It says that Jesus
had to become like us in every way. And since one cannot become
what one already is, “Today I have become your Father” means
there was an unprecedented event that happened at a point in time,
a colossal change. In fact, we see that this Jesus was “the Lord of
Glory” who would not have been crucified if this had not been kept
hidden from the rulers of this age. How could attributes that hadn’t
changed from eternity past have been kept hidden?

Consider also the Great Commission in Mat. 28:19, where Jesus

says to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.

The New Covenant

Finally, we must consider the matter of covenants. There were at
least 5 major covenants as illustrated here. Note especially the only
bilateral and conditional covenant among them: the one between
God and the people of Israel, as shown in Ex. 19-24. Now look at
Heb. 9:15-18; it is Jesus who mediates the new covenant, via his
death and shed blood, because the death of the testator had to be
proved before it could be in force. Who was the testator, the one
who made the covenant? God. Remember also what Jesus said at
the Last Supper in Luke 22:20, quoted again in 1 Cor. 11:25: “This
cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Conclusion
Arguments against the deity of Christ have failed to demonstrate
that it can be ruled out, given that the many passages cited here
must all be dismissed as meaning something other than what they
say. The argument against the deity of Christ relies heavily upon
implication to change explicit statements affirming his deity into mere
euphemisms.

The clincher is that only God could enact the New Covenant, and
only by proving his death. A mere good man, or especially a being
who is neither human nor divine, could never be the sacrifice for sin
— the Redeemer, the Mediator, the Savior. Only God can be those
things, and Jesus is those things. It can’t be stated any clearer or
simpler than this:

1. Only God’s death could enact the New Covenant

2. Jesus’ death enacted the New Covenant
3. ∴Jesus is God
 Jesus
This is an outline of the facts about the life, death, and resurrection
of Jesus; there is a separate chapter on the matter of his divinity.
Additional material on his name can be found here and here.

1. What year was Jesus born?

1. Clues from scripture
1. During the reign of Herod the Great (not to be
confused with Herod Antipas [Mat. 14:1], who was to
be involved in Jesus’ trial and whose rule would
partially coincide with that of Pontius Pilate) and his
brother Philip (Mat. 2:1, Luke 1:5, 3:1)
2. During the reign of Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1)
3. During the 15th year of the governorship of Tiberias
Caesar (Luke 3:1)
4. During the rule of Pontius Pilate (Luke 3:1)
5. During the rule of Lysanias (Luke 3:1)
6. During the census of the governorship of Quirinius
over Syria (Luke 2:2)
2. Clues from secular history
1. Historian Josephus (~37–100 a.d.) gives details putting
Herod the Great’s death in 1 b.c. (source), and since
Herod lived at least two years after Jesus was born
(Mat. 2:16), the latest year for his birth would be 3 b.c.
2. The times of all the others are also verified and thus
support the Biblical narrative. (Augustus: lived 63 b.c.–
14 a.d.; Tiberius: lived 42 b.c.–37 a.d.; Pontius Pilate:
ruled 26 a.d.–36 a.d.; Herod Antipas: lived ~20 a.d.–39
a.d.; Lysanias: precise years unknown, but referenced
by various sources including Josephus as during that
general time; Quirinius ordered the census during that
general time)
3. Clues from astronomy
 1. Josephus puts Herod’s death shortly after a lunar
eclipse. There was a full lunar eclipse on Jan. 10, 1
b.c., a partial one on March 13, 4 b.c., and another full
eclipse on March 23, 5 b.c.
2. What time of year was Jesus born?
1. With reference to John the Baptist
1. John was conceived shortly after his father Zacharias
was told he would have a son, when an angel
appeared to him during his service as High Priest in
the Abija order, which always served in late spring.
2. John’s mother Elizabeth was in her sixth month when
Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:36).
3. John was likely born in March, and if so, Jesus was
born in September.
4. The apostle John used the term “the Word…
tabernacled among us” (John 1:14), and the Feast of
Tabernacles was in late Sept./early Oct.
2. With reference to the shepherds and secular rulers
1. Shepherds only watched their flocks out in the fields by
night (Luke 2:7–8) during birthing season, which was in
the fall.
2. The census would not have been ordered so as to
require travel in the cold of winter.
3. What did Jesus do (or not do) while growing up?
1. Explicit scriptural statements
1. Grew up in Nazareth (Mat. 2:23, Luke 2:39)
2. Became strong and wise and advanced in maturity
(Luke 2:40,52)
3. Attended the Passover each year in Jerusalem (Luke
2:41)
4. At age twelve he challenged the rabbis and impressed
them with his intelligence and wisdom (Luke 2:46-47)
2. Implicit scriptural statements
1. Lived under the laws of Moses
2. Never broke any of the laws (ref. 2 Cor. 5:21, Heb.
4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5)
 3. Likely worked with his father as a carpenter/builder
(Mat. 13:55, Mark 6:3)
3. Conclusions regarding theories of activities outside of
Judea
1. Theories alleging that Jesus traveled to Europe or
India only arose in the late medieval period and supply
no evidence of his presence there.
2. Theories alleging that Jesus studied with the Essenes
only arose after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and likewise supply no evidence of his presence there.
3. The people of his hometown took offense at his
teaching on the grounds that he was unstudied and
untraveled (Mat. 13:55, Mark 6:3).
4. How long was Jesus’ public ministry?
1. When did it begin?
1. When he was about the age of 30 (Luke 3:23)
2. After his baptism and temptation (Mark 1:10-14, John
1:32)
3. About a week or so before a Passover (John 2:13;
references to days are in vs. 1:29,35,43, 2:1,12)
2. When did it end?
1. During a Passover (all four Gospel accounts)
2. After one Passover (remotely possible, two, though it
is unlikely that an entire year transpired between the
feasts mentioned in these two references) apart from
the one at the beginning (John 5:1,6:4)
5. When was Jesus crucified?
1. Determining the year
1. Jesus was about 32 years old, given the length and
starting age of his ministry. So if he was born in 3 b.c.,
then the year would be 30 a.d.
2. Determing the season
1. The first month of the Hebrew calendar was called
Nisan or Abib/Aviv, when the crescent moon was first
sighted at the time the barley harvest was ripe in the
spring, as specified in Exodus 12.
 2. Passover was always in this first month, so the season
was spring.
3. Determining the day
1. Exodus 12 specifies the 10th of Nisan as when a
flawless year-old male lamb (or goat) was to be
selected for each family. The animal was to be kept
under observation for any defects until the 14th, when
at twilight all the acceptable lambs were to be
slaughtered and then eaten. This marked the start of a
7-day period beginning and ending with a “sacred
assembly” (a.k.a. a Sabbath), and all yeast had to be
purged from every house for the entire 7 days. The
14th became known as Preparation Day, and the 15th
was the actual Passover, though the whole festival was
also called the Passover. So regardless of the
Gregorian calendar dates, the Preparation was the
14th and the Passover was the 15th.
2. Jesus visited Bethany six days before the Passover
(John 12:1), which as explained next would have been
Nisan 9.
3. His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem was the next day
(John 12:12), marking the beginning of his being “kept
under observation” during the same days as the lambs
for the Passover. As stated in Exodus 12, this day was
Nisan 10. Toward the end of that day (Mark 11:10ff),
Jesus briefly visited the temple and then went to
Bethany for the night.
4. The next day, Nisan 11, Jesus drove the merchants
from the temple.
5. The next day, Nisan 12, the religious leaders began to
strongly challenge Jesus, and Mark 14:1 states that
the Passover feast was two days away; note that the
feast began with the Preparation on the 14th.
6. The Preparation Day, Nisan 14, began at sundown with
the Last Supper (John 13:1).
 7. The next daylight, still part of the Preparation (John
19:14,31,42), was the time of Jesus’ trials; see the
following point.
8. A 24-hour day in Israel began at sundown and was
divided into segments called “hours” or “watches” (as
relates to guard duty). Each “hour” was really a three-
hour span, but it was known by its beginning; that is,
the “third hour” lasted from 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock,
counting from either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. Going by the
position of the sun or moon in the sky made greater
precision impractical. But more importantly, the
expressions “the third hour” and “almost/about the
sixth hour” refer to the same three-hour span, with the
latter meaning it was close to the end of that span.
[see David Lipscomb (1831-1917), A Commentary on
the Gospel According to John, p. 295-296].
9. As just explained, Jesus was condemned at about 11
a.m. (John 19:14) and crucified at about noon (Mark
15:25).
10. Jesus died after three hours of darkness from about
noon until 3 p.m. (Mark 15:33), after which his body
was taken down by Joseph of Arimathea and
Nicodemas, who wrapped and buried it (John 19:38-
42). This was at sundown on Nisan 14, just before the
Passover itself began on the 15th.
11. There were two Sabbaths that week, since Mark 16:1
has women buying burial spices after the Sabbath,
while Luke 23:56 has them buying the spices before
the Sabbath. The first on Nisan 15 was the “special
Sabbath” or Passover, and the second on Nisan 17
was the normal weekly Sabbath.
12. Since the Preparation that year was three days before
the normal Sabbath, and since the normal Sabbath
was always from sundown Friday to sundown
Saturday, then Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday.
Further, since the Triumphal Entry was on Nisan 10
 and the 15th was a Thursday, then the Triumphal Entry
was on a Sabbath, meaning Saturday.
4. Extra-Biblical corroboration
1. Tacitus, a Roman historian antagonistic to Christianity,
referred to the execution of “Christus” by Pilate in his
Annals (book 15, chap. 44), written about 116 a.d.
2. Josephus, a Jewish historian, referred to Jesus twice
in his Antiquities of the Jews (books 18 and 20), written
about 93–94 a.d.
3. There is nearly universal acknowledgement of the facts
of Jesus’ baptism by John and his crucifixion by Pilate.
6. When did Jesus rise from the dead?
1. Considering the Jewish feasts
1. The Passover was when the Pharisees demanded that
the tomb be sealed (Mat. 27:62-66), which may serve
as the time from which “the third day” would be
determined (Mat. 16:21, 17:23, 20:19). This would be
the only way to reconcile that phrase with Jesus’
statement about being three days and three nights “in
the belly of the earth” (Mat. 12:40).
2. While it is true that “Sabbath” by itself could be simply
another name for an ordinary week rather than just the
Sabbath day itself, the plural was not, except as in the
phrase “Sabbath of Sabbaths” meaning a special
Sabbath (the Passover itself). Context may also
indicate a week, such as “I fast twice every Sabbath”,
which wouldn’t make sense if it meant a literal Sabbath
day. So if we see “first/one of Sabbaths” in the Greek,
we know it refers to the annual Feast of Firstfruits
rather than an ordinary week or weekly Sabbath.
3. Mark 16:1-2 states that the women took the spices to
the tomb “after the Sabbath… extremely early on the
First of Sabbaths, just as the sun was beginning to
rise”. We know that Jesus had already arisen before
dawn, and that this was on the first day of the week
which had begun at sundown Saturday (Nisan 18). And
 since verse 9 says that Jesus arose “early [prOi, the
last watch of the night, about 3–6 a.m.] on the first of
Sabbaths” [that is, the Feast of Firstfruits, always the
day after the weekly Sabbath after Passover, and the
start of marking off 7 weeks till Pentecost], it was while
it was still dark on Sunday. Then after this he appeared
to Mary Magdalene at dawn. The same but slightly less
detail as Mark’s account is given in Mat. 28:1, Luke
24:1, and John 20:1.
2. Considering the Roman guards
1. These were Roman soldiers rather than Jewish temple
guards, since the Jewish leaders had to ask Pilate for
them.
2. The Jewish leaders bribed the Roman guards so they
would lie about the resurrection and claim the disciples
stole Jesus’ body while they were asleep (Mat. 28:11-
15). The bribe was necessary because otherwise the
guards would be executed for dereliction of duty.
3. The Roman soldiers had no concern about Jewish
religious affairs, and thus had no motivation to help the
fearful and clueless disciples (John 20:19) steal the
body.
3. Considering the testimony of eyewitnesses
1. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James,
and their companions saw Jesus alive in the grave
garden, though they were clearly resigned to the fact
that he had died, rather than hallucinating (Luke 24:10,
John 20:11-18).
2. The two walking to Emmaus saw Jesus alive (Luke
24:13-36).
3. The inner circle of disciples and many others saw
Jesus appear alive and in the flesh, in the locked room
where they were hiding (John 20:19).
4. Within 30 years of the events, Paul wrote that over 500
people saw Jesus alive again after his crucifixion (1
Cor. 15:6).
7. What did Jesus do up to the time he ascended to heaven?
1. Activities
1. Scolded the disciples for disbelief (Mark 16:14)
2. Appeared to many people, as explained in the previous
point
3. Appeared to his apostles (Acts 1:2-3)
4. Appeared to the disciples who were fishing (John 21:1-
14)
5. Brought the sacrifice of his blood to the altar in heaven
(Heb. 9:12)
6. Brought the righteous dead from Paradise to heaven
(Eph. 4:8-10, with ref. to Luke 16:19-31 where Lazarus
was in Paradise, contrasted with 2 Cor. 5:8 where Paul
says that to be absent from the body is to be present
with the Lord)
2. Teachings
1. The testing of Peter’s love (John 21:15-19)
2. The Great Commission (Mat. 28:16-20, Mark 16:15-
16, Luke 24:45-48)
3. The unspecified teachings about the kingdom of God
(Acts 1:3,7)
3. Manner of ascension
1. The witnesses, his disciples (Luke 24:33, 24:50-52)
2. The promise of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-
5,8)
3. The rising into the sky and then hidden by clouds
(Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9-11)
4. The promise to return the same way (Acts 1:11)
 The Holy Spirit
Is the Holy Spirit simply the essence of God, just as our own spirits
are the essence of us? To answer that question, we need to see
whether scripture presents the Spirit in terms that indicate
something more.

Let’s begin with the issue of pronouns. The Holy Spirit is referred to
as “she” in the Hebrew text and “it” in the Greek. The only instance
where a masculine pronoun is used is in John 15:26, and only
because the noun it describes is The Advocate or Comforter, which
is a masculine noun. Grammatical gender has no necessary
correlation with biological gender; it’s much the way we might refer
to a boat as “she”.

Regardless of the grammatical gender of pronouns, it’s clear from

the totality of scripture that the Holy Spirit is not a mere force but a
Person of the Trinity just as much as the Father and Son. Just as
clearly, neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father are gendered (Num.
23:19, John 4:24). Though God is described as having body parts in
various passages, the context indicates that these are
anthropomorphisms (ways to describe in human terms). Only Jesus
in his incarnation is gendered (Phil. 2:5-11), since he alone has the
dual nature of both God and human.

Now let’s look at the scripture references describing attributes of the

Holy Spirit (HS):

The HS can be blasphemed― Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10

God pours his love into our hearts through the HS― Rom. 5:5
Our bodies are the temple of the HS― 1 Cor. 6:19
We are sealed with the HS as a guarantee of our salvation―
Eph. 1:14
We must not grieve the HS― Eph. 4:30
 The HS lives in us― 2 Tim. 1:14
The HS gives us rebirth when poured out on us via Jesus―
Titus 3:5-6
The HS speaks to us― Heb. 3:7-11, 9:8
The HS commisioned the apostles― 1 Peter 1:12
The HS gives prophecies― 2 Peter 1:21

Here is the logical proof:

Only persons can be grieved, and only divinity can be

blasphemed
The HS can be grieved (Eph. 4:30) and blasphemed (Luke
12:10)
∴ The HS is a divine Person
 The Christian Community

The Body of Christ, its relationships and

practices
 The Body of Christ
The term “the Body of Christ” is used in 1 Cor. 12:27, Eph. 4:12 and
15, and Col. 1:24 to refer to all followers of Jesus. We are his body
in the sense that we act on his behalf in this world, representing and
modeling him. But we can’t know how to do that without studying the
scriptures, which paint a much different picture of the community of
believers than tradition has presented.

The original, healthy Body

Take a moment to read Mat. 20:25-28, Acts 2:17-18, Acts 2:42-46,
Acts 4:32, Acts 20:17, and Acts 20:28-30. Those all tell us that this
Body was never meant to resemble or function like the world with its
chains of command and levels of authority. Everyone adopted by
God through trust in the Jesus who rose from the dead is equal in
worth and practice; there are no cardboard crowns to wear, no
entitlements, no positions to defend. Unlike all religions before that
time, the Body had no sacred buildings, artifacts, calendars,
liturgies, or ranks of power. People just met together in each others’
homes for meals, instruction, and worship. Because of that, since
they weren’t segregated from the general public, everyone could see
what a close-knit family this was, and how God really wanted us to
live.

The elders were nothing like the traditional corporate structure with
its CEO (head/lead pastor or priest), board of directors (assistant
pastors, bishops, etc.), managers (deacons), and workers (lay
persons); a Body isn’t described in such terms. Rather, we are all
parts working together in our unique ways (1 Cor. 12:4-30), a Body
with only one Head. All parts have direct access to the Head without
going through a chain of command, as if the foot needs the elbow to
intercede for it.
These elders had no special office or function above others; they
were not required to officiate over fellowship, baptisms, weddings,
funerals, or discipline. You’ll notice in 1 Cor. 5 that it was the entire
community of believers, not just a board of elders or chief elder
(which didn’t exist anyway), who was charged with administering
discipline against a believer living in sin.

But what were the elders, then? They were protectors and mentors,
examples of maturity and teachers of scripture, and there was a
group of them for each congregation. The last reference in the list
above bears this out via a warning: After the Apostles all passed
away, false teachers would rise up from among them and ravage the
community of believers with false teachings and lust for authority.

The injured, sickly Body

The community of believers (Christianity) lost its way early in the first
century AD as the Apostles predicted. The seeds of worldly systems
were planted, and they grew quickly into organizations rather than
remaining as one organism (the Body). Even before the Roman
empire in the fourth century shifted from oppression to infiltration of
the community of believers, local power grabs were in motion and
the Body was divided. Artificial parts were added (authorities), others
were hobbled (women, minorities), and in this way relationship was
replaced by religion.

In fact, much of the New Testament in the form of letters (epistles)

was written in order to confront and correct false teachings and
practices. Take a look at these passages: 2 Cor. 2:5-8,1 Cor. 6:1-8,
1 Cor. 11:11-12, 1 Cor. 12:14-27, 1 Cor. 14:26-40, 2 Cor. 4:7, 2 Cor.
6:14,17, 2 Cor. 8:12-15, Gal. 3:28, Eph. 4:32, and Php. 2:1-5.

The restored, healed Body

In these passages you will find instructions on how to treat and heal
the Body to its original design: 1 Tim. 3:1-13, 5:1-22, 6 (all), Titus
1:5-9, 2 (all), and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Heb. 13:7 and 17 are often
mistranslated and misinterpreted as to mean obedience to human
authorities in the Body, but the original Greek does not support such
a thing. Verse 7 refers to those who had first brought the Good
News as examples to imitate, while verse 17 refers to guides whose
wise advice should be heeded, because their experience and grasp
of the scriptures protect others.

Conclusion
We are a Body of equal but distinct parts, distinguished not by our
flesh or social standing (Gal. 3:28) but by the gifting of the Holy
Spirit. Our purpose is not to “practice religion” but to model the ideal
community and show the world what it means to be reconciled with
our Creator. If we are to own buildings, they should be facilities for
caring for each other: apartments, service centers, clinics, childcare,
job training, etc. We cannot go to church, because we are the
church.
 Spiritual Birth and Growth
2 Cor. 5:17-21 Whoever is united with Christ is a new creation; the original has
passed away and become something completely new! Yet it all comes from God, the
one who reconciled us to himself by means of Christ and commissioned us to this
service. God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, not holding their sins
against them, and gave us the message of reconciliation. That means we are Christ’s
representatives and God pleads through us. So, on behalf of Christ, we plead with
you to be reconciled to God! For this one who knew no sin was made to be Sin for
our sakes, so that because of him we can become right with God.

That’s the gospel, the message of salvation, the way to heaven: Be

reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. Accepting Jesus by faith
is the only way that can happen. To put faith in someone is to have a
deep conviction about them, to trust them. Merely saying the words,
“I believe Jesus is God who died for us and rose again” isn’t the
same as a personal conviction. We don’t just believe about him, we
believe in him, to be reconciled to God. Once we have the personal
conviction that Jesus is God who died and rose again to reconcile
us, we are guaranteed to be with Jesus after this life, and there is no
other requirement, no hidden fine print, no organization to join:

2 Cor. 5:5 Yet the same God who put this longing inside of us also gave us the Spirit
as a down payment.

Eph. 1:13-14 Likewise for you who heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your
salvation. You believed and were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the
down payment that guarantees our inheritance. Praise and honor to him!

Eph. 2:8-9 Because of God’s favor you have been saved through faith. This is all a
gift of God, not something you did, so nobody can brag.

Rom. 4:4-5 A worker’s wages are not considered a gift but a debt. In contrast, the
one cleared of all charges is the one who does not work but rather trusts in the One
 who justifies the ungodly.

A gift can only be accepted or rejected, never earned. So the gift of

salvation can only be obtained by humble acceptance. That being
the case, it can never be lost by failure to do enough good deeds.
Please see the list at the end of this source for all the things that
happen the moment we’re saved, all of which would have to be
undone in order for salvation to be taken away.

Salvation is like adoption. We were all born into this “orphanage” and
God offers to make us his legal heirs, with the promise of taking us
to live in his fabulous mansion. Yet adoption is more than a change
of address; it’s a change of relationship. God wants us to accept
him, not just his house or possessions, and be part of his family.
This offer can’t be given by force, trickery, fear, or deception, and it
can’t be lost or given away.

Growth
Birth is not the end but the beginning. A baby who never grows has
a serious problem but is born nonetheless. Yet this isn’t a license to
sin:

Rom. 6:1-4 What should we conclude from that: that we should keep on sinning so
that God’s favor will keep increasing? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin
still live in it? Ridiculous! You don’t seem to understand that those who are
immersed into Christ Jesus are immersed into his death. And just as we were buried
together with him through immersion into his death, so also, just as Christ was
raised from the dead through the favor of the Father, we will keep pace with him in
a new life.

We wouldn’t dream of living a life that angers or insults a person we

claim to have reconciled with, so neither should we do this to God.
This isn’t about meeting some minimal requirement to buy our way
into eternal happiness, but an honest desire to be reconciled to God;
it’s all about the relationship. We have this guarantee of eternal
happiness because of the love of God for all the world (John 3:16),
so love is the essence of that relationship. Naturally, the next thing
to do is to find out more about God, to know what pleases him and
what does not. That means studying the Bible and getting instruction
from the spiritually mature, who can be recognized by how well they
model the life of Jesus and the disciples he chose to write the Bible.

Good deeds will follow from the truly transformed life. They can be
faked by the lost, and the saved are certainly spiritually weak if they
haven’t changed or have fallen back into a life of sin. But we are to
focus on our own spiritual health, not on whether others meet our
personal level of spirituality. Spiritual maturity is not a means to a
high position of rule, but a low position of service, of being an
example to others and slowly becoming like our Master and Savior.
One very important factor in our spiritual growth is to spend time
with other believers (Heb. 10:24-25). This is the only way we can
use the spiritual gifts God gives each believer (1 Cor. 12:7), since
their purpose is to help other believers and be helped in turn by
them.

So again, even though the only requirement to be reconciled to

God is faith in the risen Jesus, this spiritual rebirth is not the end but
the beginning, the start of a new life. However, this doesn’t mean
that an easy life awaits us. This life is a temporary testing ground,
and the test is not always pleasant or easy while we’re taking it. Yet
the reward is happiness for the rest of eternity. We live to please
Jesus, in gratitude for salvation, to be his hands in this world.
 Spiritual Gifts and wages
This study will focus on the sharp distinction between gifts and
earned wages, and the gifts given to believers by the Holy Spirit.

What spiritual gifts are for

Read these scriptures to learn what it means to have the Holy Spirit
given to us: Rom. 8:26-27, Rom. 12:3-8, Rom. 15:13, 1 Cor. 3:16-
17, 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 1 Cor. 12:28-30, 2 Cor. 3:18, Gal. 5:22-26, Eph.
4:4-7, 1 Thes. 5:19-21 and 1 Peter 4:10. We could summarize this
as follows:

We make up the temple of God since his Spirit lives within us.
The Holy Spirit helps us in many ways, including praying on our
behalf when we just don’t have the words.
Different spiritual gifts are given to each believer, so we need to
use them to help each other in order for the Body of Christ to
function properly.
The Spirit transforms us into the image of Jesus as we mature
in the faith.
Our character and behavior exhibit the “fruit” or evidence of the
Spirit in us as we mature, such that lack of such evidence
should be a matter of great concern.
We must not squelch, limit, or grieve the Spirit; this is a choice
we make.

Again, the Holy Spirit gives gifts, not earned wages for which we can
receive rewards/payments. Rewards are what we earn by our
choices and behavior, the character we choose to exhibit in our
mortal lives.
Gifts and wages
Scripture makes a sharp distinction between what is received as a
gift and what is rewarded as earned wages for our works; read Rom.
4:1-5, Rom. 11:6, Rom. 14:10-13, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, 2 Cor. 5:10, Gal.
5:4, and Eph. 2:8-9. So any passage using the terminology of gifts
or grace can have nothing to do with our works or deeds;
conversely, passages using the terminology of wages, debts, or
rewards have nothing to do with gifts. Therefore, since salvation is
presented in terms of gifts, it can never be either earned or lost, but
rewards or wages can be lost by inaction or sinful action. There
would be no purpose for the future judgment of our deeds if they
don’t matter, so we need to take seriously the way we choose to live.

Abuse and neglect

Neglect of our spiritual gifts is probably the most common problem
among Christians in general, because many either don’t care or
know what theirs are. There are many who serve in various
capacities in church organizations: music, encouragement, prayer,
administration, etc. But what about the gifts of knowledge, teaching,
prophecy, or healing? These are the ones that tend to be at one
extreme or the other. Many have dismissed them, either due to the
teaching that such gifts have ceased, or as an overreaction to their
abuse.

None have been more abused than the gift of “tongues”, meaning
being temporarily able to speak in a language we don’t know, or to
interpret a message given that way. Instructions on the handling of
this gift are given clearly in 1 Cor. 12 and 14, and there is no hint
that such gifts have ceased. (Some take 1 Cor. 13:8 to mean that,
but the text does not support it.) But these rules are rarely followed,
which has led to chaotic babbling being substituted for messages
from God, and heresies such as that a person isn’t really saved until
and unless they demonstrate this gift.

Another abuse is the gift of prophecy; some claim to be prophets

whose alleged messages from God cannot be tested or questioned,
in spite of 1 Cor. 14:29-33, 1 Thes. 5:20-21, and 1 John 4:1. Keep in
mind that those who fight for authority are the least qualified to have
it. On the other hand are people who claim messages from God on
a daily basis, along with personal tours of heaven and assurances
that they have been selected for being so very special and holy. This
is abuse of the prophetic gift, since it flies in the face of scripture in
general regarding the way God speaks through prophets, and it
draws attention to the person rather than to God. Mark and avoid
anyone with such claims.

There is a gift of prophecy which is for building up the church (1 Cor.

14:3-4), but nothing is said in the instructional passages about telling
the future. It’s contrasted with speaking in tongues, so it seems to
mean instruction and information for the entire congregation. The
gift of knowledge (1 Cor. 12:8) seems to be more what we’d call
insight or perception or understanding for the whole congregation.
This may be confused with the gift of wisdom, which probably is
more focused on dealing with individual problems rather than the
whole church. So though prophecy, knowledge, and wisdom have
similar qualities, they seem to have different purposes or scopes.

Though there is nothing in scripture to say the sign gifts have

ceased (tongues, miracles, visions), there have been no prophecies
or miracles for the whole church around the world since the apostles
died. After all, though apostles are among the spiritual gifts, there
have been no more of them because Jesus is not physically here to
commission them; otherwise many others over the centuries could
have added to scripture. Eph. 2:19-22 specifically names apostles
and prophets as foundation gifts, and since one has ceased, it
would be reasonable to say that so has the other. These two gifts
are the way we know who can write or sanction scripture, as
explained in studies on the Bible canon. We can get tangled up in
terminology, but this passage puts a firm lid on speaking “thus saith
the Lord” for the entire Christian community.

1 Cor. 14:29-33 does indeed say that others must test the prophets’
messages, but how is this done? The only objective method is
comparing them to the Word of God, which means that whatever is
said cannot violate scripture. Emotion or anecdotal evidence is not in
view here. Besides that, for what purpose would be specific
prophecies of riots in a few American cities for example, while none
were given for the horrific persecution of Christians in muslim or
communist countries? It’s the same critical flaw as with the so-called
blood moon prophecies; they are very selective in their application,
since they allegedly tell of the timing of the rapture but not the
holocaust or the infiltration of once-Christian colleges by satanists
and subversives. This is how we weigh and test.

Conclusion
The Christian life is both inward and outward; what we are inside is
expressed in how we live and interact with others (Mat. 15:11). A
person who has humbly accepted the gift of eternal life and adoption
as a child of God should know not to bury it in the ground or use it
as a license to sin. To even ask how much we can get away with
(either by abuse or neglect) means we really don’t understand
salvation at all. Instead, we should only look for faults within
ourselves, and look outside ourselves for ways to lift up others.
Above all, our motive should be humble gratitude and compassion,
to live every day like Jesus matters and we can’t wait to see him
directly.
 Did the Church Replace Israel?
The first thing to understand is that this is a 2,000-year-old debate.
In fact, the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament was written
around 50 or 60 AD to address the issue. It begins by explaining that
Jesus is much more than any mere human or angel but God
Himself. Then it points to Israel’s history as a warning, after which it
scolds Jewish Christians for going back under the law of Moses.
There is much more of course, but it shows that this debate has a
very long history, and we should be under no delusion that it will be
settled anytime soon. So the goal here is simply to present the data,
give a perspective, and leave the rest to the reader. We’ll be
focusing our study on these points:

1. Covenants
2. Law and Promise
3. The Grafting Analogy in Romans 11
4. Conclusion

Covenants
Since the identities of Israel and the church hinge on covenants, the
first thing we need to do is to list and study those covenants. Here’s
a chart that helps to clarify and visualize the major covenants in
scripture.

Now please look at the following passages: Acts 3:25, Rom. 9:4,
Rom. 11:27, 2 Cor. 3:6, Gal. 3:17, Eph. 2:12, Heb. 7:22, Heb. 8:6-
13. Were the two covenants with Israel and the church, or with the
people of Israel only? Is the Promise the same as the covenant with
Moses? With David? Here is an excellent study on the issue, which
can be summarized as follows:
 Postmillennial (figurative)
Promises of the new covenant for Israel are fulfilled in the
present age via only Israelites who believe in Christ.
Amillennial (figurative)
Promises of the new covenant for Israel are fulfilled in the
present age via Israelites and Gentiles who believe in Christ;
the church has become Israel.
Premillennial (literal)
1. There is only one new covenant with Israel/the church; it is
partially fulfilled in the present age, with ultimate fulfillment
in the future millennial kingdom on earth.
2. There are two separate new covenants, one with Israel and
one with the church. (the most consistent literal conclusion)
3. There is only one new covenant for Israel, but the church's
covenant is not new.

Jer. 31:31-34 specifies these points concerning the new covenant:

1. It is to be “with the house of Israel and with the house of

Judah.”
2. It is contrasted with the Mosaic covenant, which also was with
Israel only and not with any other people.
3. The covenant will be fulfilled “after those days,” i.e., after the
days of judgment and affliction described in the preceding
context.
4. The Law is to be written in their hearts, in their “inward parts”, in
contrast to the Mosaic law which was written in tables of stone.
5. The Lord will be their God and Israel will be His people; this
relationship will be mutually and publicly recognized by both
parties.
6. There will be no need to proclaim the truth concerning the Lord
as all will know Him, “from the least of them to the greatest of
them.”
7. Their sins will be forgiven and remembered no more.
Clearly, the promises and covenants to Israel are not being fulfilled
in the present age in any literal sense, so the post- and a-millennial
views cannot be applied to the question at hand. Isaiah 61:8-9 is
even more specific about the new covenant:

1. It is everlasting.
2. Israel’s physical progeny will be known by the rest of the world
as blessed by God.

Further, Jer. 32:37 states that the new covenant is conditioned

upon Israel’s return from exile, and vs. 41 states that they will be
restablished in their ancient land. Nothing at present fulfills this
prophecy/promise, since Israel at present does not acknowledge
God and the church has no ancient land of its own. It is more
consistent with the whole premillennial position to hold that the new
covenant realized today by the church is different than the new
covenant with the house of Israel, than to hold that it fulfills it in part.

In Romans 11:25-27, the new covenant with the house of Israel is

quoted in part and referred to the future national restoration of
Israel:

I don’t want you to be ignorant of this secret, sisters and brothers, so that you won’t
be congratulating yourselves: Partial callousness has come upon Israel until the full
number of the Gentiles has come in. Then finally all Israel will be saved, just as it is
written: “The Rescuer will arrive out of Zion; he will turn ungodliness away from
Jacob. This is my contract with them when I will take away their sins.”

There are two new covenants: one for Israel to be fulfilled in the
millennium, and another for the church in this age (pre-mil view #2).

Law and Promise

We must understand the distinction between the promise to
Abraham (see Gen. 15:5-6) and the law given through Moses 430
years later as explained in Gal. 3-4, John 1:17, Rom. 3:21, and
Rom. 6:14.

The Grafting Analogy in Romans 11

The 11th chapter of the letter to the Romans is often interpreted as
that one group of people replaced another group of people because
of what Jesus did. So let’s walk through the chapter and see if that
holds up. We can divide the chapter into three topics: Preface,
Point, and Praise.

PREFACE vs. 1-15

Who are God’s people? They’re named as Israel right there in vs. 1,
and vs. 2 says explicitly that God did not reject them. As stated
clearly in vs. 11, God has used his people’s sins to provide a way
for Gentiles to be saved, and the purpose is to drive Israel to
jealousy. We see in vss. 13-14 that as the apostle to the Gentiles,
Paul’s mission was to provoke his people to jealousy, which would
be pointless if they had indeed fallen beyond recovery, which vs. 11
said is not the case. So who is provoking whom to jealousy, if the
church replaced Israel? Can we replace Israel and Gentiles with
Christians in that passage? Let’s try it:

1-2 Then am I saying that God rejected his people? Absolutely not! I too am an
Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject
his people, whom he foreknew; ridiculous!…

11 Then am I saying that they’ve fallen and can’t get up? Absolutely not! But their
blunders meant salvation to the non-Judeans, for the purpose of provoking
Israel to jealousy…
 13-14 Now here is what I am saying to the non-Judeans, since in fact I am the
Ambassador to them, and I hereby proudly dispense my commission: I try to
provoke my people to jealousy and so save some of them.

1-2 Then am I saying that God rejected Christians? Absolutely not! I too am a
Christian, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject
Christians, whom he foreknew; ridiculous!…

11 Then am I saying that Christians have fallen and can’t get up? Absolutely not!
But Christians’ blunders meant salvation to the Christians for the purpose of
provoking Christians to jealousy…

13-14 Now here is what I am saying to Christians since in fact I am the

Ambassador to them, and I hereby proudly dispense my commission: I try to
provoke Christians to jealousy and so save some of them.

Think carefully about substituting meanings consistently throughout

the chapter, because we’ll keep trying this as we go along. The
problem is that even if the church only replaced Israel at the
cross, then it makes mincemeat out of everything stated in this
chapter in the present tense about this jealousy for which Paul was
an ambassador.

POINT vs. 16-32

This passage presents an over-arching principle, that if a part of
something is holy then so is the rest of it. Then it uses an analogy of
a root and branches to illustrate that principle. Pay attention to what
the natural branches were broken off from: The root. Now is the
root Israel, or good standing with God? Remember the earlier
remarks about jealousy? What is it that people were jealous about:
being part of Israel, or being in good standing with God? This is the
key of the whole controversy over Replacement Theology. So
let’s try substituting in this passage, since some say that the root
and natural branches represent Israel, and the wild branches
represent Christians rather than Gentiles.

17-21 Now if some of the branches were broken off so that you, a wild olive
shoot, could be grafted in to join with the root and share in its nourishment, do
not gloat over the branches! If you do, remember that the root sustains you, not
that you sustain the root. But you will object, “Branches were broken off so that I
could be grafted in.” Granted; but they were broken off due to unbelief, and you
were grafted in for belief. So instead of gloating, be afraid! For if God did not spare
the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22-24 Now look at the kindness— and harshness— of God: harshness to those who
fell but kindness to you. Persist in kindness or you too will be cut out. Now on the
other hand, they will be grafted back in if they don’t persist in unbelief, and God is
certainly able to do that. For if you were cut out of a wild olive tree and, against
nature, were grafted into the cultivated olive tree, don’t you think that it is even
better to re-graft the natural branches back in again?

25 I don’t want you to be ignorant of this secret, sisters and brothers, so that you
won’t be congratulating yourselves: Partial callousness has come upon Israel until
the full number of the non-Judeans has come in.

17-21 Now if some of the Israelites were broken off [from Israel] so that you, a
Christian, could be grafted in to join with Israel and share in its nourishment, do
not gloat over Israel. If you do, remember that Israel supports Christians, not
that Christians support Israel. But you will object, “Israelites were broken off so
that I could be grafted in.” Granted; but they were broken off due to unbelief, and
you were grafted in for belief. So instead of gloating, be afraid! For if God did not
spare Israelites, he will not spare Christians either.

22-24 Now look at the kindness— and harshness— of God: harshness to Israel, but
kindness to Christians. Persist in kindness or Christians too will be cut out. Now
on the other hand, Israelites will be grafted back in if they don’t persist in unbelief,
and God is certainly able to do that. For if you were cut out of Christians and,
 against nature, were grafted into Israel, don’t you think that it is even better to re-
graft Israel back in again?

25 I don’t want you to be ignorant of this secret, sisters and brothers, so that you
won’t be congratulating yourselves: Partial callousness has come upon Israel until
the full number of Christians has come in [to Israel].

If “wild branch” is a euphemism for “Christian”, then why has God

been harsh with Israel but kind to Christians, who became Israel,
with whom God has been harsh? Now let’s try this again, with
different substitutions, because there are three entities in the
passage, not only two.

17-21 Now if some of the Israelites were broken off [from Christ] so that you, a
Gentile, could be grafted in to join with Christ and share in his nourishment, do
not gloat over Israel. If you do, remember that Christ supports Gentiles, not that
Gentiles support Christ. But you will object, “Israelites were broken off so that I
could be grafted in.” Granted; but they were broken off due to unbelief, and you
were grafted in for belief. So instead of gloating, be afraid! For if God did not spare
Israelites, he will not spare Gentiles either.

22-24 Now look at the kindness— and harshness— of God: harshness to Israel, but
kindness to Gentiles. Persist in kindness or Gentiles too will be cut out. Now on
the other hand, Israelites will be grafted back in if they don’t persist in unbelief,
and God is certainly able to do that. For if you were cut out of Gentiles and,
against nature, were grafted into Christ, don’t you think that it is even better to re-
graft Israel back in [to Christ] again?

25 I don’t want you to be ignorant of this secret, sisters and brothers, so that you
won’t be congratulating yourselves: Partial callousness has come upon Israel until
the full number of Gentiles has come in [to Christ].

The fact in this context is that the root is good standing with God
through Christ— not Israel, not the church, not the Gentiles.
The natural branches represent Israel, while the wild branches
represent Gentiles— not the church. Once again: the root is good
standing with God, and the branches represent Israel and
Gentiles. It is those two classes of people whose branches either
stand or fall in relationship with God on the basis of faith in Jesus as
Messiah.

Look again at vs. 24: This is clearly cautioning Gentile believers

against feeling superior to Israelite believers. And this is why vs. 25
begins a passage assuring them that God is not finished with the
people of Israel, such that Gentile believers must not despise them
or think they’ve been replaced. God will certainly turn back to Israel
after the full number of Gentiles has been brought in— to
relationship with God, not what used to be Israel.

Finally in this passage, look at vss. 28-32. Are Christians enemies of

Christians? Since God originally called Abraham and his
descendants, including the nation of Israel, and since God’s calling is
irrevocable, then God’s calling to that nation cannot be substituted.
Let’s try substitutions for this passage as well:

28-32 Now in regards to the Gospel they are in fact your enemies, yet at the same
time they are the chosen people, loved because of their ancestors; the gifts and
calling of God are irrevocable. For just as even you were once hostile toward faith in
God yet were shown mercy by means of the hostility of Israel, so also they are hostile
to this mercy of yours so that now they can be shown mercy. God wraps it all up in
hostility toward faith so he can be merciful to all.

28-32 Now in regards to the Gospel Israelites are in fact Israel’s enemies, yet at
the same time Israelites are the chosen people, loved because of their ancestors;
the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. For just as even you were once hostile
toward faith in God yet were shown mercy by means of the hostility of Israel, so also
they are hostile to this mercy of Israel’s so that now Israelites can be shown
mercy. God wraps it all up in hostility toward faith so he can be merciful to all.
That’s what we have to do if Christians are really Israelites, and it
makes nonsense out of the passage. Now try this:

28-32 Now in regards to the Gospel Israelites are in fact Gentiles’ and
Christians’ enemies, yet at the same time Israelites are the chosen people, loved
because of their ancestors; the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. For just as
Gentiles were once hostile toward faith in God yet were shown mercy by means of
the hostility of Israel, so also Israelites are hostile to this mercy of Gentiles so that
now Israelites can be shown mercy. God wraps it all up in hostility toward faith so
he can be merciful to all.

PRAISE vs. 33-36

God is God and we’re not, so we should praise him for his wise plan.

Rom. 11 Summary
Holiness comes from the root, not the branches; branches are not
grafted into each other. This chapter is talking about how both Israel
and Gentiles can be reunited with God in the “new creation” (2 Cor.
5:17). Jesus didn’t turn Gentiles into Israelites, didn’t replace
Israelites with Gentiles or Christians, and isn’t finished with Israel.
Instead, what Jesus did was to make it possible for everyone to be
saved. The divine plan was to use Israel to make Gentiles want
God, and then to use Gentiles to make Israel want God. His
unfinished business with Israel will be addressed once the Body of
Christ has all its members. That’s what Rom. 11 is teaching.

Conclusion
Jesus didn’t come to put people under the law of Moses; he came to
fulfill the terms of that conditional covenant (Mat. 5:17) and offer the
kingdom to Israel. But they rejected their Messiah, so God’s
attention turned to the rest of the world, to make Israel jealous, until
the number of Gentiles is reached (Rom. 11:25). During this time,
those who have accepted Jesus are neither Jews nor Gentiles but
the Body of Christ (Rom. 7:4, 1 Cor. 10:32,12:27, 2 Cor. 5:17, Eph.
3:6).

And since Jesus is not in the priestly order of Aaron and Levi as
required by the law of Moses, we have no part in them (Heb. 7:12).
Not most, not some, none. The moral laws hinge on love for God
and people, not the other way around (Mat. 22:37-40), so the
absence of the laws written in stone cannot mean that we stop
loving God and people. And since “love does no harm” (Rom.
13:10), then we won’t be violating the law of love.

Can anyone find commands in the New Testament for us to observe

the feasts or the kosher laws, or to pay tithes to priests, or to rest
on a Sabbath day? No, instead we’ve seen that the only command is
to love, and Rom. 14 says to let everyone follow personal
convictions on things that aren’t necessary for salvation. To say that
any law of Moses not specifically annulled must still be in effect,
begs the question and ignores the fact that no Gentile was ever
under them to begin with.

From a careful study of the entirety of scripture on the matter, we

can only conclude that Christians are completely disconnected from
Israel and its laws and land, and that prophecies not expressly
aimed at us are to be literally and tangibly fulfilled in the nation of
Israel. We are something new, unique, and unforseen (1 Cor. 2:7,
Eph. 3:6,9)— and limited. To ignore the distinctions is to
misunderstand and misapply the scriptures. At the very least, no
one can say this study reached its conclusions without due
dilligence, and these conclusions can’t be ruled out.
 Christian Women
When the question is raised about the “role” of women in the
Christian faith, it already assumes that all women are fundamentally,
intrinsically, and spiritually restricted in some way, and the only real
question is not whether but how much. This is based on cherry-
picked scripture at best, and social presumption above all. What we
need to do instead is to objectively study all scriptural depictions of
women in context, which must include how God deals with people in
general.

God’s ways are not our ways

The practice of reading later culture and traditions into past writings
is called an anachronistic fallacy. One example is when the Early
Modern English word science, which only meant general knowledge
at the time, is interpreted with the modern meaning of a specific
subset of knowlege involving experimentation. This is a huge
problem in Bible interpretation (hermeneutics), especially in the early
chapters of Genesis, particularly chapter 3.

What God originally created was “very good”, but sin brought lasting
corruption. Before sin there was no hierarchy between Adam and
Eve, and the hierarchy that followed sin was not God’s command
but rather his prediction of the result of Eve’s choice to follow the
man rather than God. The long path from fall to redemption would
require divine intervention at times, beginning with the Great Flood.
Only then do we see God institute rudimentary human government,
whose purpose was to slow the spread of sin and encourage people
to seek him out (see Acts 17:26-27).

The rest of the Bible shows that whenever God does intervene, he
goes against social norms (ref. 1 Cor. 1:27-29): the second- or last-
born over the first, the lowly over the prominent, the weak over the
strong. On the other hand, God doesn’t suddenly and drastically
disrupt human society and its cultural traditions. The laws God gave
to Israel through Moses set boundaries to ensure the humane
treatment of slaves, women, children, and foreigners, yet this hardly
means God endorsed slavery (1 Cor. 7:21), fleshly privilege (Gal.
3:28), or abuse and neglect (Ex. 22:27, Eph. 4:32).

God does not change, which we need to remember when we read

passages such as 1 Sam. 16:7 or Acts 10:34. Jesus taught and
showed by example how his followers must regard each other. In
Mat. 20:24-28, Mark 10:45, Luke 9:46-48, Luke 22:24-27, John
13:3-8, Eph. 5:21, and Phil. 2:5-11, we see that the attitude and
character of every follower of Jesus (especially those who influence
or lead others) should be humble service rather than a jealous
grasping for power or authority.

Knowing all this, how can any follower of Jesus desire, claim, or
exercise the very “lording over” scripture so clearly denounces?
Whether it’s done by pastors or patriarchalists, it violates the clear,
overarching principles of how we are to view and treat each other.
We must bend our ways to God’s ways, not upend God’s ways to fit
our ways. Our flesh is irrelevant in the Body of Christ, and none of
us has authority to wield over others. So no passage of scripture
can possibly say the opposite or excuse it in some situations.
Rather, the appearance of some passages to contradict the clear
teachings is due to our own prejudice or misunderstanding. If any
interpretation causes us to restrict fellow believers for any other
reason than living in sin or teaching division (of which flesh-based
entitlement is one example), it is false by definition. So the debate
over whether women can exercise authority is dissolved by the fact
that no one but Jesus and the Apostles in scripture has spiritual
authority or entitlement.

Women in the Old Testament

Consider how godly women are presented in the pages of the Old
Testament beginning with Eve. While God said “because of you and
what you did” to Adam and the serpent, no such words were spoken
to Eve, who was the victim of deception. God actually blessed her
by promising the Savior through her “seed” alone. Other notable
women include:

Sarah― whose child Isaac would be heir to the Promise to

Abraham (Gen. 21:12)
Miriam― the older sister of Moses and a prophet (Ex. 15:20,
Micah 6:4)
Shiphrah and Puah― the Hebrew midwives who defied the
infanticide command of Pharaoh (and lied when confronted!)
and were blessed by God for their bravery (Ex. 1:15-21)
Deborah― a prophet and leader/judge of Israel (Judges 4:1-10)
Jael― the woman credited with killing the enemy king Sisera by
driving a tent peg through his temples (Judges 4:18-22)
Abigail― the wise, brave, and intelligent woman who saved her
clan from extinction (1 Sam. 25:3, 14-34)
Esther― the captive who was made queen in Babylon, whose
bravery and wisdom saved all Israel from extinction (book of
Esther)
Huldah― a prophet in Jerusalem who was consulted about the
rediscovered Book of the Law (2 Kings 22:14-20, 2 Chron. 34:
22-28)
ideal― wise, respected, diligent, hard-working, business owner
(Prov. 31:10-31)

None of these women are presented in scripture as God’s last

resort, or a punishment or shame for disobedience on the part of
men (see next paragraph). None are reprimanded for stepping
outside of social norms. None of the credit for their achievements is
given to their fathers or husbands. All are presented as noble role
models; this is the only “role” scripture gives them.
The one, and only one, passage that allegedly speaks of the
“shame of women as leaders” is Isaiah 3:12. The Hebrew
(Masoretic) text is translated as “Youths oppress my people, women
rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn
you from the path.”. The intentional error of this rendering was
exposed long ago by scholar Dr. Katharine Bushnell, but her work
has largely been ignored. Here is her examination of the issue
(lessons 621 and 622):

621. I think we find another case of prejudiced translation in Isaiah 3:12. The word
translated children in this verse in Isaiah, is a plural masculine participle of the verb
“to glean, abuse, practice.” It is translated glean in Leviticus 19:10, Deuteronomy
24:21, Judges 20:45, and Jeremiah 6:9. The word has no translation such as
children anywhere else in the Bible, and it occurs 21 times. Another word
altogether is used for children, and child, in verses 4 and 5 of this same chapter; the
sense seems to have been fixed by the supposed context, to correspond with women.

As to the word translated women: Two words, without the rabbinical vowel points,
are exactly alike. One is pronounced nosh-im and the other na-shim. In appearance
the only difference is a slight mark under the first letter of the Hebrew word na-
shim. The first word means exactors; the one with a vowel mark under the initial
letter means women. The entire decision, therefore, as to whether the
word means one or the other depends upon OPTION. Those who
pointed the word, evidently thought the nation could sink no lower than
to pass under women rulers, and then translated the word children to
match it. Commentators frequently call attention to the alternate reading. See
Adam Clarke on the passage. The Septuagint translates: “As for my people, tax-
gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors (apaitountes) rule over
them.”

622. There seems little in the context to support the translation children and women.
But study the context as regards the other reading. After complaining of the
gleaners, (that is, tax-gatherers) and extortioners, they are threatened in the
following language: “The Lord standeth up to plead and standeth up to judge the
people. The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of His people, and the
princes (rulers, masculine, not feminine gender) thereof for ye have eaten up the
 vineyard (the conduct of extortionate tax-gatherers), and the spoil of the poor is in
your houses. What mean ye that ye crush (R. V.) my people, and grind the faces of
the poor?” Because of this context, we believe that OPTION took the wrong turn
when it decided to translate this verse as it stands in our English version; and that
this translation would have had a strong showing up of its sophistries, had educated
women been on the last Revision Committee. (emphasis mine)

Women in the New Testament

Since it has been established that scripture does not present God
as the one shaming or placing restrictions on women, then who
would believe that this same God would command or even imply
that women followers of Jesus should be more restricted or shamed
than their Old Testament sisters? Or that God would begin to show
favoritism, or break his long-standing habit of going against social
norms, which as the next section will show, have been
overwhelmingly patriarchal throughout history? There is no flesh-
based entitlement, no exception, no fine print under Jesus’
command, “Not so with you; whoever would be the greatest must be
the least.” Look at some notable women as the New Testament
presents them:

Mary― the woman blessed with giving birth to the incarnate

Christ (Mat. 1:16)
Anna― the prophet stationed at the temple who prophesied
about Jesus (Luke 2:36-38)
the unnamed woman ― anointed Jesus before his death (Mat.
26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9)
Mary of Bethany― sister of Martha and Lazarus, who sat at
Jesus’ feet to learn as any rabbinical student would (another
possible reason for her sister’s reaction), and who also anointed
Jesus before his death (Luke 10:38-42, John 12:2-8)
Mary Magdalene― traveling companion and financial supporter
of Jesus, and witness to his death, burial, and resurrection
 (Mat. 27:55-56, 28:1, etc.; Mark 16:1, Luke 8:2-3)
the Samaritan woman― debated Jesus about worship, then
testified to others that he could be the Messiah (John 4:7-26)
the Canaanite woman― debated Jesus (and won!) on whether
exceptions could be made for helping non-Israelites (Mat.
15:22-28)
the bleeding woman― had the faith to believe she would be
healed if she touched the hem of Jesus’ garment (Luke 8:43-
48)
Lydia― homeowner who ran a business selling fine fabrics
internationally (Acts 16:14)
Phoebe― minister of the church in Cenchreae, presiding officer
who also came to Paul’s aid (Rom. 16:1-2)
Junia― outstanding Apostle and co-prisoner with Paul (Rom.
16:7)
Priscilla― scripture teacher, church leader, co-worker of Paul
(Acts 18:26, Rom. 16:3, 1 Cor. 16:19)
Chloe― church leader whose letter Paul responded to as 1
Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:11)

In all of Jesus’ interactions with women, not once did he shun then,
shame them, or treat them as inferior. Not even the Apostle Paul,
formerly a top Pharisee, treated women as inferior; in fact, he
praised quite a few as co-workers, leaders, even apostles. Are we to
believe, as some teach, that both Jesus and Paul contradicted
themselves by also ordering that women treat their husbands as
they would the Lord, that women must not utter a word in a “worship
service” (while also saying how they can prophesy!), that women
cannot be apostles, ministers, teachers, or leaders of any sort? Do
we see any hint in scriptre that women lack the ability, permission, or
gifting to serve as fully equal members of the Body of Christ, or as
spouses? The scriptural answer is a resounding no.

Women in secular history

Just looking at one topic, science, we see in this article how women
have often been snubbed, marginalized, dismissed, and outright
robbed of the credit due them for their accomplishments:

Rosalind Franklin― British biophysicist (PhD in Physics in

1945) who developed ways to image DNA and provided critical
data to Crick and Watson, eventual winners of the Nobel Prize;
she was never credited for her work
Jocelyn Bell Burnell― discovered pulsars in 1967 via a
radiotelescope she helped assemble, but recognition went
instead to her male supervisor
Esther Lederberg― microbiologist who in 1951 discovered a
virus that infects bacteria, but was never credited with it
Chien-Shiung Wu― experimental physicist who was part of the
Manhattan Project in the 1940s; her work eventually led to a
Nobel Prize in physics― for two male colleagues
Lise Meitner― her work led to the discovery of nuclear fission,
but she was not listed as co-author of her findings with a male
colleague
Nettie Stevens― performed studies crucial to understanding
that chromosomes, not environment, determine the sex of
offspring; credit for the discovery went instead to a man

Space does not permit the listing of all the women on this and other
topics who have been denied justice solely because they were
women, not the common competition of rivals. This hardly means
that men never suffer injustice; rather, it means that women have
suffered additional injustice for no other reason than their flesh.

Rebuttals to Common Arguments

1. Adam ruled Eve because he was made first. If being first
means having authority, then the animals all had authority over
Adam. If being last means having authority, then Eve had
 authority over Adam. It is the fallacy of “special pleading” to
make creation order a basis for authority only in one case.
2. Adam ruled Eve because she was made from him. Adam
was made from dust. Is dust therefore superior to Adam?
Instead, being made of the very same “flesh and bone” as
Adam made Eve his absolute equal. Adam focused on Eve’s
similarity, not her difference.
3. Adam ruled Eve because she was his helper. The Hebrew
word for “help” means “a strong ally” and is also used of God.
There is no hint of inferiority on the part of the helper; in fact, it
is the one being helped that lacks strength or ability. (Gen. 2:18)
4. Adam ruled Eve because he called her “woman”. The slave
woman Hagar gave God a name. (Gen. 2:23, 16:13)
5. Eve lusted after Adam’s authority before she was tempted.
There is not one hint in the entire Bible to back up this claim; it
is a man-made myth. There is no scripture between the creation
of Eve and her temptation, and neither she nor the serpent
mentioned Adam during or after the temptation. No NT writer
even hints at such a thing.
6. Adam was unaware of the temptation or the source of the
fruit. He was there with her and heard her voice as she was
tempted. When she handed him the fruit he ate it even though
he knew where it came from. If Eve had been tempting or
tricking Adam, then it was she and not the serpent who was the
real deceiver, making Adam the deceived. And there is not the
slightest hint anywhere in the Bible of Eve using “feminine wiles”
to seduce Adam. (Gen. 3:6, 17, 1 Tim. 2:13)
7. Adam is shown to rule over Eve since God confronts him
first. The confrontation is in the order of a typical philosophical
argument, where statements are made leading to a central
point and then traced back in reverse order. Scripture shows
this to be man– woman– serpent– woman– man. So the order
has nothing to do with rule but only with making a point. And the
point was the serpent’s curse and the accompanying prophecy
of a Savior through the woman’s seed alone. Eve is thus
honored with truly being the “help” that Adam needed.
 8. Adam is charged with bringing sin into the world because
he was the “federal head” of the human race. Scripture
never gives Adam this title or anything like it, and does not say
why sin is attributed to him alone. Yet consider these facts: both
he and Eve ate the fruit and thus became mortal, but only
Adam blamed the woman and God for his sin. While Eve is only
said to have been deceived, Adam is said to have rebelled
against God and dealt treacherously with Him. And if they base
this “federal head” belief on the statement in Hebrews about
Levi being credited with giving a tithe since he was “still in the
body of his ancestor” Abraham when Abraham tithed to
Melchizedek, they need to answer the question of why any of
Abraham’s descendants needed to tithe, or how Levi could
literally have existed in Abraham when a person is not created
till sperm meets egg. Also, if Adam was Eve’s “federal head”
before sin, then God would not have confronted her at all but
only Adam. (Hosea 6:7, Job 31:33, Heb. 7:10)
9. Adam’s rule over Eve was made harsh after sin. There is no
hint of Adam having authority over Eve before sin, and God
never told Adam he must now rule better or more strongly. In
addition, the statement was made to Eve, and it was not a
command but a prediction of the consequences of her choice to
follow Adam out of the garden. Only Adam was ordered out,
and only Adam was told he would return to the dust from which
he alone was taken, which God cursed on his account alone.
Neither he nor Eve were ever cursed. (Gen. 3:19-24)
10. Eve was cursed with labor pain and subservience to Adam.
The verse about pain in childbirth is more accurately rendered
“a snare has increased your sorrow and sighing; in sorrow you
will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, who
will rule over you.” Note that she was indeed snared or tricked,
and also that it would be her husband, not anything he
allegedly possessed, that she would desire or turn toward. And
because of this she would be ruled over by him. This was in the
future tense for both her desire and his rule, proving that neither
previously existed. Even in the traditional rendering, the word
 “curse” is not used with Eve as it was with Adam and the
serpent; God never told Eve “Because you have done this…”.
And how could God increase her labor pains if she had not yet
given birth? Even if she had, was birth supposed to have pain
before sin? (Gen. 3:16)
11. Adam was given rule over Eve because she was deceived.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Adam sinned deliberately and
without excuse, and showed no concern or responsibility for Eve
while she was being tempted. If Eve had been made by God
with a deceivable nature, how could she have been “a suitable
helper” for Adam? And if all women are to be labeled as
deceivable, then all men are to be labeled as poor leaders and
rebels against God who always pass blame. And if Adam was
tempted by Eve, would that not make him the weaker of the
two, and all men share his weakness? To think God rewarded
Adam for his rebellion and inaction, and cursed Eve for being
tricked, is to turn God into Satan. And again, God never granted
this rule to Adam; it was a prediction to Eve concerning the
choice she would make. We must also not forget that the Savior
was promised through her seed alone. Would God send His
Son through the inherently deceivable? Why did He have to be
born of a virgin?
12. God never used women as leaders unless there were no
men available. None of the references to women in leadership
are ever said to be God’s last resort or evidence of a divine
curse or punishment. The lone verse that allegedly says so is
very badly translated; even if it weren’t, one verse is hardly
enough to overturn the unchanging basics of the faith such as
the Golden Rule and “not so among you”. (Ex. 15:20, Judges
4:4-5:12, 2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22, Isaiah 3:12)
13. God never condemned patriarchy. He also never condemned
polygamy, slavery, rape, pedophilia, and a lot of other things. He
never intended for Israel to have a human king but gave them
one because they nagged him. We see throughout scripture
God’s pattern of making concessions, of working through and
around humanity instead of immediately condemning every sin
 or weakness. Whenever God did intervene, we observe that He
chose the young over the old, the weak over the strong, and the
small and insignificant over the great and powerful. We also see
His compassion and mercy, His offer to “come and reason”. So
His silence is not an indicator of approval but of patience and
mercy. (1 Sam. 6:6-9)
14. Jesus was male, and all his inner group of disciples were
male. Jesus, as well as the disciples, were also all Jews, all
speaking Aramaic. Why aren’t these other qualities cited as
proof that Christian leaders must be Jewish and speak
Aramaic? And why was only Judas ever replaced among the
Twelve? Why isn’t a group of twelve required in every church?
There is also proof that the Twelve were to be mapped to the
twelve tribes of Israel, not to any sort of church structure. (Rev.
21:12-14)
15. Jesus never condemned male supremacy. As with the claim
about patriarchy, there were many other things Jesus never
spoke out against, not even the Roman government. He also
did not rebuke Mary for sitting at His feet to learn, and if male
supremacists are consistent, they have to take that to mean
Jesus approves of female theology students. And to be under a
rabbi like that meant the student was expected to eventually
take the place of a rabbi as well, so that means Jesus approves
of women as pastors. Either arguments from silence are
legitimate across the board, or they are not. (Luke 10:39)
16. None of the Bible was written by a woman. Who is the
author of Hebrews? Some historians believe there is evidence
of “a conspiracy of silence” because the author was a woman,
most likely Priscilla. Who wrote Esther? Ruth? We should also
note that none of the Bible was written by a Gentile or a sea
captain or a court jester. How many women were taught to
write? How many should we expect from a patriarchal society?
Does God ever say why He does things like commending the
bravery of a prostitute (or possibly, an inn keeper, which in
patriarchal thinking is a greater sin than prostitution since she
ran a business without male oversight!) and allowing the Savior
 to be born of her line? So again we must ask why something
like this is taken as tacit approval of male supremacy by God.
(Joshua 6:25, Mt. 1:5)
17. The “plain reading” of scripture says women can’t teach
men. That same “plain reading” also says that we should pluck
out our eye if it causes us to sin, that we should take wine for
our stomach problems, that we should wash each other’s feet,
that we should greet each other with a holy kiss, that our only
debt should be love, and that “the first will be last and the last
will be first”. And if anyone tries to cry “context” in defense of
their “plain reading” they have defeated their own argument.
More questions for “plain reading” and consistency: Why does a
woman need a head covering to signify male rule if she can only
pray and prophecy in private or among other women? Where
does God ever tell godly women they are in sin if they teach
truth?
18. Males must guard females from error and deception. The
Holy Spirit cannot do the job? Who is guarding all those men
teaching error? How many women compared to men have
started false religions? How many women have been popes or
imams? How many men have fallen for tricksters and
embezzlers? And where is the scripture that states men must
guard women from deception? Why are women allowed to
teach children, who are the most easily deceived?
19. Men and women are equal in being but have
complementary “roles” where the man leads and the
woman follows. If two people are equal in being or essence,
there cannot be permanent hierarchy between them on the
basis of essential qualities of being. That is, if someone is held
to a permanent subservient role, based upon their flesh in some
way, then that person is inferior by definition. Temporary
hierarchies, such as employer/employee or parent/child, do not
violate this rule because the employee can change jobs and the
child can grow up. But slavery is defined as “submission to a
dominating influence; the state of a person who is a chattel of
another” (Webster’s). A slave can be freed but is at the mercy
 of the owner. Though the slave is acknowledged to be as fully
human as the owner, the slave is nonetheless held to be inferior
in being. A “role” is, by definition, a part to play or a function to
perform. The latter is held by male supremacism as meaning a
woman’s role is to submit permanently to a man for no other
reason than the flesh (the physical). Yet because it is based
upon a permanent and intrinsic quality, it defines the woman as
inferior to the man. It is held that this leader/follower relationship
is “complementary” between equals, but this amounts to
defining equal as unequal, since the woman can never outrank
the man in return. Truly equal complementation would be
between friends or co-workers who each have different skills or
jobs, or like the cooperation between the left and right hands.
20. The man is the head of the family. Scripture never says this;
it only says the husband is the head of his wife. But “head” in
Greek never meant ruler or boss; the head/body metaphor was
an expression of unity. If it meant boss, then the Bible would be
ordering wives to “serve two masters”, especially since male
supremacism insists that a wife is to obey her husband “as to
the Lord”.
21. No woman is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No
man is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No NT letter is
ever addressed to an individual having a title— except 2 John,
which is addressed to a woman he calls “the chosen master”
(lit. Greek). Many are called “apostles” (lit. “sent out”), including
Junia, and many are called “servants” or “ministers” (all from
the Greek word diaconos), including Phoebe. And “pastor”,
mentioned only once in the entire NT, is a spiritual gift, not an
office or title. (Rom. 16:1, 7, Eph. 4:11)
22. An elder must be a man. By the method used to determine
this, then an elder must also be married, have well-behaved
children, and do a good job of protecting the home. This would
disqualify Paul, Timothy, and many others. Paul’s list of qualities
are exactly that: qualities of character, not matters of the flesh.
And that same word for provide and protect in 1 Tim. 3:4,
proistemi, is used of Phoebe. By this same method, the Great
 Commission would only be for men since it involves preaching
the gospel, teaching, and baptizing. (Mt. 28:19-20, Rom. 16:2, 1
Tim. 3)
23. A husband plays the role of Father to his wife’s role of Son.
That is blasphemy and idolatry, not to mention symbolic
pedophilia. No believer is ever told to play God to another
believer. The only passage used to teach this blasphemy (on
the man’s part) and idolatry (on the woman’s part) is Eph. 5:22,
but there is no verb there, because it goes with verse 21, not
verse 23. In Greek it reads like a list starting in vs. 19,
describing the “filled with the Spirit” in vs. 18: speaking, singing,
thanking, and supporting. All believers are to defer (Paul always
uses other words when discussing submission to authority) to
one another; there are no exceptions. The man as “head” to the
wife is her source, and she is his support, just as the head
feeds the body and the body supports the head. In spite of the
Roman law that made her attached to her father for life (instead
of her husband)*, Paul tells Christian wives to be loyal to their
“own” husbands. To say this as a matter of obedience would
make no sense in a society where this was already presumed
and encoded in law, and to treat any human as The Lord would
be idolatrous. So Paul is not making “lording over” a new
definition of submission. (*The law was “marriage without hand”,
designed to give abused wives a way out of a bad marriage.
She remained the property of her father, who at any time could
give her to another man. So Paul is saying something quite
radically opposed to Roman law.)
24. Christian Equality is a slippery slope to homosexuality.
Then male supremacism is a slippery slope to wife abuse, and
clergy supremacy is a slippery slope to the cults. The “slippery
slope” argument was raised to justify slavery in the pre-Civil
War south, fearing the breakdown of society should slaves be
freed and treated as equals. And historically (even today),
homosexuality has been rampant in very patriarchal societies.
25. Christian Equality bows to culture. The overwhelming cultural
and religious paradigm has been that of male supremacism, so
 it is patriarchy which bows to culture. That modern Western
society has been a rare exception to the cultural tradition does
not make Christianity’s acceptance of equality a case of bowing
to culture, any more than the abolition of slavery was also
bowing to culture.
26. Men cannot give birth but they don’t complain about it, so
women should not complain about what they cannot do
either. This is the “equivocation” fallacy, since it confuses ability
with permission. Neither side believes women lack the ability to
preach, teach, or lead. The absurdity of this argument is clear
when we substitute the proper meanings for ’can’: “Men lack the
ability to give birth, so women should not complain about lack of
permission to hold authority.”
27. Not all men can have ecclesiastical authority, so they too
must submit gladly to it. But men are not barred from such
positions because they are men, but because they lack gifting
or credentials. Yet women are barred from those positions
solely because they are women, an intrinsic quality and thus a
matter of ’being’ or ’essence’ rather than an ability or a role to
play; women’s gifting or ability is not even considered. And of
course it is not all men who are denied authoritative positions,
while it is all women who are denied. And in the home, all men
are designated leaders and authorities over their wives, while
no women are ever designated leaders and authorities over
their husbands.

A concise definition of patriarchy (male entitlement) is the belief that

God can speak through a donkey (Num. 22:28), a plant (Ex. 3:2), or
a rock (Luke 19:40), but never a woman. See also Female
Supremacism: A Parody.

Conclusion
Even with the worst possible interpretations of scripture, the Bible
treats women far better than secular or religious communities have
done. The Christian community needs to reject gender roles for
Christian roles, flesh-based permission for spiritual gifting, and
chains of command for mutual service. The truly humble don’t fight
for the last place in line or forbid others to join them there. Authority
to teach or preach never lies with the speaker but with the indwelling
Holy Spirit, who does not dispense gifts in pink and blue boxes (i.e.
by the flesh). This renders moot the entire question of Christian
women’s permission.

Let us stop hobbling the Body of Christ, and start treating all fellow
believers as equals, with humility and compassion. Only the proud
fear equality, and such pride harms the Christian community and our
witness to the world. Remember what Jesus warned in Mat. 19:30
and Mark 10:31: “But many who are first will be last, and many who
are last will be first.” A whole-Bible study on this topic can be read
here.
 Abusers and Excusers
Scripture tells us how to deal with problems in Christian
communities, but its mandates are rarely followed. The community
has remained silent for centuries about abuse of power, not only by
the illegitimate clergy class but also by many spouses. Yet the
Christian community remains silent. As we can see in Mat. 23:8-12,
Mark 10:35-45, and Luke 22:24-27, the command of Jesus is very
clear: His followers must not pull rank over their brothers and
sisters, and leaders must be role models and mentors rather than
masters and rulers. While other chapters in this book give the details
of how the Body of Christ is to function, this one focuses on finding
ways to correct the failure to put those principles into practice.

Role Models
In Heb. 5:11-6:12, the writer expresses deep disappointment over
the lack of spiritual growth and maturity in the Christian community.
After a reasonable length of time they should have seen progress
beyond the basics and become leaders, but this was not the case,
especially for the former Hebrews to whom the letter was written.
They were putting themselves back under the laws of Moses, which
effectively put Jesus back on the cross. Yet this problem persists to
our day, even among Gentiles (see the chapter on Hebrew Roots).

Yet not everyone is, or should be, a Christian leader, per James 3. In
Heb. 13:7,16, and 17, believers are admonished to look first of all to
those who brought them the Gospel and imitate their behavior. Then
it advises that believers listen to their current leaders, not as
masters but as examples, as those who have already demonstrated
spiritual maturity and are held to a higher (not lower!) standard. This
is likely due to their positions of influence, not authority. A leader or
teacher must not be a novice or heretic, but a faithful guide and
guardian against false teachings. Those who fail in this regard will
face stronger consequences at the judgment. Every believer must
“give an account”, but for leaders/teachers the judgment will be
more strict.

The Standard and the Consequences

We’re told very clearly in passages such as 2 Tim. 3:16 and Luke
17:3-4 that sin (determined by scriptural standards) must be
rebuked, and that forgiveness is only to be given to those who heed
the rebuke and repent. The common excuse for why we can’t obey
this command is that we too are all sinners. Yet as is clearly taught
in 1 Cor. 5, the backslidden, immature, sin-enabling believers in
Corinth were to publicly disfellowship one of their own, though all of
them approved of the sin out of a twisted sense of inclusion and
tolerance. This person was not merely struggling with sin, but openly
wallowing in it; that’s the reason it had to be quickly and decisively
rebuked before it spread like gangrene. A related passage is 2 Tim.
2:17, where false teachers were named and shamed in order to
prevent the spread of their falsehood.

We have more specific standards for leaders in passages such as 1

Tim. 3:1-13, 5:1-2, and 17-21, Titus 1:5-9 and 2:1-8, and 1 Peter
5:1-6. Influencers (elders, guardians, attendants) are not to be
appointed until they have demonstrated maturity in faith and
practice. Fellow believers are to treat each other with dignity and
compassion, yet not at the expense of holiness or truth. We
shouldn’t be quick to condemn an elder, but neither should we
excuse or protect them if they have taught falsehood or lived in sin.
With “double honor” comes “double shame”; a guilty elder is to be
publicly rebuked, without prejudice or excuse from a twisted desire
for peace and unity. Victims must be protected. When these
commands are disobeyed, we get false teachers and rampant
abuse, such as seen in this example:
 Voddie Baucham has stated that abused women have no recourse for
divorce. Instead, their job is to submit better to their husbands that they might
empower him [enable more abuse!] to be more Christ-like in his leadership, and
that the body of Christ might be unified. Further, Baucham opposes the education
of women, holding that for them to go to college is a sin in defiance of biblical
teaching. Lastly, he holds that a woman is the property of her father until such a
time as he can arrange a marriage for her, regardless of her own consent or will, and
transfer her to her husband. In such a case, the virginity of that daughter is a prize
which enforces the honor of her father, a prize which is transferred into the
ownership of the man she will marry. This is troubling, [since] the number one way
to perpetuate sexual and domestic abuse of women is to deny them education and
the freedom of self-determination. The ideas Baucham represents are a
bastardization of Scripture designed entirely to preserve male privilege and suppress
women while masquerading as “Christian”. (source, emphases and [insertions]
added)

This is overt slavery. But even when the abuse is non-physical, we

cannot and dare not ignore the mandate of scripture to immediately
protect the victims. On a daily basis, in churches and social media,
believers are routinely abused twice; first by the abusers, then by
the silence of others, often compounded when the victim is rebuked
for rightly demanding accountability, or for not automatically forgiving
the unrepentant abuser. Never do such people give the victim the
same automatic forgiveness— though of course the victim has not
sinned, since refusing to forgive the unrepentant is what scripture
commands. They demand that the victim walk around bleeding
without complaint, while the abuser continues with the full tacit
support of the community, which prays not for the victim but for the
abuser.

Do we even need to ask what the consequences will be for abusers

and their excusers? If we fear God as the great Judge, those who
have abused or enabled abuse should be very, very afraid.
Conclusion
We as the Christian community are tasked with dealing with
problems and not only praying for people. We have Spirit-given gifts
for a reason; we are the hands of Jesus in this world. If all we ever
need to do is pray for abusers, there’d be no mandates in scripture
for standards and disfellowships, rebukes and corrections— as if
criminals should only be prayed for and never arrested, much less
put on trial or convicted. If we wouldn’t want a society where we let
criminals run free and just pray that they’ll stop, then of all people
the Christian community should be an example to the world of how
much we care for the oppressed. To fail is to have their blood on our
hands.
 Is eating meat a sin?
Some claim that the Bible says it’s a sin to eat meat. Here is one
example:

Jesus didn’t feed people fishin [sic] the ancient text. FISH is actually Fishweed
(Seaweed) . The fatted calf was also changed. The original text says throw a feast.
(video)

In John 21:1-14, after Jesus’ resurrection, were Peter and the

others fishing for seaweed? Did Jesus roast seaweed over fire after
telling the disciples to “catch” a boatload of it? Keep in mind that “the
ancient text” is fairly well-established (source), such that any claims
about what it contains must be backed by sound scholarship. Now
let’s check the original languages for the particular words in dispute:

G2486 fish, seen in texts from Homer forward. There are no

credible references to fishweed in the Bible, and the only
reference to seaweed is when Jonah was sinking into the sea
and it wrapped around his head. Jonah 2:5 uses the Hebrew
word H5488 reed, but the Greek only says “head went down to
the depths”, so there is no Greek word for seaweed or fishweed
in the Bible. The Greek word for seaweed bears no
resemblance to, or connection with, the word for fish. So it’s
completely disingenuous to use the English words “fish” and
“fishweed” to argue that the original text wasn’t talking about
fish. (For the curious: definitions of fishweed and pondweed)
H7716 lamb, from a root meaning “pushing out to graze”; does
that sound like “throw a feast”? And what did a feast include?
Look at the required eating of meat for the Passover feast as
stated in Ex. 12:1-8:
vs. 5 the lamb or goat must be a year-old male
vs. 6 kill it around sundown
 vs. 7 take some of the blood and put it on the sides and
tops of the doorframes
vs. 8 eat the meat roasted over fire

Another source is this website about SDA dietary laws, but it can’t
seem to make up its mind about eating meat. At the top it says “No
meats are allowed in their diets, including beef, chicken, fish and wild
game.” But under Other Foods it says “While the religion advocates
vegetarianism, followers do have the choice of eating meat if they
choose to.” And of course what they forbid for themselves is hardly
what God forbids for everyone. They make no effort beyond “cause
no harm” to assert that it’s a sin to eat meat.

Going back to the first source, and any others claiming eating meat
is a sin, you’ll notice that the claim begins with a change of words.
But what the Bible’s content should be has to be settled before its
teachings can be studied or debated. So this study is about what
the Bible says, not what some think it should or allegedly used to
say, and only on the matter of eating meat rather than any and all
killing of animals. There will be no disputing the words of the Bible in
the original languages, or speculation on what might be “missing”.
And there will be no hand-wave dismissal of the text by calling
everything an allegory or code, since such an approach reduces
Bible study or debate to a war of personal opinions. Now take note
of the important points in this claim:

1. The Bible says

The principles of good reading comprehension apply to the

Bible, meaning context and language are crucial to
understanding. We can avoid complications arising from
translation issues by consulting original language interlinears
and lexicons, and we’ll get to the matter of semantic range later.
When a claim is made that the Bible teaches or commands
something, it can’t be left up to inference or assumption. It must
 be explicit or at least included in a general command, and there
must be penalties stipulated for disobedience.

2. It’s a sin

Sin is rebellion against God. If God commands a person or

group not to do something, or that they must do something,
and they fail to obey the command, that is sin.

3. To eat meat

Meat in the Bible refers to the muscles of animals. Numbers

11:4-5 shows that fish was included, and that meat was clearly
distinguished from fruits and vegetables.

So to back up the assertion that (1) the Bible says (2) it’s a sin (3)
to eat meat, we must look in the Bible as it is, find at least a general
principle about eating meat, and cite the penalty for failure to
comply. The Bible not only permits eating meat, but sometimes
commands it.

Jews and Gentiles

The 10 Commandments are part of 613 laws and precepts in a
covenant between God and Israel, as also stated in the New
Testament; see Ex. 34:27, Eph. 2:12, and Rom. 2:14. So who is in
the covenant? Who is not in the covenant?

If appeal is made to the 10 Commandments, esp. #6 “thou shalt not

kill”, then we need to consider all the laws of Moses about food,
since if we’re not under those laws then none of them can be used
to call eating meat a sin. It’s impossible to only be under some laws:
see James 2:10 and Heb. 7:12.

Moral law comes from God, and the laws of Moses are only one
expression of that law. So for us in the Body of Christ, being under
a new priesthood, we’re under a new law; see Rom. 6:14, 7:1-4, 1
Cor. 9:20-21, Gal. 2:16, 21, 3:2-3, 6:2, and Phil. 3:9.

Now since we’re “not under law but under grace”, no appeal can be
made to any of the laws of Moses. Even if we were under those
laws, and “kill” in the 6th Commandment included animals, notice
that nothing is said about eating. But please look at this word “kill” in
both Hebrew and Greek, which is found in both Ex. 20:13 and Deut.
5:17.

Not one of those definitions, or any context in the Bible, equates the
killing of animals with murder. Semantic range (range of meanings)
doesn’t mean we can arbitrarily pick the meaning we want; context is
everything. For example, take the word trunk: Is it an elephant’s
nose, the base of tree, a human torso, male swimwear, a box with a
lid, or the back compartment of a car? It would be nonsense to
substitue “elephant’s nose” and “base of tree” in the sentence “Put
the trunk in the trunk”.Likewise, we can’t arbitrarily insert “put
any living thing to death” in the 6th Commandment.

As for the claim made by some that we can only eat animals we
didn’t kill, consider Deut. 14:21. Was it a sin for the foreigners to eat
meat? Clearly not. And remember what Jesus said in Mat. 15:11.

Romans 2:14 tells us that the Gentiles were not part of the
covenant, but had a law on their hearts nonetheless. Did they rest
on the Sabbath, or eat only kosher food, or refrain from wearing
mixed fabrics? Of course not, because the law on their hearts is the
conscience, not the laws of Moses; see Heb. 7:12, 8:8, and 8:13.

The Bible is quite clear that we’re not under the laws of Moses, so
there can be no appeal to the 6th commandment in defense of the
claim that it’s a sin to eat meat. But what about New Testament
commands such as in Rom. 13:10? Killing is wrong or harm, right?
Jesus himself defined “neighbor” in the parable of the Good
Samaritan in Luke 10:30-37 as a person in need of help and
compassion, and in Mat. 12:11 he states that this applies to animals
as well. So clearly it’s against God’s moral law to cause suffering or
fail to alleviate it when possible.

Then we must ask whether killing an animal causes the animal

suffering. In the case of murdering a person, even if the killing was
quick and painless, the harm is done to the sanctity of human life
and the family of the victim. In contrast, the quick and humane killing
of an animal doesn’t cause suffering. In fact, allowing animals to be
eaten is given by God as a blessing for all mankind in Gen. 9:1-6.
So “love does no harm to its neighbor” does not mean animals can’t
be killed for food.

The Bible teaches Christians to be flexible about eating meat as

shown in Rom. 14:1-4 and 10. Another question also arose over
whether meat offered to idols should be eaten, per 1 Cor. chapters 8
and 10, but the question was never whether any and all meat was
forbidden, only the source or use of it. Remember also that
innocent animals dying for humans began when sin did, even before
animals could be eaten, per Gen. 3:21. Why God did that is a
discussion of its own, but for now, see this list for other references
about eating meat outside of Jewish law.

Conclusion
The Bible makes it clear that it’s not a sin to eat meat, and it’s
neither commanded nor forbidden for Christians. Certainly we’ll
eventually stop eating it, because death will be no more. But in the
meantime, God leaves it up to individual conscience, and the only
sin would be to violate that conscience. So making a law that we
must not eat meat, or even trying to shame people about it, is the
real sin. As Jesus said in Mat. 24:45-51, when he returns he’d better
not find us beating our fellow servants.
We’re free in Christ— not to harm or control each other, but to build
each other up. There’s room for conscience and disagreement, and
with that must come room for grace, tolerance, and compassion.
We need to agree on the essentials of the Gospel of Grace, and if
we think someone’s in error, we should speak to them privately as a
friend and an equal, rather than setting up debates. As the saying
goes, Debate is for de fish.
 Food, Water, and Money
Must Christians observe the Lord’s Supper? Must we practice water
baptism? Must we tithe? Tradition says one thing, and scripture says
another. There are two so-called ordinances of the faith: water
baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and tithing has been mandated by
churches since a few hundred years after the time of Christ (see this
source). As a general principle, to call something a command for
Christians, there must be a clear statement about it, such as rules to
perform it or penalties for not performing it, and it must be directed
at the Body of Christ specifically. Let’s study this in the light of
scripture.

The Lord’s Supper

This event is described in Mat. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke
22:14-20, 1 Cor. 10:16, and 1 Cor. 11:20-34. Jesus said that it was
to be a memorial, but he left the details up to us; no specific year,
day, or time, no presiding official, no instructions on how to conduct
it or even what to eat or drink beyond bread and wine.

Even so, there is clearly more support for this being an ordinance
than for water baptism, yet we still don’t have a command for when,
where, and by whom this is to be done, nor a penalty for not doing it
at all— though there is one for doing it disrespectfully. It cannot save
us, or make us more spiritually mature, or give us better standing in
the Body of Christ. Failure to practice it should never be grounds for
disfellowshiping or shaming any believer.

The habit or tradition of the earliest believers was to “break bread” in

each other’s homes, but it simply refered to sharing meals. We have
a description of a particular memorial meal in 1 Cor. 11, but the only
difference seems to be that the people celebrated some meals as
the memorials. All the Apostle Paul states is that those should be
done with dignity.

For a study on general dietary questions, see Is Eating Meat A sin?

Water Baptism
Take a look at Mat. 3:11, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:38, Acts 10:48, Acts
11:16, Heb. 11:29, and 1 Peter 3:20-21. Yes, in various places it
shows people getting water baptized when saved, but there’s
nothing about a command for all Christians for all time to perform it,
nor a penalty for not performing it. In fact, the point in some of those
passages was to not get into the water, and our baptism is by fire
instead of water. As with the Lord’s Supper, water baptism cannot
save us, or make us more spiritually mature, or give us better
standing in the Body of Christ.

Tithing vs. Giving

There were three tithes in the Old Testament that totaled 23-1/3%
annually, as seen in Num. 18:24 and Deut. 14:22-29:

1. the Levitical tithe for the priests who had no land

2. the Festival tithe for a great national party
3. the Poor tithe for supporting the needy

All tithes were of food (not cash), specifically the best food, for the
nation of Israel, and for those without the means to feed
themselves. But what about Gen. 14:17-20, Malachi 3:9-10, and
Mat. 23:23? Abraham tithed once to a priest, on the spoils of war,
not as a regular habit and on everything he owned. Malachi presents
a scathing denunciation by God against the people of Israel for
breaking the terms of their covenant. There is simply no command
given to the Body of Christ for this, which is why any and all
sermons on tithing come from the Old Testament.

Now let’s look at what the New Testament actually says to followers
of Jesus about giving. In Rom. 6:14, 1 Cor. 16:2,8, 2 Cor. 8:12-15, 2
Cor. 9:6-7, and Col. 3:17, we see that the church is not the
storehouse, the preachers are not the priests, we’re already
supporting the poor, and it’s impossible to “give without compulsion”
when we’re being given guilt trip sermons on not tithing on our gross
income and every little bit of cash we get to live on.

We’ve all heard testimonies from people who tithed and were
blessed. But that’s not giving, it’s investing, because we’re paying
to get something in return. And do we really think God withholds
blessings because we didn’t fork over 10% of our gross pay to a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization? Giving must be free and voluntary,
from the heart and not the calculator. The principle behind it all is in
Col. 3:17: Whatever we do, it should be with pure motives, to honor
God.

We need to clarify a passage that’s frequently mistranlasted: 1 Cor.

16:1. The Greek phrase there is not “the first day of every week” but
“the First of Sabbaths”. This refered to the first Sunday in the Feast
of Weeks, as indicated in verse 8 when the last Sunday, Pentecost,
is mentioned. It was a one-time collection for the people suffering
famine in Jerusalem, not a regular skimming of everyone’s salary or
wages. Tithes were always on increase, meaning profit, which was
from the yield of crops and herds.

Conclusion
We often say that our faith is not a religion but a relationship. Yet by
our actions we say that it is indeed a religion. We ignore Gal. 4:10-
11 and Col. 2:16-17 which specifically reject any sort of liturgical
calendar or religious rites, we put up buildings with a “sanctuary” and
altar (?!), and we usually require memberships for those already a
part of the Body of Christ by virtue of faith in the risen Jesus. The
tune and the lyrics need to match.
 Christians and Government
Governments and national boundaries exist by the command of
God, per Acts 17:26-27 (“…[God] marked out their appointed times
in history and the boundaries of their lands… so that they would
seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him”) and Dan.
2:21 (“…He deposes kings and raises up others…”). But does God
really ordain every government ruler, from the decent to the
despotic? Does this apply only to the figurehead or to every office at
every level? Are Christians ever allowed to defy the state, and if so,
how does this not violate Rom. 13:1-7?

The Questions
Let’s begin by looking at the Romans passage to establish which
authorities are in view. Some believe it refers to church leaders, but
unless one spiritualizes the part about carrying weapons, this cannot
be the case. Neither are church leaders to be feared as agents of
God’s wrath against their fellow believers, since the church is not
appointed to wrath (1 Thes. 5:9) and church leaders do not carry
authority.

We do have an example of the disciples defying Israel’s government

(the Sanhedrin) in Acts 5:29, so there is precedent for disobeying it.
However, this governing body was subservient to Rome, a state no
one would mistake for an example of moral, ethical governance. It is
secular government to which Paul refers in the passages above, and
he calls them “God’s public servants”. There was a temple tax only
levied by Israel, but when combined with “tribute” (secular
government tax) it seems clear that Paul had the Roman
government in mind.
Certainly everyone could agree that a Christian cannot obey any law
that would violate the faith, and many were executed by Rome for
that reason. So how can we resolve this seeming conflict between
what Paul said about secular government, and his own eventual
(and wrongful) death at the hands of that government? Is Paul
saying that God willed for Rome to be brutal and unjust? Does it
mean for us today that if our government uses our taxes to fund
abortion or war, we must support it? Did God actually ordain that the
current treasonous and criminal world leaders should be obeyed by
Christians without protest?

God doesn’t cause sin or tempt people to sin (James 1:13). But he
does raise up or bring down governments and kingdoms, sometimes
to punish others (e.g. Isaiah 10:5-6). Certainly God would and could
take down any wicked government as he saw fit, but he doesn’t
always do so; in fact, the prophecies of the end times require a
whole world filled with evil governments.

The Answers
How does any of this help to answer the question about whether
Christians can oppose or even revolt against any government?
Certainly Peter was not plotting to disband the Sanhedrin, and Paul
was not a subversive against Rome. But in both cases, the injustice
of the governing body was being confronted. They still had to suffer
the consequences of this confrontation, but it was well within their
rights as Christians and citizens to do so. The Romans passage
speaks of the government as only being fearful to those who do evil,
but when the government itself is doing evil, scripture does not teach
or show by example that we’re obligated to comply. In fact, we must
speak up in opposition.

The ramifications of this issue are very important. Some Christians

believe that we must support the government even when it starts
wars, because loyalty to the state means never questioning anything
it does. But this would include supporting abortion for example. How
can it be that we should turn a blind eye to the carnage and
suffering of aggressive wars while (rightly) protesting the slaughter
of unborn children? Conservative Christians see through the double
standard when liberals support abortion but oppose capital
punishment (killing the innocent instead of the guilty), but they seem
blind to the same double standard between war and abortion.

So can and should Christians oppose the government over any and
all unjust laws and actions? Scripture seems to answer in the
affirmative. This does not mean we try to overthrow government,
either our own or someone else’s. Rather, it means we speak up to
defend the oppressed and oppose unjust laws. And when we pray
for secular leaders, it’s so that they won’t oppress us, not to wish
them success in everything they do. To bless the wicked is to curse
the righteous.

Then what of the current situation where, in most countries, the

governments are so thoroughly corrupt and oppressive that there is
no due process, no honest voting, no means of peaceful change?
Some leave the oppressive countries, but the list of non-oppressive
countries shrinks by the day, and there is nowhere for millions of
refugees to go. In the case of Jesus, God told his parents to take
him out of Israel for a time, and God gave them the opportunity and
ability to do so. In the case of Jesus’ prophecy of the fall of
Jerusalem, he told everyone to flee to the mountains (Mat. 24:16).
But here again, there was a divine command, an opportunity, and a
place to go.

Scripturally, it seems that if a wicked government is there by God’s

permission, then only God can tear it down, even by using other
governments, as when Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. Will the western
governments fall? Eventually, yes. But in the meantime, it would
seem clear that Christians must not plot to overthrow them, but
rather keep praying for God to do so, and that we can live in peace
while we wait (1 Tim. 2:1-2). We are to be good citizens to the
extent we’re able (Titus 3:1), yet without engaging in sin. But we also
must stand clearly and strongly against all evil, be willing to speak
out and confront, and be willing to accept the consequences.

Some believe that any form of government is intrinsically evil. They

cite the fact that in scripture most references to governments are
condemnations, and that even Israel’s demand for a king was
against the will of God (1 Sam. 8:6-7). The history of Israel is a
history of kings being killed and replaced, but not even David, who
was rightly and divinely chosen to replace evil Saul, would take by
force what was rightfully his (1 Sam. 24:6-7). Instead, he waited for
God to act, and God acted by making David king in due time. So
God does in fact set up kings and states, though ideally only God
should be the head of any country. But that time is not yet, and for
now we’re under human governments.

What about anarchy?

If we were to be given the opportunity to start over completely, what
should Christians do? Should we set up any government at all? The
problem with anarchy is that the more aggressive and less ethical
are going to wreak havoc on society, such that everyone would have
to keep constant guard over themselves and their property, and
everyone would be a vigilante (but see this video for a defense of
anarchy).

Conclusion
If there must be some form of government, then it’s our obligation to
pray for that government to leave people in peace and bring
evildoers to justice. Every human government will become corrupt in
time; the cycle never ends until God intervenes. Our loyalty as
Christians must always be to God and righteousness above all, not
blindly given to the wicked just because they are the state. Worship
God, not government.
 Controversies

Disputes among professing Christians

 Original Sin
Are people born vile sinners deserving of eternal torment? That is
the teaching of Original Sin, and there is more about this in the
chapter on Calvinism. Below are some claims and rebuttals on the
topic.

Human spirit literally died when Adam and

Eve sinned.
Not one scripture teaches this, expressed or implied. All references
to spiritual death are figurative and indicate separation and captivity.
Adam and Eve became mortal when they ate the fruit, then Adam
was forbidden to eat the remedy (the fruit of the Tree of Life), and
further curses were pronounced on nature, due to his having openly
blamed God for his sin (Gen. 3:12,17-19,22-24). Neither does any
scriptural reference outside of Genesis imply such a concept. Since
those who are in Christ have “died to sin” (Rom. 6:2, 7:9, Col. 2:20),
literal spiritual death would make this mean that Christians are
incapable of sinning.

Everyone was born a sinner, so none of us

can avoid sinning.
Aside from exaggerated expressions of guilt and remorse in poetry,
no scripture teaches this. What it does teach is that death came into
the world because of the first sin (Rom. 5:12), and that though
everyone dies, not all sinned the same as Adam (Rom. 5:14). Since
Adam and Eve sinned in an environment where there was no
suffering and with direct access to God, and since they were not
created with any “sin nature”, then none of those excuses can
explain why they sinned. So there was some other cause, and that
cause was free will. That is, we sin because we choose to. And if
people can sin in an optimal environment, the likelihood of sinning
increases greatly in a hostile environment. We should also note that
Rom. 5:12-21 (esp. 15, 18-19) becomes hopelessly incoherent if we
try to keep to the literal meanings of “all” and “many”; if all without
exception were made sinners, then all without exception were made
righteous.

We sin by choice so we’re responsible and

accountable, in spite of the fact that our
inherited nature can choose nothing else.
If we sin because our nature compels us, then we cannot be held
responsible for it. A moral choice requires the option to sin or not,
rather than simply which sin to commit. And if God gives us this
nature, then God is still the cause of our sin, just as a robot can only
do what it was programmed to do; the programmer cannot escape
responsibility. The teaching that God would create us as sinners, yet
punish us for sinning, is an insult to the holiness and justice of God.
God is love, and nothing God does can operate in a moral vacuum.
God cannot be less just and fair than humans, and even monkeys
know when they’re not being treated fairly (source. Disclaimer: The
article’s references to evolution are neither relevant nor endorsed by
this author.)

Sin is passed down through males, which is

why Jesus could not have a human father.
First of all, there is no “sin gene”, and scripture directly refutes this
claim (Ezk. 18:4,13b,17b, etc.). If spiritual death can be inherited, so
also can spiritual life, meaning the children of saved parents should
be born sinless. It is self-contradictory to believe that only the lost
can pass down their spiritual nature, and absurd to argue that dead
spirits can reproduce at all. If it is then argued that the spirits of
children come from God, this would make God the author of sin. But
rather than throw out God as the creator of souls, we should throw
out the idea of inheritable sin.

Secondly, Jesus’ earthly mother Mary was a sinner like anyone else
(Luke 1:47 “my Savior”) and had a human father like anyone else;
there is nothing in scripture to make her or her parents sinless. The
idea that human flesh is intrinsically evil comes from Gnosticism, not
the Bible (see the chapter on Gnosticism). So since human flesh is
not intrinsically evil, Jesus’ lack of a human father had nothing to do
with inheritable spiritual qualities, and there was no need for Mary to
be sinless. Further, scripture states that Jesus was made in the
resemblance of sinful flesh and like us in every way (Rom. 8:3, Heb.
2:17), while other references state that Jesus was sinless (2 Cor.
5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5). Having eliminated the
claim of inherently evil flesh, the only explanation remaining for
Jesus having no human father was because he is God (Isaiah 9:6,
Mat. 1:23, Heb. 1:3, 8-9), who took on human flesh at a point in time
and became the Son as well (Isaiah 9:6, Phil. 2:5-11, Heb. 1:5-6).

When Adam and Eve sinned, they were no

longer made in the image of God, so no one
else has been made in God’s image since
then. We only acquire that nature when we’re
saved.
Gen. 9:6 and James 3:9 indicate that all people are still made in
God’s image.
Conclusion
The teaching of an inhertiable sin nature did not originate in
scripture, but came instead from the influential teachings of
Augustine who, even after leaving Manichaeism, still held to some of
Mani’s principles (source). A quote from there:

Manichaeism offered Augustine a way to accommodate his conflicts: he could

pursue his career, and retain his partner, while purging his sins through his service
to the pure Elect; and he could blame those sins on his lower, alien nature, which
like the material world had been made by the power of evil, but which his true self
would eventually shed. Manichaeism also responded to his need, instilled by his
childhood, for the name of Christ, and his initial distaste for the Christian scriptures.
He could regard the Bible as a crude and contaminated attempt at the truth,
whereas the Manichaean scriptures offered both the name of Christ and what
seemed to be a profound understanding of the universe and of human life.

Though Augustine eventually left Manichaeism, he retained its

teaching of the sinful nature of mankind. A thorough examination of
this belief can be found here. Augustine argued that if it were unjust
for God to send babies to hell, then it would also be unjust for God
to allow babies to suffer at all. Yet this leads to the conclusion that
God should therefore never have created any being that would defy
him, because some might otherwise choose to do evil and set
consequences in motion that would affect the innocent. So
Augustine’s teaching creates an impossible dilemma: God could not
be just or loving if he gave people free will, yet creating them without
free will would make God responsible for sin.

Augustine’s dilemma is solved by acknowledging that free will

necessarily involves true choice between good and evil, and that
people must either enjoy or suffer the consequences of their— and
others’— choices. Only people free to choose can offer genuine love
and devotion, so God would not create puppets or robots. That is,
the love of God (his nature) requires the free will of people.

But what of the innocent suffering for the sins of others? Justice is
not denied forever; God will eventually compensate everyone
accordingly. Since people cannot help being born in a wicked world
and a body that has physical demands, God offers a genuine choice
for everyone to be generously compensated in eternity. That some
choose to reject this offer is no fault of God’s, and that other choices
besides heaven and hell don’t exist is no denial of justice or mercy.

Free will is a matter of understanding, consent, and genuine choice,

and love cannot be genuine unless given freely. Thus the teaching of
Original Sin stands in direct opposition to the love and justice of
God. Augustine saw it as simply the mirror image of Jesus dying for
us all without our request or consent, yet this is a false comparison,
since Jesus’ death and resurrection do not force anyone to accept
him, but simply make the offer possible. Otherwise we would make
nonsense of scriptures such as Rom. 5:9-10 and 2 Cor. 5:18-20,
which tell us both that we are reconciled and that we must be
reconciled. One person cannot force another to reconcile; by
definition, reconciliation requires the willing, unforced agreement of
both parties. The Bible is replete with God’s injunctions to choose
wisely, which would be rendered a cruel hoax if Original Sin were
true.

If we believe we were born sinners, then we must also believe that

we’re not responsible for our sin; there is no escaping this
conclusion. All of us know that we choose to sin, and we know that
we’re only held responsible for what we choose to do. To know all of
this, yet at the same time cling to what tradition and many (but
certainly not all) scholars teach about Original Sin, is to believe in a
contradiction, and one that cannot be supported by scripture. See
also this source.
 Calvinism
Calvinism is the belief that God chooses which people to save,
rather than offering everyone the free will to decide whether or not
to accept him. It is best known by the acronym TULIP:

1. Total Depravity (a.k.a. Original Sin)

2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

The U, L, and I depend upon T being true. Since people are born
depraved, then God must choose or elect certain ones for salvation
without regard for any merit in them. Jesus only died for those elect,
and they cannot resist the will of God to choose them. We can know
who was chosen only when they persevere in faith to the end of their
lives. This belief system originated with the Roman Catholic Bishop
Augustine. Here is a summary from one source:

Calvin is continually praising Augustine’s work with numerous references and

quotations. Augustine was greatly influenced by the Gnostics, an early Christian sect,
whose doctrine was heretical. Gnostics believed that mankind was wholly evil and
some sects even renounced marriage and procreation. They also believed in two
gods, one evil and one good. Their teachings are believed to have influenced Saint
Augustine in the development of his theology of the “total depravity” of mankind
and his concept of God. For nine years Saint Augustine adhered to Manichaeism, a
Persian dualistic philosophy proclaimed by Mani (216-276? AD) in southern
Babylonia (Iraq) that taught a doctrine of “total depravity” and the claim that they
were the “elect”. Augustine then turned to skepticism and was attracted to the
philosophy of Neoplatonism. He blended these beliefs with his later Gnostic and
Christian teachings. Augustine’s prolific writings were more strongly biased by his
previously obtained theology than on his detailed study of the Christian Scriptures.
 He used Christian Scripture out of context when words or phrases could be adapted
to match his theology. Augustine’s teachings were in turn passed on to John Calvin
through his extensive study of Augustine’s writings. It is very easy to follow the trail
of John Calvin’s theology from the pagan religion of Mani in Babylonia to Saint
Augustine and into his own writings in France and Geneva that distort the Word of
God. Calvin’s false doctrine came directly from Augustine.

Since the whole system depends upon Total Depravity (Original Sin),
it is covered separately under that title. We will examine the other
points here.

Unconditional Election
Various prooftexts are offered to support the claim that God must
select people for salvation. The more common ones are listed below
with rebuttals:

The Greek of Acts 16:14 says that Lydia’s mind (the heart was
believed to be where thoughts occurred) was opened to pay
attention to what Paul was saying; it does not say God forced
Lydia to believe what he said. Is it “quickening” or faith that
comes from hearing the word (Romans 10:17)? God can limit or
increase a person’s perception (see also Luke 24:31-32), but
this does not violate free will because a person is still
responsible for what they understand. The choices may be few
or many, broad or restricted, but we are responsible for
whatever those choices are.
Acts 11:18 also does not say God forced the Gentiles to
believe; it says he granted them the same opportunity as the
Jews. The whole sequence from Peter’s vision to this statement
teaches the fact that, as Paul would later say in Gal. 3:28, “in
Christ there is no Jew or Gentile”.
2 Peter 1:10 tells belivers to confirm that they were called and
chosen; they are elect because they are saved, not saved
because they are elect.
1 Cor. 2:11-14 is not speaking about the ability to accept the
Gospel message but about spiritual truths in general.
John 1:13 is illustrating the difference between physical
procreation and spiritual birth, not that people are incapable of
making spiritual decisions. Verse 12 says “to all who received
him he gave the right to become children of God”, which is
shown in opposition to those of physical birth. So this right to be
spiritually born (regenerated) follows reception, yet Calvinism
claims it precedes it.
John 5:21 says “For as the Father raises the dead and gives
them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to
give it.” But Jesus offers it to everyone, as shown in 2 Peter
3:9: “The Lord… is patient with you, not wanting anyone to
perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” To read anything
else into that verse— that any and all refer only to those chosen
by God to be saved— begs the question.
John 6:39 refers to the security of the believer, which has no
bearing on the issue of predestination. Verse 44 is presumed to
mean that the Father doesn’t draw everyone, even though
Jesus said that he would draw “all” to himself (John 12:32).
Verses 63-65 show his foreknowledge. The “enabled” of verse
65 are the “receptive” of verse 12. 1 Peter 1:3 is not a proof of
predestination, since no one argues that spiritual life is anything
but a gift.
In John 10:29-30 Jesus says not only that “the Father has given
them to me”, but also “I and the Father are one”.
The order of salvation is faith and then life, not the opposite as
Calvinism claims. Romans 10:9 says, “if you confess and
believe you will be saved”. Hebrews 11:6 says that “without faith
it is impossible to please God”, yet Calvinism proposes a
regeneration without faith. In John 3:15 Jesus says that
whoever believes has eternal life. Therefore, whoever does not
believe does not have life. In other words, to not believe is to be
figuratively dead, so life (the new birth) cannot precede belief.
 It is claimed that Eph. 2:1-2 says people are dead in sin, and
the dead can do nothing on their own; they have to first be
regenerated. But aside from the fact that the Greek text really
says “You are all dead to the sins in which you once lived”, this
interpretation cannot be done consistently. Rom. 6:11 says that
we who are saved are dead to sin; does that mean we’re
incapable of sinning? And since we all clearly sin, we’re not as
literally dead as Calvinism claims. It’s ridiculous to argue that
we’re too dead to accept the Gospel, but not dead enough to be
incapable of sinning. Could Lazarus sin while in the grave?

Limited Atonement
According to Calvinism, Jesus only died for the elect, not the whole
world; John 3:16 means all people without distinction, not all people
without exception. But 1 John 2:2 states that Jesus was “the atoning
sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of
the whole world”. Likewise, there is nothing in John 3:16 to put
restrictions or qualifications on “whoever”. In fact, 1 Tim. 2:4 states
that God “is not willing that any should perish, but that all should
come to repentance”. How many times must “whoever”, “any”, and
“all” be redefined in order to argue that it doesn’t mean what it says
in those passages? Look also at Rom. 5:12-15, and try to define “all”
and “many” consistently. If righteousness only came to certain
people, then sin and death only came to certain people; Calvinism
cannot have it both ways.

Consider also the implication of saying that Jesus did not die for the
whole world; it cheapens his blood and sacrifice because the
quantity was irrelevant. One drop of blood, one minute of suffering,
would have sufficed, because the Sacrifice was perfect and sinless.
It’s impossible that any of this could be “wasted”, as Calvinism
alleges would be true if Jesus died for the whole world but the whole
world did not get saved.
Speaking of limitations, Calvinism argues that if God wants everyone
to be saved, but everyone is not saved, then his sovereignty is
violated and his will defied. This is a gross distortion of sovereignty;
God does not have a delicate or fragile ego that cannot stand the
slightest disagreement. Rather, God has the sovereignty to allow us
free will. What God wants is for us to return his love, and love isn’t
genuine if it isn’t free. The love of a will only changed by force would
be a sham.

Irresistible Grace
This claim means that if God wants to save you, you have nothing to
say about it; his saving grace is an irresistable force. There isn’t
much to add here except that it’s completely inferred from the T, U,
and L, not from scripture. Grace is favor from the greater to the
lesser, and like any gift it cannot be forced upon the recipient.
Calvinism sees the act of faith to accept it as a “work”, but Rom.
4:4-5 states that “Now to the one who works, wages are not credited
as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not
work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited
as righteousness.” A person stuck in a well does not save
themselves if they take hold of a rope lowered to them by someone
above. It’s their choice whether to accept the offer, but no one
credits them with saving themselves. Instead, the rescued person is
grateful.

Perseverance of the Saints

While this point doesn’t necessarily depend on the others and isn’t
unique to Calvinism, it still isn’t a scriptural teaching. Assurance of
salvation is clearly taught in passages such as 2 Cor. 5:5, Eph. 1:13-
15, and 1 John 5:13. The objection then is that this leads to “a
license to sin”, but Rom. 6:1-4 explains that we have “died to sin and
cannot live in it any longer”. How can we accept salvation by grace
without humility and gratitude? How can we then live in defiance of
what God has told us pleases him? How can we not understand that
we’ve been adopted by God and are no longer “our own” (1 Cor.
7:23), meaning we cannot choose to take ourselves away from
God? And lest the Calvinist claim that we have abandoned free will
here, let them remember that our freedom is to make this choice of
adoption. Just as toothpaste squeezed out of the tube can’t be put
back inside it, our acceptance of the gift of eternal life cannot be
undone. At the end of this study is a long list of all the changes that
happen to us the moment we’re saved, and all of those things would
have to be undone in order for salvation to be lost.

Conclusion
Everything Calvinism believes hinges upon us all being born
spiritually dead, and upon a distorted definition of the sovereignty of
God. Because of that foundation, a very complex theological system
is required in order to explain away clear passages about the love of
God, the free will of people, and the fact that salvation is a gift
received by the free exercise of faith. Most of its proof-texts depend
upon extensive and inconsistent definitions and reading into the text
whatever its theology requires; that is, it is circular and fallacious.
Taken to its logical conclusion, Calvinism maligns the character of
God to the point where he more resembles the raw sovereignty of
Satan— a fact which is not lost on critics of the faith.

But what’s the point of arguing about the lack of free will? Isn’t that
self-defeating for Calvinism, since the will of God cannot be resisted
or changed? What difference does it make whether anyone believes
in Calvinism, if God will do as he has predetermined regardless? The
fact that Calvinists argue, and with such ferocity, is proof that they
really do believe in free will. Otherwise they would have to admit that
God is forcing them— and their opponents— to act out what is
essentially a puppet show. Calvinism obfuscates the simple gospel of
salvation by faith and needlessly divides believers.
Responsibility and free will cannot be separated. If one is held
responsible for sin, one must have had the capacity not to sin. And
since Calvinism holds people responsible for sin, then it must also
grant them the ability not to sin. It is fallacious to argue that God
gave us a “sin nature” yet isn’t responsible for what we do with it,
which we cannot help but do. If we had no free will, then God could
not hold us responsible for what we do or shift the blame for what he
himself created us to do. So to say we have no free will is to blame
God for sin and evil. Only if we’re free to choose between good and
evil can we be capable of loving God or responsible for sinning
against him.

Finally, consider Luke 5:32 which says, “I have not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Why would Jesus refer to the
elect as sinners, but the non-elect as righteous? Or is Jesus
mocking the reprobate (the unchosen) by calling them to do that
which God made impossible? See also 11 Questions on Calvinism,
and this debate.
 Calvinism to Universalism
There are many similiarities between Calvinism and Universalism.
There is also a trajectory from Calvinism to Universalism due to the
central belief they have in common: Unconditional Election (God
decides whom to save, whether some or all). Let’s begin with the
similarities:

Either God’s holiness makes no allowance for his love, or his

love makes no allowance for his holiness.
God forces either some or all people love him eventually.
Evangelism really doesn’t matter, since either all the elect or all
people are guaranteed to be saved.
Prayer really doesn’t matter, since God will always do what he
has decreed, which is either arbitrary election or universal
election.
There is no free will to reject God, since God will do whatever is
necessary to turn either some or all people toward him.

Many more comparisons could be made, but the point is that in both
systems God forces people to accept him, regardless of the means
or time it may take. The end result is inevitable, whether it applies to
some or to all. In addition, both systems have internal
inconsistencies and disturbing conclusions:

Calvinism: If most will spend eternity in hell because God is

sovereign, then God is a cold-blooded monster. If God gives
most people false hope by commanding the gospel to be spread
to those he had reprobated, then God is a deceiver. If God fills
the scriptures with commands for us to choose while knowing all
the while that we have no such ability, then God is psychotic
and wicked.
Universalism: If no one will spend eternity in hell because God is
love, then any and all suffering of any duration should never
 happen. Either suffering is compatible with God’s love or it isn’t,
regardless of whether that suffering is temporary or eternal.
Would a loving God allow babies to die of disease, hunger, or
violence? Also for annihilationism: How is either love or justice
served by ending people’s existence, since a loving God would
have chosen not to make anyone who would reject him—
meaning God is the worst kind of “fair weather friend”?

Unbelievers have long ago seen through these problems. If God is

love then he is not sovereign (evil obviously happens, so God must
be powerless to stop it), but if he is sovereign then he is not love (he
is able to stop evil from happening but chooses not to). Both beliefs
simply ignore the contradictions and logical conclusions, while anti-
theists declare that God cannot possibly exist because he is self-
contradictory. I encourage you to take a look at Calvinism leads to
universalism and the excellent conversation following. One comment
seemed particularly well-stated in exposing unconditional election as
the common root of both views:

As English Puritanism evolved, it did lead to unitarian universalism, in both the US

and England, and rather quickly. Part of this is due to its emphasis on the role of
election. Rather than the emphasis being on choice (which emphasis I see all over
the pages of the New Testament), the imbalanced emphasis on election seems
directly related to a universalizing trajectory. I simply do not think the moral
intuitions of men and women can sustain at one and the same time election as
Calvinists understand it and the moral life of choosing. If they do not give up on
teaching election traditionally taught, then they cannot for long live with the
conclusion that we were born to go to hell and only a few born to go to heaven. This
is too morally repugnant to keep present to the soul as a continual theme. It is
interesting how long people will hold on to the doctrine of election (traditionally
conceived), even if it leads to universalism, a strange situation. (edited)

So it would seem that to put God in any kind of vacuum (love or

sovereignty) is a self-defeating position. But what happens if we
remove God from the contrived vacuums? Many have tried and
failed to reconcile both the sovereignty and love of God, but debates
such as this never seemed to have been deemed of great
importance to the apostles. Can it be possible that they considered
such questions rather like a fish pondering the existence of water?
The answer is love, very well-stated in yet another comment at that
article:

I would preserve free will, even if I were allowed to choose between election of all to
heaven and free will with not all saved, for the same reason that God did: One
cannot have a real relationship of love without the possibility of rejection and of
choosing the loved even in the face of difficulty. I think that love is the higher and
more primary rationale over moral responsibility, and that moral responsibility is the
corollary of freely willed love. That is, it is necessary to make how God deals with
rejection of his love (i.e., hell, annihilation) moral.

One might expect the Universalist to see that love isn’t love if it isn’t
free, and if it’s free then it must allow love to be rejected. Yet one
might also expect the Calvinist to see that if God is truly sovereign
then he has the right to allow people to have free will, and he can
even let them influence his decisions or actions. And one might also
expect the anti-theist to see that only a loving God would, in spite of
his sovereignty, allow his creatures to defy him and reject his love.

In the Bible, God is described as sovereign, just, holy, etc., but love
is the only thing he is said to be; God doesn’t merely have love, he
is love. Therefore, his sovereignty can never operate without it.
Justice and mercy are not incompatible but complementary; each by
itself would deny the nature of God. Jesus’ sacrifice is what allowed
mercy without violating justice. So there will be ultimate justice as
well as ultimate mercy, and which we receive depends completely on
our personal choice regarding the love of God extended by grace
through faith in the risen Jesus.

But keep in mind that all these things extend beyond this life; justice
isn’t denied forever though it may be delayed. Yet at the same time,
even eternity isn’t guaranteed to change people from rejecting God
to accepting him. It’s quite probable that this particular choice will be
denied once we leave earth; otherwise we have to concede that
people could choose to reject God after having been in heaven.

The objection then arises, “But that’s crazy! Nobody in hell would
choose to stay there, and nobody in heaven would choose to leave.”
Yet we know from experience that this is not true; many who have
been in prison are released only to commit their crimes again and be
sent right back. Anti-theists tend to take the attitude that to bow to
God is far more distasteful than the agonies of hell, and some have
stated openly that they would never regret their choice. (This was
actually the point of an early episode of Star Trek called The
Menagerie: “Humans’ history shows them to have a hatred for
captivity, even if it is pleasant and benevolent.”) Of course nobody
wants to suffer, but given a choice between suffering and bowing to
God, many people’s pride is so great that they would prefer
suffering. This may be at least part of what the Bible means by “the
secret of lawlessness” (2 Thes. 2:7). And it is the sin of pride which
made Satan what he is, and will be forever.

At the heart of such choices, besides pride, is really faith. The

Christian trusts God to be like a father rather than a slave owner,
while the unbeliever trusts that either there is no afterlife or it won’t
be like the Bible says it will. The Christian trusts that there will be
justice at last for victims and soothing for the oppressed, while the
anti-theist isn’t concerned about unpunished evildoers or innocent
victims.

But what about the Calvinist and the Universalist? They fare no
better than the anti-theist, because the Calvinist denies the injustice
of sending babies to hell while the Universalist denies the injustice of
sending murderers to heaven. The fact is that all three perspectives
fail to follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions, and all three
have a distorted definition of love and power.
This life is a test and the world is under the temporary juristiction of
Satan (John 12:31, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, 1 John 5:19). We should
expect only bad things to happen here, but the fact that good things
happen too is proof that God still puts limits on Satan’s sovereignty,
stolen by trickery as it was. Our task is to choose where to put our
faith and to have that faith tested, and we cannot demand a chance
to change our answers after the test has been graded since that
would be most unfair to those who passed it legitimately.

When you consider where the arguments lead and test them for
consistency, you have a choice to make. If we love the lost we will
do everything we can to implore them to reconcile with God through
Jesus, because terrible times are about to come to the earth; Jesus
told of a time when “there will be great distress, unequaled from the
beginning of the world until now— and never to be equaled again”
(Mat. 24:21). If God is love, sovereign, just, merciful, and holy— not
just a few of those but all of them— then we can only conclude that
the time of choosing is temporary:

So while it is still called Today, if you hear his voice don’t harden your hearts… And
who did he swear would never enter his rest? The disbelieving. Now we can see that
they were not able to enter because of distrust. So then, beware that while the
promise of entering his rest is left open you are not left out, because we too have
been brought the good news. But hearing the word did them no good because it was
not mixed with faith. (Heb. 3:15-4:2)

Calvinism must come to grips with the damage it does to the love of
God, and Universalism must come to grips with the damage it does
to the holiness of God. Focus on the love of God and remember that
love must be free; this will answer any objection about various
scriptures typically offered as proof that God is unloving, weak, or
self-contradictory. We cannot watch people run toward the edge of a
cliff and do nothing to warn them, or to deny that they’ll fall to their
deaths; we must speak the whole truth if we care. But above all, we
must know the God we worship.
 Universalism
Universalism teaches that all souls will eventually go to heaven,
rather than being destroyed (annihilationism) or being conscious of
eternal torment. We will examine this teaching and see if it holds up
to both scripture and reason.

Universalism claims that a loving God would not demand payment to

reconcile, especially with blood; what decent person demands
restitution for a broken relationship? This objection ignores the fact
that there is more going on here than reconciliation; there is also
redemption (Gal. 4:5, Titus 2:14, 1 Peter 1:18) and ransom (Mat.
20:28, 1 Tim. 2:6, Heb. 9:15). When Adam and Eve sinned, they
essentially “left home” and renounced God as their Father, selling
themselves and all their offspring into the orphanage of sin. But
Jesus came to be the way back to God by buying back the world
with his own blood. Rather than this being a case of a bloodthirsty
god or an abusive person who requires payment for the relationship,
it is the rescue of all humanity from an evil abductor and hostile
kingdom.

Universalism argues that no one can pay for someone else’s sins
(Ps. 49:7), so Jesus was not being punished but only giving an
example. However, in John 15:13 we see that Jesus said he did in
fact lay down his life for others, and 1 John 2:2 states that he was
“the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.” Isaiah 53 also
clearly describes the punishment Jesus took for everyone. Yet this is
not at all equivalent to one citizen taking a criminal sentence for
another, but like a parent paying the penalty incurred by their child.
The child is not liable or able to pay it yet the victim must be
compensated. So it is with Jesus’ sacrifice; he paid what we could
not. The price for our adoption was too high for us, and adoptions
are always paid by the parents rather than the orphans.
Universalism teaches that God will forgive everyone, because Jesus
paid for all sin whether they know he did or not. Yet Scripture clearly
states that salvation is by faith in the risen Jesus (Eph. 2:8-9).
Those who rejected him in this life are demanding to be separated
from him for all eternity, and God will reluctantly grant their demand
(Ezk. 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9).

As for those who didn’t know, Rom. 1:18-32 and Acts 17:30 show
that everyone has the evidence they need for proof that there is a
God, but spreading the gospel (good news) about Jesus is our
command to carry out (Mat. 28:19-20). Yet even if we fail, we know
God will be fair, just, and compassionate to those who truly had no
way of knowing about Jesus. We also see in the Gospels and Acts
many instances where God heard the prayers of those honestly
seeking him, and he sent people to tell them the gospel. All who
have the mental capacity to grasp the concepts of right and wrong
must choose, and we can trust God to make sure all who seek him
will hear the gospel. Jesus bought us all a gift, but a gift cannot be
forced on anyone. And besides all of that, how loving would it be to
give a murderer the same eternal life as their victim? Love does not
do away with justice, because God is both loving and holy.

But doesn’t this mean that accepting Jesus is unnecessary, since

those who either can’t understand the gospel or never heard it will
go to heaven anyway? Wouldn’t it be better not to make them
responsible by telling them the gospel? Remember that it is Jesus
who commanded us to spread the gospel; why the command was
given is not for us to judge.

Another Universalism argument is that God would never base

salvation on what we believe or which god we follow; what matters is
whether we’re sincere and do good things. But John 3:14-18 says
the opposite: It is faith in Jesus— not our own righteousness— that
saves us. Certainly anyone who has reconciled to God through faith
in Jesus will want to please him by doing good, and those who claim
to belong to Jesus but do evil are either lying or very misguided; see
Rom. 6:1-2, 7:4-6.

Universalism claims that as long as someone says they love Jesus

and trust him to save them, they must be considered Christians, no
matter what else they may believe or what other gods they honor.
But the gospel is not just believing in any claimed Jesus or Christ.
We must put our trust in the Jesus who died for us (Mat. 16:21,
17:22, 1 John 2:2, 4:10), who rose from the dead as predicted (Acts
17:30-31, 1 Cor. 15:1-5), who is God in the flesh (Col. 2:9), who was
worshiped as God (Mt. 2:11, 14:33, 28:9,17, John 9:35-38, Heb.
1:6), and who will return for his people (John 14:1-3, Acts 1:11). God
also said in the Old Testament that there is no other God (Isaiah
42:8-9, 45:5,18,22, 46:9). So any God or Jesus who does not share
all these attributes is a fake, and the true God/Jesus cannot be
joined to the false.

Another argument is that a loving God would never send anyone to

eternal punishment, not even Satan. Yet by that standard, a loving
God would never allow any temporary suffering either, even in this
life. Satan was the highest created being, perfect and beautiful, yet
he rebelled against God though he had never experienced suffering
and knew God was real. There is no excuse for that.

Universalism argues that temporary suffering will eventually get the

lost to turn to God for relief, and then they will be saved. But would a
loving God value a confession made under duress? Not even human
courts accept this. And would a loving God say to anyone, “I am
going to torment you until you love me”? This is not how healthy
relationships work, which Universalists of all people should
understand.

Another argument is that nobody would choose eternal suffering

over eternal bliss with God in heaven, so it would have to be God
sending them there, not their own choice. Yet there are sane people
who hate God and have said they’d rather suffer for eternity than
worship him. God has explicitly stated that he doesn’t want this for
anyone (Ezek. 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9), but there has to be a place for
those who do not want to spend eternity with him. And since God is
the source of all good, then the place of “not God” must be the place
of nothing good.

Universalism insists that no one in heaven could be happy knowing

their loved ones are in eternal conscious torment or forever
destroyed. But who is to say that God is incapable of taking away
painful memories? Everything we see of the beings in heaven is
joyful praise to God, including for the fact that God punishes the
wicked and avenges his children (Deut. 32:35, Psalm 79:10, Rev.
6:10, 11:18), without any allowance for those the righteous might
miss.

Conclusion
If Universalsim is true, then no one should ever have had to suffer at
all, there was no need for Jesus to die or rise again, there is no
need to spread the gospel, and there is no point in being a Christian
at all. If what people believe is irrelevant, then all Christian martyrs
have died in vain, and every Christian missionary has only been
needlessly laying responsibility on people.

If Universalsim is true then all gods are the same, so God is

hopelessly self-contradictory and cannot exist. It’s like saying
someone went to the hardware store when they really went to the
grocery store, since both are buildings were goods are sold.
Differences matter.

If Universalism is true, then the Gospel is not, because they are

mutually exclusive and cannot both be true at the same time. Not
every binary is false or bad. And if the Gospel is true, then it is
imperative that Christians try to convince (by persuasion, not force
or trickery) as many people as possible to believe the same as we
do. Universalism makes everything irrelevant and pointless.
 Conditionalism
In The Nature of Hell: An Eternal Punishment or Eternal Torment?,
respected prophecy teacher Dr. David Reagan offers what he calls
the conditionalist view of the fate of the lost, as opposed to what
he terms the traditionalist view. His presentation of both views will
be briefly summarized, and then a counter-argument to his
conclusion will be offered. For convenience, traditionalist will be
abbreviated as TRAD, and conditionalist as COND. Likewise, Old
and New Testament will be abbreviated as OT and NT respectively.

Dr. Reagan begins with some definitions of various terms in scripture

used for the place of the dead. The OT does not say much about it
beyond poetic expression and passing reference, and we certainly
wouldn’t want to get precise theology about it from there. But we are
given more detail and precision in the NT, which Dr. Reagan explains
in the article. The most important detail in his description is that he
equates hell with the Lake of Fire, a permanent prison originally
designed for the devil and his angels.

Then Dr. Reagan prefaces his case with the acknowledgment that
regardless of the differences in the two views, hell is a terrible place
that should be avoided by any means. Yet there is a problem with
the logic of a temporary punishment: If the lost are ultimately to be
destroyed, what is the purpose of the suffering? We will return to
this central question later. Above all, he stresses the fact that this is
not an issue over which Christians should divide or retain hostility
toward each other.

Before Dr. Reagan examines the duration of hell, he gives a fair and
accurate description of TRAD. But then he questions the willingness
of TRAD to consider other viewpoints, due to their being held by
many cults denying the reality of hell completely. But his assertion
that fear is the reason TRAD will not “dare to challenge” its own view
must be challenged. Dr. Reagan has already acknowledged the
quality and faithfulness of TRAD believers, which makes this
questioning of their character inconsistent. Many do indeed question
their own beliefs and reach their conclusions out of such
examinations rather than fear. The mere fact that one may change
their mind does not make the former belief erroneous. This entire
point is not only unfair to TRAD believers, but also irrelevant; it is the
teaching that is being questioned, not the teachers.

Now Dr. Reagan begins to examine the difficulties he sees with

TRAD teachings. He sees TRAD as impugning the character of God,
as he deems eternal torment incompatible with the love and justice
of God, turning him into “a cosmic sadist”. Yet one could as easily
accuse God of such sadism by a cursory glance at human history,
which is filled with the suffering of the innocent. Critics of our faith
point to the pervasive evil of the world as proof that God is indeed
sadistic, or at least indifferent, if they believe he exists at all. Who
would say that ten years of torture, rape, neglect, or other suffering
is in any way better or less sadistic than ten million years of such
suffering? The duration is irrelevant.

Dr. Reagan then cites several OT examples of God immediately

destroying people without first making them suffer, arguing that this
proves God does not ever engage in prolonged torment of his
enemies. Points are well taken that God never ordered the torture of
criminals, and even animal sacrifices were to be done quickly and
humanely… but of course, animals were not sinners, so this doesn’t
bolster the argument.

Yet those same ancient laws also ordered “an eye for an eye”, a
cost to be paid, even if the loss or injury was due to negligence.
Taking someone’s eye certainly causes more than momentary
suffering. Granted that the eye is not continuously plucked out, but
the one losing the eye will never get it back and must suffer the rest
of their natural life without it. And how much punishment did the
nation of Israel endure whenever they defied God? Generations of
them suffered the wrath of God all their lives for deeds done by their
ancestors. Clearly, God’s judgments are not always quick and short-
lived.

Dr. Reagan then argues that the term “second death” conflicts with
TRAD. But the conflict is really with the definiton of death he is
using. Certainly the death of a physical body causes it to
decompose, yet it is never completely gone. But if death means
separation, the conflict disappears. At physical death the body is
separated from the spirit, but at spiritual death (which TRAD defines
as “second”) the spirit is separated from God forever. Dr. Reagan
notes that the term “second death” only appears in Revelation, but
that same book also states that it is the Lake of Fire itself (Rev.
20:14, 21:8), which includes the souls of those who took the Mark of
the Beast, the Beast itself, and the False Prophet. Since the torment
of the latter is conscious and eternal, there is no justification for
saying that the human souls in that same place will not suffer
eternally and consciously as well, though Dr. Reagan will argue to
the contrary.

Next is a discussion of the word “destruction”, which in essence is

no different from that of the word “death”. If, as Dr. Reagan argues,
hell is the Lake of Fire, we have already seen that this place allows
eternal conscious suffering in spite of terms like “death” and
“destruction”. He also cites the phrase “eternal destruction” from 2
Thes. 1:9 as meaning “eternally destroyed, not eternally being
destroyed”. But is there any such thing as being temporarily
destroyed? If destruction means permanent nonexistence, then
prefacing it with “eternal” is redundant. At any rate, this passage is
simply saying that God will wreak vengeance on his enemies, and it
must be considered along with all other teachings about the fate of
the lost.

Dr. Reagan makes a similar argument with regards to the word

“punish”, such that eternal punishment is not the same as eternal
punishing. Yet if one ceases to exist, one is not being punished
eternally. The fact that it’s called punishment tells us that it’s being
experienced by someone, and when prefaced by “eternal” the
meaning is inescapable. The -ing suffix does not change this. This
becomes clearer if we say something like “The judgment against the
traitor was eternal banishment from the country”. Would the duration
of the banishment change if instead the word had been “banishing”?
Not at all, since banishment is a state of being that does not require
the judge to keep banishing the traitor forever.

Dr. Reagan unwittingly supports this counter-argument in noting that

“Likewise, the Bible speaks of eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12).
But this does not mean that Christ will continue the act of
redemption eternally.” Since our redemption was accomplished
“once for all” yet has continuing consequences, so also does the
“punishment” of the wicked have lasting consequences. Dr. Reagan
is arguing that the consequences are simply that the wicked cease
to exist, but lack of existence cannot be made to mean
“punishment”. Granted that capital punishment means the criminal
no longer exists in our physical world, but we cannot arbitrarily apply
the physical to the spiritual. Calvinism makes the same error when it
takes spiritual death as exactly like physical death, in that the
physically dead cannot hear or see (or sin, if they were consistent
with their analogy).

Then Dr. Reagan makes the same argument as standard

Annihilationism: that “the smoke of their torment rises forever” only
means the smoke, not the torment. But smoke is a result, not a
cause; that is, it indicates something being burned. If the smoke
rises forever, so also must the burning go on forever. And if the
burning goes on forever, there must be something forever being
burned. We might see this problem more clearly by citing “the sign
of the Son of Man”; surely where the sign is, so also is the Son of
Man. Or as the saying goes, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.
Again Dr. Reagan argues, as does Annihilationism, that this all
speaks of consequences rather than continual punishment. Yet we
have already presented the counter-argument that as with
banishment, punishment is a state of being rather than a mere
result.

Next Dr. Reagan argues that the human soul/spirit is not immortal in
its created state, but that it only becomes eternal at salvation (no
attempt is made to explain how the souls of those who die as babies
go to heaven). He cites 1 Tim. 6:15-16 as proof that only God is
immortal, yet this would defeat his own argument as well, since it’s
in the present tense (God is, not was). This claim would also
contradict the earlier admission that the fallen angels will suffer
forever. Clearly Paul is saying that only God had no beginning, not
that only God will live forever.

It’s never wise to base an argument on a single verse, and Dr.

Reagan offers nothing else to support this one about mortal souls.
And if only the redeemed have eternal souls, then who are the dead
that are raised and judged and sent to the Lake of Fire? If their
souls are as mortal as their bodies, then why don’t their souls die at
the same time as their bodies? What purpose would a non-sadistic
God have in making their souls live in torment for either a minute or
a millennium (or more, depending on exactly when in human history
they died), raise them up to be judged, and then annihilate them in
fire? This argument for COND is no improvement at all over TRAD.
There is no sense in punishing the wicked if they are to be
annihilated, just as there’s no sense in punishing a criminal who is to
be put to death. Of course some societies do this anyway, but it has
nothing to do with justice or protecting society, but only the sadism
of the punishers. Yet COND would make God equally sadistic.

Dr. Reagan makes a brief appeal to historical concepts both in

scripture and outside of it, but this again is irrelevant if we want to
study scripture. All kinds of ideas can be found among professing
believers of all ages, and mere proximity to the time of Christ is no
guarantee of orthodoxy. After all, Paul wrote much of the NT in an
effort to combat false teachings in his own day. So as Dr. Reagan
admitted, history cannot help us in this regard. Yet it wouldn’t have
mattered anyway, since it’s not history but scripture that carries the
authority to teach us the fate of the lost. Even if all Christian writings
after the last NT book was written supported COND, they would not
carry any authority in this debate.

If we end the rebuttal to this challenge of TRAD as it began— with a

question about the character of God— then we would argue that the
honor of God is not salvaged by having him first torment souls, then
pronounce judgment, and then wipe them out. Though the fallen
angels are eternal beings who will spend eternity in conscious
suffering, they too had a beginning, just as humans do. So if the
character of God is sullied by the eternal suffering of one group of
beings who had a beginning, then it’s also sullied if the same holds
true for the other group of beings. Since Dr. Reagan acknowledges
the eternal conscious torment of fallen angels, then he cannot justify
rejecting the same for fallen humans by claiming that unregenerate
human souls are mortal.

Dr. Reagan is highly respected, and many have learned much from
his material on eschatology over the years. He has also made his
teachings available for free online. What is being challenged here is
not his character or faithfulness as a Christian, but only his position
on this particular matter. He is certainly not the only popular Bible
teacher to change positions on a topic, and not the only one who
has moved from a valid position to an invalid one.

Certainly we can disagree on this topic, but those who are teachers
are held to a higher standard (James 3:1). Ideas do have
consequences, and many see the TRAD view as repugnant and
turning the lost away from salvation. But the Gospel itself is such a
“stumbling stone”, and any judgment from God even in this life is
often cited as the reason people turn away from Jesus. So this
reaction in itself is not a reason to reject a teaching. What matters is
whether God values justice as much as mercy, holiness as much as
compassion, and love for the victims as much as love for the
perpetrators.
 Annihilationism
Annihilationism teaches that the souls/spirits of those who reject
God are to be annihilated, completely destroyed, never suffering
eternal torment. But is that what the Bible teaches?

Key Words
The teaching of Annihilationism centers around two key Greek
words, one of which is usually translated eternal, and the other
destruction. We need to take a close look at those words before we
can build a teaching on them.

There was no Greek word for eternity or everlasting. Instead it was

expressed as ages with the Greek word aionois; see Biblehub.
Some count 60 or 70 occurrences of the word in the New
Testament. Quoting Tektonics,

51 of these refer to the unending happiness of the righteous; 2 refer to the duration
of God in His glory; 6 indicate an endless amount of time in other contexts; and 7
appear in reference to the punishment of the wicked.

The Greek word for destruction is apollumi; see Biblehub. There are
around 90 occurrences of the word, and the overall usage indicates
the idea of that which cannot return to its former place or condition.
It is an exclusion rather than disintegration or being wiped out of
existence. In contrast, the word λυω (2 Peter 3:11) means loosened,
disintegrated, dissolved, and διαφθειρω (Rev. 8:9) means rotted,
decayed. In both those cases, it’s things being destroyed, rather
than people or souls.
Scriptural References to the Afterlife
The Old Testament says relatively little about the afterlife and does
not present a thorough, developed doctrine about it. So we will focus
on the New Testament’s statements in various contexts. Here is a
list of the most pertinent references to the fate of the unrighteous
dead, and to take them all as metaphors is to beg the question.

Mat. 22:13 weeping/teeth gnashing, cast out of kingdom

Mat. 24:51 assigned a place with the hypocrites
Mat. 25:46 the same αιωνιος duration for both life and
punishment
Luke 13:27 outer darkness
Acts 24:15 both righteous and wicked will be raised
2 Thes. 1:9 αιωνιος ολεθρος (age-long ruin) away from
presence of Lord
Jude 13 blackest darkness rather than nothingness
Rev. 14:11 no rest day or night for those who worship beast and
take its mark
Rev. 20:10 devil/angels in lake of fire and tormented αιωνιος
Rev. 22:15 outside are despised, miserable people

In addition to those, compare Mt. 10:28/Luke 12:4-5 [fear him who

can apollumi soul and body], with Luke 15:4 [has 100 sheep and one
is apollumi]. Both use the same Greek word; did one sheep get
utterly destroyed? Of course not; the lost sheep continued to exist
even while in a state of being lost. See also Mat. 15:24, where Jesus
came to the apollumi sheep of Israel, or Luke 19:10 where Jesus
came to seek and save the apollumi, or Luke 15:32 where the
prodigal son was apollumi and then was found.

Now if a person thrown into fire dies, then isn't their soul also
immediately destroyed? If not, why not? Why make them conscious
of suffering even for a limited time? And what kind of God would
wake the dead just to judge their works (Rev. 20:11-15) and then
annihilate them? How does that show God’s holiness and justice,
rather than sadistic pleasure in torturing people before he destroys
them? How is Annihilationism an improvement over eternal
conscious torment, on the basis of compatibility with a loving God?

Consider also what the purpose of an allegory is. For example, Rev.
5:8 shows that literal incense symbolizes literal prayer. Then why
can we not also say that literal fire/smoke symbolizes literal
suffering? Does scripture ever say that eternal torment is exactly like
fire in every respect? That is a gross misunderstanding of allegory in
general.

Implications to the Gospel Message

How does Annihilationism affect the Gospel? Here is a hypothetical
conversation to illustrate the problem arising from this teaching. Alex
is an atheist, and Chris is a Christian.

Chris: You need to trust Jesus to save you.

Alex: Why? Save me from what?

Chris: Eternal separation from God.

Alex: Why is that bad?

Chris: Don't you want to spend eternity in happiness?

Alex: Not sure, what are all the choices?

Chris: Well, the only other choice is to be completely

destroyed.

Alex: Wait, are you saying there’s no eternal torment?

Chris: Exactly, that’s a false teaching to scare people.

Alex: So if I'll be destroyed, so what? I already believe that.

Chris: But don't you want to be happy forever?

Alex: If I'm destroyed, I won't know I'm not happy.

Chris: Wouldn't you rather keep living and be happy?

Alex: Not if it means I can't live how I want here and now. Don't
Christians suffer persecution for their faith?

Chris: Yes, sometimes, but it’s totally worth it to get eternal

happiness.

Alex: So I should suffer persecution and give up control of my

life to someone I can't even prove exists, instead of living how I
want and even getting away with murder, since I'll just go to
sleep and never wake up?

Chris: Okay, let me explain it this way: You're a kid and your
parents offer to take you to a theme park. You've never been
there so you say 'no'. They say you don't know what you'd be
missing, it'll be fun. You say no, I'd rather play with my friends
and do whatever I want all day. See, you'd never know the fun
you could have had, because you wanted to stick to what you're
used to.

Alex: You left out the part where if I go to the theme park, I'll
spend most of the day in the hot sun, dying of thirst, waiting in
long lines, hardly eating anything because the food is
overpriced.

Chris: But... the rides, the prizes, the souveniers! And don't you
want to please your parents, who love you enough to make the
offer?

Alex: Not if it means being miserable most of the time.

 Chris: But when you get to heaven you'll be with people you
love. We can't even imagine how awesome it will be!

Alex: But you're telling me I won't even know what I'm missing.
Seems to me that the only people who will suffer are the ones in
heaven who remember me.

What would you choose?

1. Suffer now, be happy for eternity.

2. Be happy now, knowing you won't be aware of any eternal
consequences since you just go to sleep and never wake up. As
a saying from the 1970s goes, “Do unto others— then split!”
Those who get away with injustice in this life will never be held
to account.

Conclusion
The reason separation from God is bad, is because all that is good
comes from God. God doesn't send people to eternal torment, they
demand it, because they want nothing that comes from God. God
isn't just love, he is also holy and just. There will be a judgment day
for a reason.

Above all, we as Christians must remember that eternal conscious

torment is our motivation to spread the Gospel, never other
people’s motivation to accept it. Salvation is reconciliation and
adoption through faith in the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 2 Cor. 5:18-
21), which can never be forced or coerced, and especially not by
means of fear tactics or deal-making.

Further reading
Please note that this is not an endorsement of all material at these
external websites.

Eternal torment or annihilation?

Annihilationism: An Unbiblical Doctrine
 Dispensationalism
Good reading comprehension means considering many layers of
context: writer, genre, topic, language, culture, etc. This is especially
important when reading the Bible, and it must be applied
consistently. To neglect this approach, especially by ignoring genre
and treating everything as allegory or symbolism, is to make Bible
study less about finding out what God is telling us, and more about
what we can make the Bible mean.

By using the principles of reading comprehension, Dispensationalism

simply recognizes how God’s ways of dealing with people have gone
through a series of stages or dispensations, two of which remain at
this time. This is not to say that God could ever change, since the
scriptures expressly say otherwise, and since anyone can change
their ways of doing things without changing who they are. This is
also not to say that need for faith in God has ever changed, just the
conditions and security of what it means to be “saved” or considered
righteous.

The Seven Dispensations

Although authors differ on the exact number and duration of the
dispensations, we will use the common one which contains seven
ages from the creation of Adam to the end of the Millennium. These
ages are marked by a change with respect to sin and people’s
responsibility, and can be seen as a series of tests by God. Each
dispensation is listed below, with the condition of its end:

Innocence ---> Death

Conscience ---> Deluge
Authority ---> Dispersion
Promise ---> Desertion
 Law ---> Delay
Grace ---> Devastation
Christ’s Rule ---> Defeat

Innocence
This dispensation begins with the creation of Adam and Eve as
innocents. They had not yet disobeyed God and everything God
created was “very good”. But as sentient beings, they had the
capacity to either obey God or defy him. Some will say that God put
the one restriction against eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil to tempt them, but the scriptures clearly say that God
tempts no one. Their potential for sin came from their sentience,
their free will. So in theory they could have sinned by disobeying any
of God’s commands, which included managing the earth and
“multiplying”. But they failed to obey God in everything, and at the
moment of that first sin innocence was lost. People could no longer
enjoy direct communion with God, and physical death would be the
fate of the first humans and all their offspring. The consequence of
sin was mortality (death) for people and animals, and curses on the
earth itself.

Conscience
People had now acquired a conscience, an inner moral code
showing the difference between good and evil. There was as yet no
formal government, so each individual did whatever they chose. But
as time progressed, humanity regressed— to the point that the Bible
says “But the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind had become
great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds
was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). This brought on the Flood
(deluge), which destroyed all but eight people, the only ones in the
world who found favor with God.

Authority
After the Flood, God established a rudimentary form of government.
Its purpose was to slow down the spread of evil and punish it. God
gave nations the right of capital punishment, a right which he did not
give to the individual. Yet even then people found a way to corrupt
this and use collective power to defy God again. The Tower of Babel
was to be their triumph over God’s authority, so he scrambled their
language into many pieces in judgment. The different languages
prevented people from communicating with each other, so they
scattered (dispersed) over the earth and divided into ethnic groups.

Promise
In time, God then chose one man, Abram (later to be called
Abraham), to establish a unique people group that would eventually
produce the Messiah, the Savior. God made prophetic promises to
Abram, some conditional and some not. But Abraham’s descendents
through Isaac and then Jacob (later renamed Israel), had a habit of
seeing God’s power and rejecting him anyway. Though he moved
them to Egypt where they prospered for a time, they became
enslaved and seemingly deserted by God.

Law
After allowing Israel to be enslaved in Egypt for hundreds of years,
God had Moses lead them out and gave them a written law to obey.
No more were people left to be on their honor to obey God, no more
would there be any excuses. They would now have specific written
regulations to abide by. Sadly though, Israel repeatedly strayed from
God and suffered repeated judgments, until finally God had to drive
them out of their land. Only after several centuries were they
allowed to return, and then only in very small numbers, a mere
remnant. It was to this remnant that Jesus came, only to be
conspired against and crucified. Thus the kingdom promised to
Israel would be delayed.
Grace
It wasn’t just the people of Israel who demonstrated their complete
failure to obey God no matter what the circumstances. So Jesus
came to do for the whole world what we were unable to do for
ourselves: be cleansed once and for all from sin, from separation
from God. The Bible holds Law and Grace in opposition, meaning
Grace is the absence of Law. Jesus took away “the written code,
which was against us, and nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).
This was the way out of our hopeless condition: to trust in Jesus’
ability to keep the law, not our own ability. But even with this
incredible demonstration of love and mercy from God, people still
refuse to bow to him, to the point where now we can see the signs
of impending worldwide judgment once again.

Although some authors treat the seven-year Tribulation as a

separate dispensation, it is really the culmination of the Age of
Grace. After rejecting God’s own Son, “there is no more sacrifice for
sins” (Hebrews 10:26). But the unique thing about the Age of Grace
is that individual believers are personally and permanently indwelt by
God’s Holy Spirit. Therefore, in order for God to judge the
unbelieving world, he must first remove Jesus’ Body, meaning
everyone who belongs to him. At that point the prophetic timetable
given to Daniel and John will finish its course, the last seven years of
life without the direct rule of God on earth, ending in complete
devastation.

Christ’s Rule
The last dispensation is known as The Millennium, meaning a
thousand years featuring the kingdom of Israel on earth. Mortals will
be once again in direct communication with God, who will rule the
nations “with a rod of iron”; there will be zero tolerance for rebellion.
People will again live many centuries with only “sinners” dying at
younger than 100 years of age. The judgment-mangled earth will be
restored and repopulated, and there will at last be real peace. But at
the end of it people are tested a final time, and again they fail.
Rebellion in the midst of Eden brings us full circle through human
history, and God must again defeat the wicked.

Implications of Dispensationalism
Knowing all this, the Bible student can then avoid the misapplication
of scripture. For example, the issue of security of salvation (whether
it can be lost) hinges upon a proper understanding of the Age of
Grace in which we now live. It is only the believer indwelt by the Holy
Spirit who is guaranteed eternal life, due to the promise of God and
the fact that we are “new creations” who belong to God and not to
ourselves. Any commands to endure, if they are clearly on the issue
of salvation and not service, are for those believers of other ages.

The Age of Grace, also called the Church Age, is referred to in

scripture as a secret that has only now been revealed (Ephesians
3:2). It is an interruption of the prophetic timetable given to Daniel,
so if we think of this age as a kind of parenthesis in prophecy, we
will see a clear and continuous sequence. This effectively clears up
a lot of other theories, such as Preterism, rejection of the pre-
tribulation Rapture, or legalism for church-age believers.

“if indeed you have heard of the stewardship [dispensation] of God’s grace that
was given to me for you, that by revelation the divine secret was made known to me,
as I wrote before briefly. When reading this, you will be able to understand my
insight into this secret of Christ. Now this secret was not disclosed to people in
former generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by
the Spirit, namely, that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow
members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus. I became
a servant of this gospel according to the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by
the exercise of his power. To me, less than the least of all the saints this grace was
given, to proclaim to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ and to enlighten
everyone about God’s secret plan— a secret that has been hidden for ages in God
 who has created all things. The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the
church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and
the authorities in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 3:2-10)

In light of this, we should not try to mix teachings about this current
age by going to the law of Moses. More about that in a separate
chapter.
 Church Councils
This study will cover important church councils in history. It won’t be
exhaustive since there were many councils, not all of which involved
all believers; see this source for a more detailed list.

The Council at Jerusalem (~50 a.d.)

This is recorded in Acts 15.

The Council at Jamnia (~90 a.d.)

See this source.

The 1st Council at Nicaea (~325 a.d.)

First we need to know what was percolating before this council was
convened, from historian Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian
Church, ch. 4, sec. 42 “Clergy and Laity”, as excerpted here.
(“Sacerdotalism” is the belief that there must be a priesthood
mediating between God and people.)

According to this source, the primary agenda was on the deity of

Jesus and the celebration of Easter. Constantine the First presided,
mostly as a moderator, but it set the precedent of a government
official being involved in church matters. It followed the 313 a.d.
Edict of Milan that officially ended Roman governmental persecution
of Christians. Learn the lesson from this: Decades of severe
persecution couldn’t stop the faith from spreading, but offer peace to
the weary and they’ll be very tempted to accept the government’s
involvement. This was the birth of tradition over truth, the fake over
the genuine, and it’s this that most of the world considers
Christianity. It’s not enough to merely claim an infiltration; we must
have evidence.

Notice especially what was not on the agenda: the canon. It wasn’t
until 367 a.d. that Athanasius made a complete list of the 66 books
as we know them; the Council and Constantine were not involved.
For more about that, see this source.

The 2nd Council at Nicaea (~787 a.d.)

According to New World Encyclopedia, the primary agenda was to
restore the adoration of icons and relics, and to forbid women from
residing in monasteries or the houses of bishops, to avoid the
appearance of immorality. The canon was still not on the agenda.
Constantine the Sixth presided.

Conclusion
Critics of the Bible simply parrot the claim, “Constantine and the
Roman Catholic Church decided the canon at the Council of
Nicaea”— no details, no dates, no research. But the important fact
is that the New Testament never ordered any future councils.
Doctrine and practices were set by the original apostles, without
rules about icons, church buildings, sacred calendars, clergy,
memberships, rituals, or anything else associated with tradition. So
appeals to post-apostolic councils as somehow having any
Biblical weight or authority are red herring fallacies against the Bible
and anything it teaches.
 Eastern Orthodoxy
One of the hallmarks of false teaching is specialized definitions for
many words. We can think of many religious teachings that fit this
description, but this study will focus on one which is very subtle and
seems to be growing in influence within the Christian community:
Eastern Orthodoxy. First, quotations of significe from that source.

Teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy

In discussing God’s relationship to his creation, Orthodoxy used the
concept of a distinction between God’s eternal essence which is
totally transcendent and his uncreated energies which is how he
reaches us. It is also necessary to understand that this is an artificial
distinction, not a real one. The God who is transcendent and the
God who touches us are one and the same.

By his participation in human life, death, and resurrection [Christ]

sanctified the means whereby we could be restored to our original
purity and regain our right relationship with the Father. This is what
the Orthodox call salvation from consequences of the sickness of
sin. Christ’s salvific act worked retroactively back to the beginning of
time thus saving all the righteous people from the bonds of sin,
including Adam and Eve.

The Bible is always interpreted within the context of Holy Tradition,

which gave birth to it and canonized it. Orthodox Christians maintain
that belief in a doctrine of sola scriptura would be to take the Bible
out of the world in which it arose. Orthodox Christians therefore
believe that the only way to understand the Bible correctly is within
the Orthodox Church.
Though [a dead person’s soul] may linger for a short period on
Earth, it is ultimately escorted either to heaven or hell, following the
Temporary Judgment (Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory). ...The
Orthodox believe that the state of the soul in Hades can be changed
by the love and prayers of the righteous up until the Last Judgment.
For this reason the church offers special prayer for the dead on the
third day, ninth day, fortieth day, and the one-year anniversary after
the death of an Orthodox Christian.

The Orthodox believe that after the Final Judgment:

all souls will be reunited with their resurrected bodies

all souls will fully experience their spiritual state
having been perfected, mankind will forever progress towards a
deeper and fuller love of God, which equates with eternal
happiness
hell, though often described in metaphor as punishment, is not
so much inflicted by God as the soul’s inability to participate in
God’s infinite love which is given freely and abundantly to
everyone

According to Orthodox theology, the purpose of the Christian life is

to attain theosis, the mystical union of man with God. This union is
understood as both collective and individual. St. Athanasius of
Alexandria, wrote concerning the Incarnation that, “He (Jesus) was
made man that we might be made god”. See 2 Peter 1:4, John
10:34–36, Psalm 82:6. The entire life of the church is oriented
towards making this possible and facilitating it.

[Water] Baptism is the mystery which transforms the old sinful man
into the new, pure man; the old life, the sins, any mistakes made are
gone and a clean slate is given. Through baptism one is united to
the Body of Christ by becoming a member of the Orthodox Church.

Chrismation (sometimes called confirmation) is the mystery by which

a baptized person is granted the gift of the Holy Spirit through
anointing with Holy Chrism. It is normally given immediately after
baptism as part of the same service, but is also used to receive
lapsed members of the Orthodox Church.

Sin is not viewed by the Orthodox as a stain on the soul that needs
to be wiped out, or a legal transgression that must be set right by a
punitive sentence, but rather as a mistake made by the individual
with the opportunity for spiritual growth and development.

Now some quotes from Union With God:

Instead of asking why God allows so much suffering on Earth, we

should ask ourselves why we allow it!.

Paul says we are like mirrors that not only reflect God’s brightness,
but which are transformed into the light which they reflect(2 Cor.
3:17-18).

Matthew Fox, an Episcopal priest known for his many works on

Christian mysticism, agrees. The final section of his masterwork,
The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, is titled “A Vision of the Second
Coming,” and considers the coming of the Kingdom of God to be the
work of God’s children acting in their divinization, restoring the Earth
and rebuilding all human institutions to eliminate hunger,
hopelessness, and violence.

I have come to believe that God has also entrusted us with far more
of the responsibility of saving the world than we might commonly
suppose.

Theosis is one more reason why I believe the “emergency airlift”

idea of “the Rapture” is completely mistaken.

Some points of clarification: deification does not mean that we will

only have a divine nature, but that like Christ, we will be one, with
God, both human and divine.
Thomas Aquinas described it like a poker being held in a fire. The
poker becomes a fire, in that it takes every attribute of the fire. It
burns, radiates heat and light, emits energy as it is transformed by
the fire’s energy. And yet, it though it has “become fire,” it is
unquestionably iron as well.

I believe there is a largely unexplored potential for inter-religious

cooperation and understanding at the deep, universal level of this
quest for mystical union with the Absolute. In Hinduism, this
transforming union is called in Self-realization or liberation; in Islam,
it’s fana; in Buddhism it’s enlightenment, and in all traditions, it’s
awakening.

Many great teachers on the mystical path have seen the value of
learning from the common strands in their own faith and other faiths;
for instance, Thomas Merton, John Main, Laurence Freeman, and
Bede Griffiths are but a few of many Catholic priests who have
learned much from Eastern spirituality, and the Dalai Lama and
Thich Nhat Hanh, the world’s two most prominent Buddhist writers,
frequently refer to the teachings of Jesus.

Finally, quotes from another site on theosis:

The doctrine of theosis puts the trinity in a new light. Many modern
thinkers tell us that 3 is an incomplete number. Carl Jung, and some
others have proposed adding Mary and making it a quaternity.

For Protestants theosis leads to the idea that the 4th member of the
godhead might be humanity.

Responses to Eastern Orthodoxy

The reader will have already noticed a subtle progression from the
vaguely acceptable to the outright unbiblical. This is true of many
religions; they all sound the same until you pin them down on
specifics.

First Quote
We see in the first paragraph some terminology which is unfamiliar
to those who get their theology directly from scripture, since such
terms cannot be found there. The article attempts to distinguish
between something called God’s “eternal essence” and his
“uncreated energies”. While pointing out that this distinction is
“artificial”, the writer nonetheless thought it important to say. On its
own this artificial construct seems unnecessary, but we will see as
we go along why they make it. It has more to do with making sense
of other beliefs than in explaining something about God that
scripture alone would not tell us.

In the second paragraph we see agreement with scripture in that

Christ came to restore our broken relationship with God. But sin is
not a “sickness”, it is rebellion against the will of God which makes
us legally condemned. John 3:18 says, “Whoever believes in him is
not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned
already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one
and only Son.” Romans 3:25 says, “God presented Christ as a
sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood, to be
received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in
his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand
unpunished.”

There are many references to sin in the New Testament, and a spot
check will reveal that sin is not something to be healed but
something to be forgiven. If sin were merely a disease then it would
only need to be healed, but since forgiveness is needed, it must be
something that condemns us. Who is condemned for being sick?
Other words associated with sin are guilt, fall, conviction, something
we can be “in” (ref. 1 Cor. 15:17), something that stings and has
power (vs. 56), something Christ could become on our behalf (2 Cor.
5:21) and we can be led into (2 Cor. 11:29). Clearly the Bible does
not describe sin as a mere illness.

Next we read of the writer’s view of the Bible. Many would agree that
the Bible cannot be interpreted outside of some ecclesiastical
authority, but I see no such stipulation in scripture itself. Ironically,
many in this “tradition” use the phrase “the Bible never says such-
and-such about itself” when the topic is “Bible” or the canon of
scripture, but they don’t apply that objection to the issue of an official
interpreting body. The assertion that sola scriptura would “take the
Bible out of the world in which it arose” is completely baseless. We
who have anchored ourselves to the Bible stress the importance of
studying context in all its aspects. The Bible was not written in the
exclusive lingo of the elite or well educated, but in the vernacular.
Jesus spoke often in terms the ordinary people could grasp, drawing
analogies from their everyday living. It is this idea of having an
official interpreting body that “takes the Bible out of the world in
which it arose”.

Now we move on to the human soul. Where does this idea come
from, of the possibility of a soul in Hades being “changed by the love
and prayers of the righteous up until the Last Judgment”? It is not
found the Bible. Never is anyone said to move from hell to heaven,
either by example or by explicit teaching. All mentions of people
changing have to do with this mortal life. Certainly we can pray for
people, but there is no more change after death: “people are
destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27).

In the list about final judgment, most Christians would agree with the
first two items. But the third is a bit vague; if it means by “perfected”
that we will finally be in the state which all the saved have in heaven,
no problem. But if it means perfect as in the absolute perfection of
God, that’s unbiblical. The fourth item, however, is very wrong. Hell
(eventually the Lake of Fire) is a place of eternal torment. It is a real
place, not a mere “inability” on our part.
Now we come to a key teaching called theosis or deification. While
no Christian would deny that we are meant to have union with God,
Eastern Orthodox theology goes a step farther and puts it as being
made god. Let’s see if the scripture references they give for this say
what they interpret them to say.

2 Peter 1:4 says, “Through these he has given us his very great and
precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the
divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by
evil desires.” To participate in something is not to become it but to
interact or be involved with it. This is far from being “made god”.
John 10:34-36 is part of Jesus’ conversation with the Jews
concerning his identity as the Messiah, where they try to stone him
for blasphemy and he says, “Is it not written in your Law, ’I have said
you are ‘gods’?” His point, in context, is not to deify humanity, but to
challenge the Jews’ charge against him on the basis of his claim to
be God (something many today think Jesus never said). It is a
rhetorical device, not a doctrinal statement. He was basically having
their charge dismissed on a technicality, something the legalistic
Pharisees were quite proud of their expertise at doing.

The Psalm 86:2 reference is what Jesus quoted, not another

separate proof text. Look at the context there, the whole psalm; it
clearly speaks of mere mortals who stood in the place of God in
relationship to the people. Jesus was truly a master at mocking the
devious and trapping them with their own logic.

The next paragraph looks at water baptism, and like many other
theologies, makes this ritual a necessary component of salvation.
But the Bible does not teach this, and in fact contradicts it (see Eph.
2:8-9, 1 Peter 3:21, and Romans 4:4-5). It is the baptism of the Holy
Spirit that cleanses us, and it happens at the moment of salvation.
We are at that moment given many other things as well, and we
don’t need any official group to perform this. It applies as well to the
paragraph following, where they mistakenly state that the Holy Spirit
only comes upon a person via a ritual after water baptism.
Regarding 2 Peter 1:4, the word rendered “you may become” goes
with the earlier phrase about promises and “divine communion”.
That is, the promises we've been given (past tense) are what
enabled us to be in divine partnership. In contrast, Eastern
Orthodoxy claims (or so they can be taken to say) that we gradually
acquire divine nature itself, achieving it by our works/devotion. So
they change “he has freely given us great and priceless promises
which have enabled us to be in a close bond with the divine nature”
to “he has freely given us great and priceless promises that we
might someday become divine.” The first is what is instantly done for
us at salvation, while the second is what a person strives for over
time. The first is about intimate relationship, while the second is
about actually achieving divine nature.

The final paragraph in this quote goes back to the issue of sin and
further defines it as not “a legal transgression that must be set right
by a punitive sentence” but a mere “mistake”. Mistakes are
accidents, but the Bible calls sin an act of the will, a deliberate
rebellion against God (e.g. Isaiah 7:15-16). The scriptures cited
previously clearly show sin to be very much a legal transgression.

Second Quote
Oh, the depths of conceit in the human soul, to actually think “we
should ask ourselves why we allow” suffering on earth, gods that we
are!! This is blatant blasphemy, and quite indistinguishable from the
heathen understanding of “the divinity of man”. 2 Cor. 3:17-18 most
certainly does not say we are “transformed into the light”, but that
we “are being transformed into his image” or likeness, not his
“essence”.

To call the coming “Kingdom of God to be the work of God’s children

acting in their divinization, restoring the Earth and rebuilding all
human institutions to eliminate hunger, hopelessness, and violence”,
is pure Dominionism; see this source). We are not responsible for
saving the world but for spreading the gospel, to be “salt and light”,
to be ambassadors. We are not the Savior but his representatives.

Notice then that what follows from all this is a rejection of the literal
return of Jesus in the Rapture, another hotly-disputed topic to be
covered separately. But standard Dominionist teaching is that Jesus
will not return until Christians have literally taken over the world. It’s
very interesting to see how literal the Bible becomes when it’s
focused not on Christ but on us and our works.

Next our “being one” with God is taken beyond unity and fellowship
to our being “both human and divine”. Not all of the Orthodox go this
far, and rightly so; only Jesus will ever have this dual nature. Even
so, they would say that we actually “partake” of God in such a way
as to share his “energies”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Thomas Aquinas was quite mistaken about his belief that a poker in
the fire “becomes” the fire. In time the fire destroys it completely; it
never “takes every attribute of the fire”, or any attribute of the fire at
all. It does not acquire a “dual nature” as both iron and fire.
Supposedly this indicates our becoming god and yet still remaining
human, but it fails both as an analogy and as a Biblical truth.

Now we come to the bottom of this slippery slope: ecumenism, a

blending of all religions through mysticism. The writer clearly draws a
connection between the Orthodox understanding of deification and
that of the Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. This is nothing less than
the “glue” that will hold them all into a global super-religion, the one
prophesied in Revelation, which orthodox theology has declared
“mystery”. Truth is not a popularity contest, but the writer appeals to
“many great teachers on the mystical path” as a reason to accept
this falsehood. That some of them “frequently refer to the teachings
of Jesus” is hardly a reason to endorse their views. Why ask
unbelievers about Jesus when we can read the Bible? Why is the
Bible to be rejected as showing us Jesus in favor of these
“teachers”?
Third Quote
Finally, we see that all of this really does do more than make us a
participant of godliness and a recipient of grace: Man is to be a
completer of the “incomplete” Trinity! How much more obvious can it
be than this, that these Orthodox teachings are not orthodoxy but
blasphemy?

Conclusion
If we follow along the path from the seeming Biblical statements at
the top to the blasphemy at the bottom, we’ll see why a small
deviation from the truth at the beginning can result in a huge error at
the end. People never seem to see the harm in things until they are
drawn into complete heresy, and by then it may be too late. We
must be very careful what we agree to when discussing these
things; we must demand precise definitions and discuss their
implications. As scripture wanrs us in 1 Cor. 5:6, “Don’t you know
that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?” And in Luke
20:46, “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around
in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the
marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues
and the places of honor at banquets.”

Beware of popular religions and authoritative-sounding elitists, of

those who say they want to “enlighten” us and show us a better way
than “those old dry denominations”. Instead take the example of
Paul, who said “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you
except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).
 Roman Catholicism – Mary
This is a response to teachings about Mary found at Catholic
Encyclopedia.

The Old Testament

Statement: The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very
opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): “I will put enmities
between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall
crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

Response: As the ensuing discussion admits, the Hebrew says “he”

(the woman’s seed), not“she” (the woman herself). This subtle
substitution comes from the Latin Vulgate. They also assume that
the woman is Mary, but it’s at least as reasonable to assume that
the woman is Eve. They attribute the ultimate victory over Satan to
Mary rather than to Jesus.

Statement: The second prophecy referring to Mary is found in

Isaias 7:1-17… We may infer from all this that Mary is mentioned in
the prophecy of Isaias as mother of Jesus Christ.

Response: The specific verse is 14: “Therefore the Lord himself will
give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
will call him Immanuel.” This is undisputed, and thus not a point of
contention with Roman Catholic theology.

Statement: A third prophecy referring to Our Blessed Lady is

contained in Micheas 5:2-3: “And thou, Bethlehem, Ephrata, art a
little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall be come
forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel, and his going forth is
from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Therefore will he give
them up till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth, and
the remnant of his brethren shall be converted to the children of
Israel.” But how does the prophecy refer to the Virgin Mary? Our
Blessed Lady is denoted by the phrase, “till the time wherein she
that travaileth shall bring forth”. It is true that “she that travaileth”
has been referred to the Church (St. Jerome ,Theodoret), or to the
collection of the Gentiles united with Christ (Ribera ,Mariana ), or
again to Babylon (Calmet)??

Response: A much better interpretation of the woman in travail is

that the prophecy concerns three stages of Israel’s history: the Age
of Grace (Israel in rejection of her Messiah), the Tribulation (travail),
and the Millennium (believing remnant). Israel is again described as
a woman in travail in Revelation 12, so there is little doubt that this
passage refers to the nation of Israel, not Mary.

Statement: A fourth prophecy referring to Mary is found in Jeremias

31:22; “The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth: A woman
shall compass a man.” The text of the prophet Jeremias offers no
small difficulties for the scientific interpreter; we shall follow the
Vulgate version of the Hebrew original.

Response: They admit the cryptic nature of this verse, yet apply it
uncritically to Mary. The normal sense of the verse in context is that
whereas a man normally protects a woman, this new situation would
be a reversal of the norm; Judah would return to the Lord. To claim
this as a prophecy about Mary begs the question. The remainder of
their Old Testament commentary is an outlandish list of alleged
“types” of Mary.

Statement: The Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Lady has

been treated in a SPECIAL ARTICLE.

Response: This “special article” offers not one shred of Biblical

support for this invention, simply because there is none. They even
admit: “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can
be brought forward from Scripture.” Nonetheless, they make a vain
attempt to wedge Mary into the text any way they can.

The New Testament

Statement: As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered
the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: “how shall this be
done, because I know not man.” These words can hardly be
understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of
virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St.
Joseph.

Response: This alleged vow of virginity is pulled out of thin air, since
no one who took such a vow would be betrothed. And there is
absolutely no Scriptural support for Mary having taken such a vow.
She was simply stating her situation at that time, since the wedding
had not yet taken place.

Statement: After bringing forth her Son, Mary “wrapped Him up in

swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger” (Luke 2:7), a sign that
she did not suffer from the pain and weakness of childbirth. This
inference agrees with the teaching of some of the principal Fathers
and theologians :St. Ambrose [56], St. Gregory of Nyssa [57], St.
John Damascene [58], the author of Christus patiens [59], St.
Thomas [60], etc. It was not becoming that the mother of God
should be subject to the punishment pronounced in Genesis 3:16,
against Eve and her sinful daughters.

Response: Wrapping Him up after birth has nothing whatsoever to

do with whether Mary had pain in childbirth. Remember Micah 5:2-3
above? What does travail mean, if not pain? So first they say she
had travail in childbirth, but now they say she didn’t; they are
contradicting themselves.
Statement: After the Presentation, the Holy Family either returned
to Bethlehem directly, or went first to Nazareth, and then moved into
the city of David. At any rate, after the “wise men from the east” had
followed the Divine guidance to Bethlehem, “entering into the house,
they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they
adored him.”

Response: The article makes no comment on the fact that though

Jesus was “adored”, Mary was not. Strange that the Mother of God
would be ignored when it came to adoration.

Statement: As to Mary’s virginity after her childbirth, it’s not denied

by St. Matthew’s expressions “before they came together” (1:18),
“her firstborn son” (1:25), nor by the fact that the New Testament
books repeatedly refer to the “brothers of Jesus”. [66] The words
“before they came together” mean probably, “before they lived in the
same house”, referring to the time when they were merely
betrothed; but even if the words be understood of marital
intercourse, they only state that the Incarnation took place before
any such intercourse had intervened, without implying that it did
occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God. [67]

The same must be said of the expression, “and he knew her not till
she brought forth her firstborn son” (Matthew 1:25); the Evangelist
tells us what did not happen before the birth of Jesus, without
suggesting that it happened after his birth. [68] The name “firstborn”
applies to Jesus whether his mother remained a virgin or gave birth
to other children after Jesus; among the Jews it was a legal name
[69], so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us.

Finally, the “brothers of Jesus” are neither the sons of Mary, nor the
brothers of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are
His cousins or the more or less near relatives. [70] The Church
insists that in His birth the Son of God did not lessen but consecrate
the virginal integrity of His mother (Secret in Mass of Purification).
The Fathers express themselves in similar language concerning this
privilege of Mary. [71]

Response: Here the meanings of words are twisted beyond

recognition. They would never accept such an impossibly weak
argument by anyone else. They have painted themselves into a
corner with the perpetual virginity teaching.

Statement: Mary’s Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of

the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on the express
definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary
“brought forth her first-born son” and that He was called Jesus.
According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the
Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary
was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the
first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God.
Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as
may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73],
and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the
title “Mother of God” [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council
of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of
the word. [76]

Response: So since Jesus is God in the flesh, and Mary gave birth
to Him, then that makes her God’s Mother, and she is therefore
divine? This is nothing short of blasphemy. No matter how many
people “draw the conclusion”, it’s still the wrong one. How can
Roman Catholicism then claim that they don’t worship Mary as God?
Wouldn’t it be better to deny this false teaching than to please their
church and call Mary a goddess? Divine = God, there’s no way
around it.

Statement: (from the section, Mary during the apostolic life of our
Lord): In reality, Jesus in both these passages places the bond that
unites the soul with God above the natural bond of parentage which
unites the Mother of God with her Divine Son. The latter dignity is
not belittled; as men naturally appreciate it more easily, it’s employed
by Our Lord as a means to make known the real value of holiness.
Jesus, therefore, really, praises His mother in a most emphatic way;
for she excelled the rest of men in holiness not less than in dignity.

Response: The logic here is flawed; Jesus praises his mother’s

holiness by ignoring it? That’s like saying, “I’m going to show you
how much I love you by treating you like everyone else.”

Statement: The doctrine of Mary’s spiritual motherhood of men is

contained in the fact that she is the antitype of Eve.

Response: One error is piled on top of another. She is now not only
the mother of God, but of all humanity. This is almost identical to the
concept of Mother Earth in Gaia worship.

Statement: According to the Book of Acts (1:14), after Christ’s

Ascension into Heaven the apostles “went up into an upper room”,
and: “all these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the
women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.”

Response: In spite of her exalted dignity, it was not Mary but Peter
who acted as head of the assembly (1:15).

Statement: Mary behaved in the upper room in Jerusalem as she

had behaved in the grotto at Bethlehem; in Bethlehem she had
carried for the Infant Jesus, in Jerusalem she nurtured the infant
Church. The friends of Jesus remained in the upper room till “the
days of the Pentecost”, when with “a sound from heaven, as of a
mighty wind coming?? there appeared to them parted tongues as it
were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them, and they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:1-4). Though the Holy Ghost had
descended upon Mary in a special way at the time of the
Incarnation, He now communicated to her a new degree of grace.
Perhaps, this Pentecostal grace gave to Mary the strength of
properly fulfilling her duties to the nascent Church and to her
spiritual children.
Response: The reason Peter was head of the assembly was not “in
spite of her exalted dignity”, but because she had no such thing. The
phrase “in spite of” shows that the plain meaning of the passage is
that Mary was not “exalted” in any way. And where is the evidence
that she “nurtured the infant Church”? What “new degree of grace”
was conferred upon Mary at Pentecost that was not also conferred
upon all the others? Veneration of Mary in this way is pure
fabrication.

Statement: As to the Epistles, the only direct reference to Mary is

found in Galatians 4:4: “But when the fullness of time was come,
God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Some
Greek and Latin manuscripts, followed by several Fathers, read
gennomenon ek gynaikos instead of genomenon ek gynaikos , “born
of a woman” instead of “made of a woman.” But this variant reading
cannot be accepted.

Response: It “cannot be accepted” only by the Catholic Church.

Almost all English translations render it “born”, so it can hardly be
considered a “variant reading”. Here again Mary is given the ability
to create life in a divine way, above all other women. The fact that
this is the only direct reference to Mary in the Epistles should tell
them that she is not divine. If she were, she would be given much
more prominence in the Bible.

Statement: In the Apocalypse (12:1-6) occurs a passage singularly

applicable to Our Blessed Mother: And a great sign appeared in
heaven: A woman clothed with the sun.

Response: This passage is unmistakably symbolic of the nation of

Israel (see Joseph’s dream imagery in Gen. 37:9), yet Catholic
theology is compelled to read Mary into every verse it possibly can.
Some Catholics concede it could possibly symbolize the church, but
this is only because of their erroneous assumption that the church
replaced Israel. And the article is completely silent about the one
passage that truly symbolizes the Catholic Church and its goddess
“Mary”: Revelation 17-18. How can they ignore the most visible
symbolic woman in the Bible? Is the imagery too realistic, the
testimony too damaging? They even admit, “But it must be kept in
mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most
prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way
true of Mary.” Now if they’d only apply that to the woman on the
beast.

Summary
The rest of the article is speculation about Mary’s life beyond the
Biblical writings. What Roman Catholic theology does is scripture
twisting, appeals to tradition over scripture, reliance on inferior or
spurious translations, self-contradictions, and logical fallacies. It
appropriates Israel’s blessings but not its curses, turns an ordinary
human into a goddess, and aggressively promotes the Body above
the Head.
 Hebrew Roots
Are Christians obligated to live under the laws of Moses? For as long
as the Body of Christ (a.k.a. church) has existed, some have
insisted that Christians must practice the law of Moses as prescribed
in the Old Testament. Though some of those may concede that such
practice is how we show our love to God, others make it a salvation
issue, or at least a fellowship issue. Those who do not agree are
often looked upon as rebellious or ignoring half the Bible. But what
does that very Bible say?

The Hebrew Roots Movement

Like all movements, the Hebrew Roots Movement has its factions,
levels, and variants. But it would not be called a “movement” without
having some unifying principles among the various groups. We will
take a look at those unifying principles, and warn of an inherent
danger. Let’s begin with some good points made at an article no
longer available online:

The Hebraic Roots or Jewish Roots movement refers to various organizations with a
common emphasis on recovering the “original” Jewishness of Christianity. This
recovery comes through studying the Bible in its Jewish context, observing the
Torah, keeping the Sabbath and festivals, avoiding the “paganism” of Christianity,
affirming the existence of original Hebrew language gospels and, in some cases,
denigrating the Greek text of the New Testament. Writers such as Roy Blizzard,
David Bivin, Brad Young and Robert Lindsay have given much impetus to this
movement.

Hebraic Roots teachers call upon believers to study Hebrew and learn about Jewish
culture, which most of us can appreciate. More often than not, however, they call
Gentiles to a Torah-observant and/or festival observant lifestyle as a means of
drawing closer to Jesus and being conformed to His image. The implication is, if you
 really want to please God, if you really want to be holy, here are the rules. Even
though most do not believe these observances are necessary for one’s salvation, there
is often an implication that this is the higher way. Scripture warns against such
things.

Believers who wish to learn more about the Jewish roots of Christianity do well.
Learning about the Jewish roots of Christianity can transform a black and white
understanding of Scripture into “living color.” A deeper understanding of first
century Judaism can also help people better understand Y’shua and His
contemporaries.

(Added: see this article on whether the Sabbath was commanded and observed for
all mankind from the beginning of creation.)

The line we must not cross is between going back under Torah, and
studying the Old Testament for insight into Hebrew thinking,
customs, and language, in order to help us better understand the
New Testament. Appreciation is one thing, but legalistic performance
is quite another. There is much in the way of a false or romanticized
view of Christianity’s early years being promoted by this movement.
What danger does this pose for Christians today?

Dwight Pryor, a leading voice for evangelicals in the Jewish Roots movement, warns
that some believers are forsaking Jesus and Christianity because of their growing
fondness for Judaism and its teachings. They are crossing a line from appreciation
to adulation of their Jewish roots. It almost seems as though these lapsing Christians
believe that a special insight into their roots somehow elevates their status—as
though there is an inherent superiority in being Jewish.

These people have forgotten that God loves every nation, and that all cultures have
unique contributions to make to the Body of Messiah. Gentiles who say, “We are no
longer Gentiles, regardless of our background” are confused and on the road to
spiritual trouble. Adherents of the so-called “Two House Theory” constitute one
group that has fallen into this kind of error.
The “Two House Theory” basically states that it is not the Gentiles
who are the “wild branches” in the illustration of the olive tree (Rom.
11), but the “lost tribes” of Israel, the Northern Kingdom. In almost,
but not every, instance where Gentiles are understood to be the
subject, the 10 tribes of Israel are inserted instead. Yet at the same
time, they also want to insist that Gentile Christians are grafted into
the natural branches instead of the Tree; their rationale is that the
natural branches are one and the same with the trunk, so to be
grafted into one is to be grafted into the other. So depending on
whether it suits them, they pick whichever symbolism works for their
interpretation.

We must also remember that it is utterly impossible for the

Mosaic Law to be observed without a Temple and a Priesthood
of Levi. These are required components; all the Festivals cannot be
properly observed without them. The response of course is to just
allegorize; we can make substitutions at will and pretend we’re still
observing Torah. It’s very unlikely that God would buy that.

Old Testament passages about the

separation of Israel and the church
We see in 2 Kings 21:7 that God has chosen Jerusalem and the
temple in it for himself. This verse is very clear; there is nothing in
the context to justify taking it allegorically or symbolically. In Jer.
31:31-36 the New Covenant is “with the people of Israel and with the
people of Judah”, not any Gentiles, and not with the Body of Christ
which is neither. The passage identifies literal, physical Israel and
Judah by their attributes: They broke God’s covenant with them
specifically. Further, “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,
declares the Lord, will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.”

Now consider Dan. 12:1. Here, the angel Michael is identified as the
one who protects Daniel’s people— not the Gentiles and not the
Body of Christ. There will also be a time of distress like no other,
which Jesus also referred to in Mat. 24:15— for Daniel’s people,
Israel.

New Testament passages about the

separation of Israel and the church
First we need to look at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The
purpose for the meeting is stated in Acts 15:5. Some claim that they
were talking about the Talmud or oral traditions, but it explicitly
states that the Gentiles must keep the law of Moses. After a lengthy
discussion, Peter stood up and said that what the former Pharisees
were trying to do was “to test God by putting on the necks of
Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to
bear”. James then cited a prophecy in Amos about a time when God
would “return and rebuild David’s fallen tent”, and for a purpose:
“that the rest of mankind— the Gentiles— would seek the Lord.”
Paul described this also in Rom. 11:25: Israel is partially hardened
against God until “the full number of Gentiles has come in”, as
covered in more detail in the chapter Did the church replace Israel?.

As shown in that study, God had not rejected his people Israel,
which Paul identifies as physical and literal descendants of Abraham,
specifically the tribe of Benjamin. The divine plan was to use Israel
to make Gentiles want God, and then to use Gentiles to make Israel
want God. His unfinished business with Israel will be addressed once
the Body of Christ has all its members. That’s what Rom. 11 is
teaching. No one is grafted into Israel, and Israel has not been
replaced by either Gentiles or the Body of Christ. Rom. 11:25-32
mentions the patriarchs (plural), meaning much more than just
Abraham. More importantly, God’s gifts and calling are “irrevocable”.
These were literal and physical in the Old Testament, so there is no
justification for making them figurative in the New.
The rest of the New Testament much more to say about observance
of the law, especially in the letter to the Galatians. To read these
letters, especially considering them all together, is to be impressed
with the forceful opposition made to anything that would rob the
cross of its power and Jesus of his glory. Hebrew Roots proponents
would say that the “law” referenced is not Torah, yet we would reply
that Gentiles are described as “those without the law” (Rom. 2:14).
Of course Gentiles had civil laws; it was only the Torah they did not
have.

The letter to the Hebrews stresses the fact that with a change of
priesthood comes a change of law, and Jesus is the High Priest of a
new order, that being Melchizedek (Heb. 7:12-13). He was not from
the tribe of Levi at all and therefore not qualified to serve as a priest
under Torah. There is just no way around this fact; there is no way
to claim Torah can be kept without Temple or Priesthood, so there is
no way to practice Judaism honestly and Biblically.

Many will try to hold up examples found in Acts to prove the

requirement of keeping Torah. This ignores the transitional nature of
that period, and that the Temple and Levitical Priesthood were still
active. The Apostle Paul explained why he sometimes continued to
observe parts of it: He did not want to put any unnecessary
stumbling blocks in front of anyone. Yet he also made it
unmistakeably clear that the Law was annulled and no one is
obligated to keep it; in fact, he publicly rebuked Peter for lapsing
back under Torah (Gal. 2:14). And again, now that there is no
Temple or Priesthood to go with it, Judaism cannot be practiced.

Finally, in 1 Cor. 10:32 we see it explicitly stated that mankind is

divided into three— not two— groups: Jews, Gentiles, and the
church of God (the Body of Christ). We are neither Jews nor
Gentiles, yet we inherit the Promise to Abraham— not the law of
Moses. In fact, the entire letter to the Hebrews is all about the
temporal nature of the law of Moses. Heb. 8:13 says as well that the
new covenant means the first one is old and obsolete. Gal. 3:19-29
clearly teaches that the purpose of the law of Moses was to serve
as a temporary guide until Christ came.

You could say that this Hebrew Roots Movement is the “evil twin” of
Replacement Theology. The latter claims that Israel was absorbed
into the church, while the former claims the opposite. But when all
scripture is considered in context, there is no way to escape the
conclusion that the Law and the Promise are two mutually exclusive
elements, that Torah was a “custodian” that brought us to the time
for the Savior to come (Gal. 3:24), and that the Assembly is a
“mystery” unknown to the Old Testament (1 Cor. 2), yet also that
God is not finished with the nation of Israel, per the prophecies of
Daniel, Ezekiel, and John in the Revelation.

Conclusion
Besides the clear separation of Israel and the Body of Christ
established to this point, we cannot brush aside the Millennial
Kingdom passages as discussed here and here. They speak in very
down-to-earth terms especially in the Old Testament: crops, herds,
long but mortal life, generations, animals, etc. Once allegory or the
presumption of non-literalism is invoked, all discussion is reduced to
mere speculation or personal preference. So anyone attempting to
put the burden of the law of Moses on Christians is in clear violation
of the whole of scripture.

Study Hebrew roots, but don’t go back to the Law. Understand

context, but don’t trade our freedom in Christ for that which was
unable to save and whose purpose was to symbolize what we now
have. We died to the Law; let’s not act like we didn’t. Above all,
remember Gal. 5:14.
 Paul and the Karaites
Was the apostle Paul, the Pharisee formerly known as Saul of
Tarsus, a champion of the faith and founder of Christian theology, or
a charlatan leading a perversion of Judaism?

The Apostle Paul

Following is a series of claims and rebuttals regarding the legitimacy
of Paul as a genuine apostle of Jesus Christ.

Claim: None of the true apostles supported Paul or acknowledged

him as one of them. Peter did not vouch for Paul (2 Peter 3:16),
because 2 Peter was not written by Peter.

Rebuttal: It’s an act of desperation to omit an entire letter of the

New Testament in order to take away an explicit endorsement for
Paul. But even without 2 Peter, there is still plenty of endorsement:
Ananias (Acts 9:15), Barnabas (Acts 9:26-28), Luke (chronicled
Paul’s travels throughout Acts), as well as the deafening silence of
all the New Testament writers regarding his being a false apostle or
enemy of the Gospel. He was known personally by no less than
Peter, James, and John, and founded a great many of the early faith
communities. If Luke cannot be trusted since he was sympathetic to
Paul, then one must rip out the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the
Apostles, yet critics of Paul often use material from those sources in
their arguments. And of course, to only distrust the parts that
support Paul would beg the question.

Ironically, the only evidence that any alleged apostles questioned

Paul’s apostleship comes from Paul himself. The critics allege that
John’s references to false Christs (1 John 2:18-20, Rev. 2:2) refer to
Paul, but there is nothing to support the charge. (See the “Claim:
Paul was an antinomian” for more.)

Claim: Paul was never a true apostle and opposed them.

Rebuttal: In making this charge, the critics often show ignorance of

the fact that not all true apostles were of The Twelve. There were at
least seventy Jesus sent out and explicitly named “apostles” (Luke
6:13). And if this is to be rejected because it was written by Luke,
then where are the warnings and refutations by The Twelve? Where
are the accounts of them referring to Paul as a fake? Surely John,
the closest to Jesus, and not one to shy away from confrontation (3
John 1:9-10), would have exposed Paul as a false teacher bringing a
false Gospel, and he would have listed at least a few of the times
when Paul was opposed and exposed.

Claim: Paul was both a Pharisee and an antinomian.

Rebuttal: One wonders how Paul could be both a Pharisee

(legalistic) and an antinomian (lawless) at the same time. But the
claim is that all the Pharisees were antinomians, because they
rejected God’s laws for their own (the Talmud or oral traditions). Yet
there is no evidence that Paul taught anything promoted in the
Talmud. One is hard-pressed to look over its teachings and match
them to Paul’s, and it “poisons the well” (and assigns guilt by
association) to presume Paul still held to the Talmud after his
conversion. His statement in the present tense about being a
Pharisee (Acts 23:6) was clearly for the sole purpose of dividing the
Sanhedrin that had convened to prosecute him, just as he used his
Roman citizenship to his advantage when needed. One must also
ask why the Pharisees there were upset with him at all. In fact, it
was they who kept hounding Paul throughout his travels, for doing
what his modern critics accuse him of doing. That is, if Paul was
teaching the Talmud, why were all the other Pharisees trying to
kill him?
So since Paul was not guilty of teaching the Talmud, his critics must
appeal to his teaching Christians that they were free from the law of
Moses. The first place to look for non-Pauline teachings on this
matter is of course Hebrews, which is no longer thought to have
been written by Paul. Yet the critics must reject it in its entirety since
it teaches, as Paul does, that Christians are not under the law of
Moses. Yet not even James— widely but erroneously thought to
uphold the law of Moses for Christians— insisted that it be kept. At
the most, his letter can be interpreted as teaching salvation by
works. But the works are not specified as keeping the law of Moses;
rather, they are of doing good deeds in general.

Yet the critics miss this key point: Paul never taught that Jews who
were still outside of faith in the risen Messiah Jesus were no longer
under the law of Moses. He taught this only for those who became
Christians. And of course, no Gentiles were ever under that law at
all.

Claim: Paul contradicted Jesus.

Rebuttal: The critics of Paul insist that only the actual quotes of
Jesus can be trusted. But even the Gospels do not have the actual
words of Jesus, since he spoke Aramaic and was only directly
quoted on two occasions (Mat. 27:46, Mark 5:41, 15:34). Yet Paul
did not contradict Jesus anyway. Jesus did indeed keep the law of
Moses, because he had to be a flawless sacrifice. He also had to
fulfill all the prophecies about that sacrifice. And everything he said,
he said to Jews before the cross and before the Holy Spirit came at
Pentecost. He came expressly for “the lost sheep of Israel” (Mat.
15:24), not the as-yet unknown Congregation (“church”). And as
already noted, Paul never taught freedom from the law of Moses to
Jews but only to Christians. Nothing Paul taught violated or
contradicted anything Jesus taught, either to Jews or to Christians.

Claim: Jesus treated women as equal to men, but Paul was a

misogynist.
Rebuttal: For very detailed rebuttals to common misinterpretations
of Paul on this topic, see this book or this commentary.

Claim: Paul (and/or Luke) was a liar.

Rebuttal: This ridiculous charge is based upon two allegedly

contradictory accounts of his conversion on the road to Damascus
(Acts 9:3-9, 22:6-21, 26:12-18). Acts 9:7 states that the others
traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no one, while Acts 22:9
states that they saw a light but did not understand the sound (there
is scholarly debate on whether they did not hear any sound at all, or
simply did not understand it, based on the Greek grammar). Yet
none of this is contradictory; seeing a light is not the same as seeing
Jesus himself, and there is no irrefutable proof that the voice was
understood. The same is true for one account having more detail
than the other. And had all instances been identical, one would
rightly suspect a made-up story; people often add or omit detail
upon later tellings of an experience.

Claim: Paul believed he was a co-savior with Christ.

Rebuttal: Of all the charges against Paul, this one is easily the most
preposterous, and it can only be made by taking statements out of
context. Paul clearly loathed his former life and considered all his
past accomplishments a pile of manure (Phil. 3:8). He also
considered himself the least of all the apostles (1 Cor. 15:9) and
never denied being a sinner. And he stated explicitly that he did not
die for anyone (1 Cor. 1:13). Yet in spite of all that, his critics will
take statements like Col. 1:24 at face value and ignore the context in
which they were said. The full text is, “I now celebrate my sufferings
for your sakes and do my share to complete in my own flesh
whatever is lacking in the physical sufferings of Christ, for the
sake of his body which is the Congregation.” It was never the
physical sufferings of Christ that saved us, but his death and
resurrection, as Paul himself even said (1 Cor. 15:1-5). In addition,
Jesus said that whoever followed him must “take up their cross” and
would suffer persecution. But note also that Paul says the body he
refers to is the Congregation, not the physical body of Jesus.

Conclusion
The alleged case against Paul as a true, hand-picked apostle of
Jesus is based upon fallacy and failure to consider context, to such
an extreme as to make the canon of the New Testament depend
entirely on which parts support Paul and which can be twisted to
condemn him. Critics engage in a double standard by only accepting
from Paul and others the parts that support their accusations. There
are even some who will take the fact that Paul was picked by Jesus
as insignificant, since Jesus also picked Judas. Such poor logic and
cherry-picking renders the criticisms of Paul too absurd to take
seriously. Yet because of the sheer number of such critics, we must
expose them as they so gleefully expose Paul. Let them endure the
same scrutiny. (See also this excellent satire on how people today
would rebuke Paul for his letter to the Galatians.)

The Karaites
Now let’s turn to Karaite Judaism, because it brings some important
points to the forefront of criticisms of the Christian faith and the New
Testament. From experiences with both Jews and atheists, the
common attitude is that if you’re a Bible literalist, you must agree
with expert Jewish interpretations, because the Tanakh is their book
and we Christians have nothing to say about it. Never mind that with
the exception of Luke, all the New Testament writers were Jews,
who couldn’t and wouldn’t have invented a risen Savior. The disciples
hid in a locked room after Jesus’ crucifixion and were dejected
because they thought he would restore the kingdom to Israel at that
time.
Now read through this article on whether, as some claim, Jesus was
actually a Karaite. Here are additional resources:

The Karaites, a medieval Jewish sect

Karaism
more about Karaism
frequently asked questions about Karaism

The fact remains that Jesus rose from the dead, and no amount of a
claimed superior conclusion can change that. It’s pointless to debate
whether it should have happened when in fact it did. Here are some
resources on Jesus’ resurrection:

Jesus of Testimony (full-length video)

The King of Nations (full-length video)
Testimony of the Evangelists

Points raised in the literature:

1 Cor. 15:3-4 “according to the scriptures” Genesis 3:15, Psalm

16:10, Isaiah 53:1-12, Hosea 6:2, Jonah 1:17, Daniel 9:24-26,
Zechariah 12:10,13:7
Psalm 2:7 “today I have become your father”
Psalm 110:1 “the Lord says to my Lord”
Israel was exiled more than once for disobedience to the law of
Moses which they were bound by covenant to obey, and the
temple was destroyed in 70 AD just as Jesus predicted,
because they rejected their promised Messiah— and none of
his Jewish critics disputed the idea of a Messiah-Savior. While
Karaites would dismiss Jesus’ critics as Pharisees and
Talmudists, the fact is that they and Jesus were both
referencing Moses and the Levitical law.
Isaiah 53 has to be twisted beyond recognition to make it about
Israel rather than the Messiah who would suffer and die for his
people.
dying for the sins of others (not necessarily karaite)
 sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19)
sacrifice of animals in law of Moses
“The soul who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18:4). God extended His
mercy by providing the substitute to die in place of the offerer.
According to this source, “We stopped offering sacrifices
because we do not have a proper place to offer them.” Though
the article goes on to excuse the lack of animal sacrifices, the
Torah itself makes them mandatory and gives precise and strict
rules for what animals to sacrifice, and when and how. Nothing
in Torah says to stop the practice. Prayer and changes of heart
are certainly presumed, but this hardly means that direct
commands to sacrifice animals can be ignored. The article also
errs in such statements as this: “the passage only says that
blood is used to obtain atonement— not that blood is the sole
means for obtaining atonement.” Again, they’re picking and
choosing which parts are binding and using poor logic; just
because sacrifice isn’t the only means of forgiveness hardly
means sacrifice can be abandoned.

Conclusion
Kairite Judaism at least opposes Talmudic Judaism, but it presumes
to be the infallibile interperter, and it shares with Talmudism a
rejection and loathing of Jesus as Messiah. The first Christians were
all Jews who had not been looking to invent a Messiah, much less to
think of Jesus as such before he did miracles and then raised
himself from the dead, so they serve as hostile witnesses to this
charge. Being Jews in the first century before Christianity even
began, they were at least as qualified to interpret the Tanakh as
Jews today, in spite of their claim that they get their teachings from
Jews prior to the time of Christ. Jesus did correct and rebuke the
Pharisees and Sadducees, but he also pointed to himself as
Messiah, so the Karaites cannot claim him as an early Karaite while
ignoring anything he said that doesn’t fit with their beliefs.
Of course, what both Karaites and Talmudists think about the New
Testament, especially the apostle Paul, is refuted by Paul and his
many enemies then and now. Even the secular world believes that
Saul of Tarsus was a top Pharisee who suddenly turned from hunter
to prey regarding Christianity, renouncing his former ways as a
Pharisee. Those Pharisees hated him and tried to kill him, not for
rejecting the Talmud but for teaching the end of the laws of Moses.
Both Jesus and Paul were hated by the Pharisees and Sadducees
for this. So for the Karaites to claim that the Pharisees were only
and always about the Talmud is disingenuous.

Claims of one group or another being the authority on scripture will

never be resolved here, but the fact remains that Jesus’ resurrection
from the dead qualifies him as the final authority on all this. The
New Testament, of which nearly one-third consists of the letters of
Paul, is all about Jesus. Without Jesus it’s all just a lot of religious
bickering.
 The Race to be Israel
There are various groups today claiming to be true Israel and that
the people of the present secular state of Israel are all fakes. Many
also believe the Bible establishes one race or another as superior to
the rest. This study will examine those claims.

Analysis
First, we need to define race. It generally refers to the distinct
language or physical attributes of a people group, though in times
past (and in some cultures yet today) it was more specific than it is
now. For example, each clan or nation was considered a race, even
if the people of different races were much the same in appearance.
Today it’s strictly by skin color and a few main features such as the
eyes, ears, or lips. Biologically and Biblically, though, these attributes
are only variations of a kind, not different kinds. All people have
melanin, which comes in two basic varieties: red/yellow or
black/brown. All other variations are a matter of how much of that
variety a person has; see this article and this chart.

The closest thing to the modern concept of racism in the Bible would
be the distinction of the genetic line of Jacob/Israel from the rest of
the world. God commanded them to keep separate, but never to
feel superior, which is what racism really is. But critics love to
cherry-pick, and for this one the favorite prooftext is Jer. 13:23. The
contextual point is the difficulty of wayward Israel to mend its ways,
but the parallel between the leopard and the Ethiopian isn’t
condemning either of them for what they were born as. The
Ethiopian has no more reason to be ashamed or considered inferior
than the leopard. Since the leopard’s spots aren’t a sign of shame,
then why should a person’s skin color be a sign of shame?
In case anyone argues that the Bible always portrays white as ideal,
remember Num. 12:10, where Miriam’s skin turned “white as snow”,
meaning leprous, as punishment for challenging Moses’ authority to
lead Israel alone. As for Song of Solomon 1:5-6, it says right there
that it refers to being tanned by having to work outside. So skin color
in this case indicates poor or lowly status, not inferiority of being.
Now consider these New Testament passages: Acts 10:28,34-35,
17:26, Rom. 2:11, 10:12-13, Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11, and James 2:4,9.

As for those who claim to be the real Israelites, they would have to
prove either genetic descendence from the twelve tribes of Israel, or
from proselytes. And it’s because of those proselytes that no one
can rightfully exclude any genetic group, whether Europeans or
Africans or anyone else. Take a look at this article.

The Bible distinguishes true from fake Israel by having the faith of
Abraham (Gal. 3:7,29, Rom. 2:28-29), but “spiritual Israel” means
descendants of the twelve tribes who become Christians (Rom. 9:1-
11); scripture never refers to the Body of Christ as such, since the
two are separate entities as explained in other studies here. So no
ethnic group can claim exclusive rights to being true Israel; not
whites, blacks, reds, yellows, or any shade in between. On the other
hand, the Bible makes it very clear that God promised land to the
nation of Israel that he did not promise to the Body of Christ.

But who would even want to be Israel right now? They’re ripe for
seven more years of God’s wrath after they sign a treaty with the
Antichrist, per the 70 Weeks prophecy of Dan. 9:24-27. The second
half of that is described in passages such as Zechariah 14:2 and
Rev. 12:6,14, and only those living in Judea who flee when they see
the Abomination of Desolation will be spared, which according to
Zech. 13:8-9 will be about one-third.

Conclusion
The Bible does not condone claims of genetic superiority, and
anyone claiming the promises to the nation of Israel must also
accept its curses. Some try to make skin color an issue for Jesus as
well, but his genetics were important only for proving his being the
promised Seed or Messiah and his being born of a virgin (Gen. 3:15,
Gal. 3:16). Anyone pushing the modern concept of race to the
forefront has no idea what the Bible teaches about either Jews or
Christians, or the incarnate Christ. To use race as a weapon or claim
of superiority is real racism, and the Bible does not condone or
support it.
 Prophecy

Things to come for both Christians and Israel

 List of Prophecies
This chapter will simply list all the prophecies believed to have at
least a partial fulfillment remaining for the future. The items are
given in the order they appear in most standard English Bibles, and
the descriptions give the gist of the passage according to where they
appear in the text.

Psalm 83
Enemies of Israel intend to band together and wipe it off the map:
Edom, the Ishmaelites, Moab, the Agrites, Byblos, Ammon, Amalek,
Philistia, Tyre, and Assyria. These correspond roughly to modern-
day Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, northern Iraq, and
possibly parts of Egypt.

Isaiah 17
A prophecy against Damascus:

1. Damascus will no longer be a city (suddenly, overnight) but will

lie in ruins, replaced by grazing flocks.
2. It will happen when the glory of Israel has faded almost to the
point of death.
3. That day will also be when people turn back to God.

Jeremiah 30:7
1. The Day of the Lord will be a time of great trouble for Jacob,
though he will survive it.
 2. God will save them out of exile where they were scattered
among the nations.
3. Whoever attacks Israel will be attacked.
4. The people of Israel will be numerous and prosperous.

Ezekiel 36-37
1. Though they had been unfaithful and suffered punishment,
Israel is promised revenge against all enemies, and restoration
of their land and people, not because they earned it but so God
would be glorified.
2. God will gather them from all the nations and bring them back
to their own land.
3. God will change their hearts so that they will keep his laws.
4. In the vision of the valley of dry bones, God shows that this
restoration will be in stages: the bones assemble and are
covered with skin, but they were not yet alive, then God
breathes life into them.
5. All the tribes of Israel will join together, no longer divided in two,
with David reigning over them.
6. God will permanently put his Temple there.

Ezekiel 38-39
The prophecy about Gog, of the land of Magog in the far north, ruler
of Meshek and Tubal. The nations listed correspond roughly to
modern Russia, Iran, northern Africa, eastern Europe, and Turkey.

1. God will put hooks in his jaw and turn him and his whole army
around, including those of Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer, and Beth
Togarmah from the far north.
2. They will invade a rich land that has recovered from war, whose
people came from many nations to Israel and were now living
securely, peacefully, and unsuspecting.
 3. Mere protest will be offered by Sheba, Dedan, and the
merchants of Tarshish. Sheba and Dedan are roughly
equivalent to modern Saudi Arabia, while Tarshish may refer to
areas as far as Britain and the rest of western Europe.
4. When Gog attacks Israel there will be a great earthquake there,
causing the whole world to shake with fear in the presence of
God.
5. God will cause the invading army to turn on itself, and there will
be plague, torrential rain, hail, and burning sulphur, destroying
the army on the mountains of Israel and in the open field, where
the carrion birds and wild animals will consume their bodies.
6. God will send down fire on the land of Magog and those who
live safely on the coastlands.
7. This causes all Israel to know that God is the Lord, and the
world to know that Israel had been punished for its sins.
8. People from the towns of Israel will collect the weapons and
burn them for fuel for 7 years.
9. People of Israel will spend 7 months burying the bodies in the
valley east of the sea, then conduct a more thorough search for
any bodies or bones missed before.
10. God will restore Israel and remove their shame, settling them
forever in the land.

Ezekiel 40-48
The vision giving details of the restored land and people of Israel,
commonly attributed to the Millennium:

1. The temple is measured and described in great detail.

2. The glory of God comes upon it from the east, entering through
the east gate.
3. The altar is restored and purified, and the sacrifices reinstated.
4. The priesthood is restored and dedicated.
5. The whole nation is to bring special sacrifices for purification.
6. The Passover and other festivals are reinstated.
 7. Water comes out from the south side of the temple toward the
east, emptying into the Dead Sea and turning it fresh, and sea
life flourishes in it.
8. Trees along the banks bear fruit each month, providing food
and healing leaves.
9. The boundaries of Israel are described: north as far as
Damascus, south to just below the Dead Sea, west to the
Mediterranean Sea, and east to the Jordan River.
10. The twelve tribes are allotted their territories, as well as a
special area dedicated to God where the temple and priests
reside. There is also a wide area for general pastureland, with
the city in the center. The city measures about a mile and a half
square and will be called The Lord Is There.

Daniel 9:24-27
The prophecy is given of 70x7 years: to end and atone for sin, begin
eternal righteousness, seal up prophecy, and anoint/dedicate the
Most Holy Place.

1. 7x7 + 62x7 from command to rebuild Jerusalem until Anointed

One the ruler comes.
2. Anointed One put to death.
3. The people of the coming ruler destroy Jerusalem and the
Temple.
4. War and disasters will continue until the end.
5. He will confirm a treaty with many for the final 7.
6. Midway through the 7 he will end Temple sacrifice and
desecrate it.
7. The end decreed upon him will come.

Daniel 11:31-45
Though this was fulfilled in the past by Antiochus Epiphanes, Jesus
explicitly stated that the Abomination of Desolation was also future.

1. A blasphemous king will desecrate the Temple (the Abomination

of Desolation).
2. He will exalt himself above all gods, showing no regard for the
gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women. Instead
he will honor a god of fortresses.
3. He will attack strong fortresses with the help of a foreign god,
and he will greatly reward all who honor him, making them
rulers and distributing the land for a price.
4. He will rapidly conquer many countries, including Israel, but
Edom, Moab, and the leaders of Ammon will escape his
conquest.
5. Alarming news from the east and north will cause him to set out
in a rage, but he will fall between the [Mediterranean] sea and
the holy mountain [Zion].

Daniel 12
1. At that time, there will be unprecedented distress, but your
people whose names are in the book will be delivered.
2. Multitudes who had died will arise, some to eternal life and
others to eternal shame and contempt.
3. Daniel is to seal up these words until the end.
4. The fulfillment of these things will take 3-1/2 years, and will end
when the power of the holy people has been broken.
5. The commencement of these things will be in the distant future
from the time of Daniel.
6. 1,290 days [~3.5x360] will transpire after the abolishing of the
daily sacrifice and the Abomination of Desolation.
7. There is a blessing for those who wait another 45 days after
this.
Amos 9:11-15
1. In that day, God will restore the fallen kingdom of David in its
ancestral land, never again to be uprooted.
2. This will take place after the people are brought back from exile.

Joel 2
The Day of the Lord:

1. An extremely large army comes, laying waste to everything in

its path.
2. Their appearance is like galloping horses, with the noise of
chariots, they leap over mountains and swarm like locusts,
striking fear into everyone.
3. The earth shakes before them, the sun and moon are darkened
and the stars stop shining.
4. This army is led by the Lord.
5. A trumpet is blown, and then the bride and bridegroom are to
leave their rooms.
6. God promises to drive the northern horde away, driving them
into both the Mediterranean and Dead seas.
7. Then God will pour out his Spirit on everyone, male and female.
8. There will be signs in the heavens, blood and fire on the earth;
the sun will go dark and the moon will turn to blood before the
great Day of the Lord.

Zechariah 14
A day will come when Jerusalem is plundered and divided up.

1. All the nations surround the city, ransacking houses and raping
women.
2. Half the city goes into exile.
 3. Then the Lord fights against them. Their flesh will rot while they
still stand, their eyes will be consumed in their sockets, their
tongues will rot in their mouths, they will kill each other in great
panic, and a plague will strike their animals.
4. His feet stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem,
splitting the mountain in half.
5. That day there will be no sun or darkness, no distinction
between day and night.
6. Living water will flow from Jerusalem, half to the Dead Sea and
half to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and winter.
7. The Lord will be king over the whole world.
8. Jerusalem will never again be destroyed.
9. Survivors from the attacking nations will visit Jerusalem each
year to worship God and celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.
Those who refuse will suffer drought and plague.

The Gospels
1. The gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world
as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
2. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by military encampments,
you will know that its ruin is near.
3. When you see the Abomination of Desolation (as declared
through the prophet Daniel) standing in the Holy Place, then
those in Judea must run away into the mountains.
4. There will be terrible stress on the world, and great rage against
this people. They will be killed in battle and taken captive to all
the other nations. Then Jerusalem will be trampled on by the
nations until their time is up.
5. The suffering of those days will be unlike anything that has
happened since God first created the world until now, and will
never be again. In fact, if the Lord didn’t cut those days short,
no living thing would survive. But those days will be cut short for
the sake of his chosen ones.
 6. Then there will be signs in the sun, moon, and stars. And on the
earth, the nations will be filled with anguish and perplexity due to
the roaring and turbulence of the sea. People will be deathly
afraid and apprehensive of what is coming upon the whole
world, for the forces of the heavens will be shaken.
7. Then they will see Jesus coming in a cloud with great power and
majesty. But when you see this all coming to pass, stand up and
raise your heads, for you are about to be rescued.

Acts and Letters

James at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-18), quoting the
prophet Amos, says that “after this” God would rebuild David’s fallen
tent so that all mankind would seek God, including the Gentiles
bearing his name.

Paul in 1 Cor. 15:35-58 and 1 Thes. 4:13-18 says:

1. The Lord will descend from heaven.

2. The archangel will shout.
3. The trumpet will sound.
4. The dead Christians will be raised in immortal bodies.
5. The bodies of the living Christians will be instantly transformed
to immortal.
6. We will all be snatched away into the clouds to meet the Lord in
the air.
7. This is a message of comfort and hope.

Paul in 2 Thes. 2:1-12 says:

1. The Departure happens.

2. The Detainer that had been holding back the Man of
Lawlessness is taken out of the way.
3. The Man of Lawlessness is revealed and identified by his
desecration of the temple and declaring himself God.
 4. God sends a strong delusion on all who hated the truth, so that
they will be deceived.
5. Jesus will defeat this man by the breath of his mouth and glory
of his arrival.

Revelation
1. One of the letters to the churches, to Philadelphia, states that
they will be kept out of the time of trial to come upon the whole
inhabited world.
2. When John is first taken to heaven, he sees a group of 24
elders wearing victor’s crowns and white clothing.
3. The three sequences of 7 judgments commence, with
numerous references to Old Testament prophecies.
4. Jesus comes down to earth with the armies of heaven, to face
the armies of the world massed against him.
5. Satan is bound for a thousand years, during which time the
beheaded saints from the Tribulation will co-rule with Jesus.
6. Satan is briefly released and gathers an army from all over the
world, with Gog of Magog mentioned by name.
7. The army is consumed by fire from heaven, and Satan is
thrown into the Lake of Fire with the Beast and False Prophet.
8. The Great White Throne Judgment begins, and the dead are
judged.
9. Death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire, along with all
whose names are not written in the Book of Life.
10. The present earth and heavens are done away with and
replaced by new ones.
11. The New Jerusalem descends out of heaven, but nothing is said
about whether it touches the earth, and it has no temple.
 Preterism
Preterism is the belief that nothing at all remains of Bible prophecy;
anything that seems to remain was actually fulfilled symbolically or
metaphorically by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

We must ask that if the detailed prophecies of the last days are
symbolic, what reality do they point to? John was shown a vision of
“things that must quickly take place”, but what were the things to
be? If they pointed to nothing that could be seen or observed, then
why give the prophecy at all, and why in such detail? The whole
Revelation is stripped of all meaning and relevance if we were never
to take it as a prophecy of real and observable events. The same
can be said for Daniel, whose prophecies were undeniably literal
(see the book “Daniel in the Critics’ Den” by Sir Robert Anderson, or
later similar books by Josh McDowell or Joyce Baldwin).

As a precedent for literal fulfillments we can look to the prophecies

of the Messiah, who would both suffer and reign, die and live, be
destroyed and live forever. Preterists, using the same principles of
interpretation they now use, would not have looked for a literal
coming of the Messiah at all, yet in hindsight we cannot deny it. And
what did Jesus say to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus?
“‘How can you be so ignorant, and so reluctant to believe what the
prophets said? Didn’t the Christ have to suffer all these things and
then return to his glory?’ Then beginning with Moses and all the
Prophets, he interpreted all the scriptures that wrote about him.”
(Luke 24:25-27)

Daniel
If preterists accept that the first 69 of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy
were “weeks of years” or 70x7 years, then the last “week” must also
be a period of 7 years, rather than 7 days to match the final week of
Jesus’ mortal life. But nothing happened in that time frame; the
Temple was not destroyed until 70 years after Jesus was born, ten
times longer than all the other “weeks”. No explanation is given for
this special treatment.

Some say that the phrase “abomination of desolation” really means

that Jesus would destroy the temple defiled by the Jews, 3-1/2 years
after he was baptized by John and began his public ministry. Thus
he would be the “prince” that would put an end to the sacrifices and
offerings halfway through an alleged 7-year covenant begun at his
baptism. Yet there are several critical flaws in this argument.

First of all, note the purpose of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27):

1. It concerns the people of Israel and Jerusalem.

2. to finish (complete) transgression.
3. to put an end to sin.
4. to atone for wickedness.
5. to bring in everlasting righteousness.
6. to seal up (complete) vision and prophecy.
7. to anoint the Most Holy Place in the Temple.

Now note the clear sequence of events, regardless of the length of

time:

1. Command to rebuild Jerusalem

2. Arrival of the Anointed One
3. Death of the Anointed One
4. Destruction of the city and sanctuary
5. The end comes like a flood
6. Cointinuing war until the end
7. Desolations
8. “He” confirms a covenant with many for one “seven”
9. The same “he” ends sacrifice and offering at the midpoint
10. The same “he” will do something to the temple, and finally an
end is decreed upon “him”. (There is disagreement over
whether it should read “abomination that defiles” or “one who
causes desolation will come upon the wing of the temple”.)

Preterism necessarily includes a form of Replacement Theology,

where most or all of every prophecy concerning the nation of Israel
is appropriated by the Body of Christ. So they see the purpose of
the prophecy as about figurative, spiritual Israel and not the literal,
physical nation. The preterist interpretation of this prophecy could
not stand without it.

Even if this were true, the sequence cannot be denied. While all
prophetic views largely agree on the first five to seven items, the
sticking point is on the identity of “he”; is it Jesus or someone evil?
Let’s examine each of the remaining items in the list:

There is no indication in the Gospels or anywhere else that the

beginning of Jesus’ public ministry or his baptism signified the
confirmation of any covenant. There is also no firm proof that
his ministry lasted 3-1/2 years. And since his ministry began
and ended on Passovers, there is no room for a half-year.
Jesus himself stated, at the Last Supper, that his death would
be the signing of a new covenant.
Sacrifice and offering at the temple did not end at Jesus’ death,
resurrection, ascension, or at Pentecost. It was not until the
destruction of the city and temple about 40 years later that
these things ceased.
If Jesus was the one who did something to the temple, then
what he said in Mat. 24:15 makes no sense: “So when you see
standing in the holy place ’the abomination that causes
desolation’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel…” The Greek
of that verse is unambiguous; something abominable stands in
the Holy Place of the temple. And there is no record of people
immediately running to the mountains at the sight of Jesus
 being killed or of the curtain of the Holiest Place being torn in
two.
Conversely, if an evil person were to defile the temple, and if
this was future to Jesus and Paul (2 Thes. 2:4) and not already
fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes (2nd century BC), then it clearly
was not fulfilled in 70 AD since no one went into the temple to
be declared God but demolished it instead.

But most critical of all is the undeniable fact that the covenant is not
confirmed until after the city and sanctuary are destroyed. Even if
preterists take Jesus’ baptism as the covenant’s beginning, it still
predates his death. In other words, the sequence according to this
argument is as follows:

1. Jesus confirms a covenant with many for one ’seven’.

2. Jesus ends sacrifice and offering at the midpoint.
3. Jesus causes desolation upon the wing of the temple.
4. The city and sanctuary are destroyed.

Either the stated sequence of Daniel is true, or the preterist

sequence is true; both cannot be true. Regardless of what or when
preterism claims the final “seven” began, it has to happen after the
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Yet some preterists hold that this sequence is anything but clear.
Operating from the presumption that the prophecy can only be
speaking of one particular temple, the events are shuffled according
to whether or not the temple is standing. That is,

1. Events of 26–30 AD:

Jesus’ death (vs. 26a)
He confirms a covenant for one ’seven’ (vs. 27a)
He ends sacrifice and offering midway (vs. 27b)
2. Events of 66–70 AD:
Jerusalem and temple destroyed (vs. 26b)
War and desolations to the end (vs. 26c)
 The abominable temple and city are destroyed (vs. 27c)

However, in each sub-list there is a critical error: Why is the death of

Jesus before the confirmation of the covenant, which is before the
ending of sacrifice by his death? Why are Jerusalem and the temple
destroyed before the war and desolations, then destroyed again?
This too must be shuffled in order to fit Preterist belief.

One wonders how the angel could have made the Preterist
interpretation any less clear. And we have precedent for multiple
temples, since the one standing in Jesus’ day was at least the
second. Preterism must also brush off the “span of time” indicators
“the end will come… war will continue until the end” as limited to 70
AD. A circular argument always seems airtight.

As for the argument that no physical future temple is prophesied,

the claim is that since Christians are “the temple of the Holy Spirit”
(1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19), then there has been no physical temple since
Pentecost. However, notice that those verses say that we are the
temple of the Holy Spirit, and the word for temple in all Old
Testament prophecies always referred to the physical building
wherein the priestly rites would be performed. Also be aware that
the temple in Jesus’ day did not have the Ark of the Covenant in
it. That alone should have made it illegitimate according to some, yet
Jesus himself worshiped there and observed all the laws of Moses.
So this negates the argument that the tribulation temple cannot
qualify as being desecrated (per Daniel 9:27) if there is no Ark
inside. See this article for more detail.

The Gospels
Jesus only mentioned the future ekklesia once (Mt. 16:18). His
primary mission was to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt. 15:24), so we
can’t presume that all or even most of what He said concerned the
coming ekklesia. His reference to “other sheep not of this pen” (John
10:16) is the only other clear reference to the gentile believers,
again in the future.

If Jesus is to be taken literally when referring to “the abomination of

desolation” and the destruction of the Temple and “this generation”,
then He must also be taken literally when He said all of the following:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole

world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
(Mt. 24:14)
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the
beginning of the world until now— and never to be equaled
again. (Mt. 24:21)
Immediately after the distress of those days, “the sun will be
darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall
from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”
At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky,
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn. They will see the
Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and
great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call,
and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end
of the heavens to the other. (Mt. 24:29-31)

It is another act of desperation to take only some of Jesus’

predictions literally, since there is nothing in the context to indicate a
parable or figurative speech. Contrast this with his statement to the
Jews in John 2:13-22 after he drove the merchants from the temple.
They asked for a sign of His authority and he said he’d “destroy this
temple and raise it again in three days”. But John adds, “But the
temple he had spoken of was his body.”

What did Jesus mean by saying that some in

his day would still be living until his kingdom
would come?
 Matthew 16:27-28: “For the Son of Man will surely come in the
glory of his Father, along with his angels, and then he will repay
each person according to their deeds. I assure you that some
here will still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his
kingdom.”
Mark 9:1: Jesus continued: “I assure you that some here will
definitely be alive to see the Kingdom of God arrive with power.”
Luke 9:26-27: “For whoever is ashamed of me and what I say,
that is someone the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he
comes in his his glory, and in the glory of the Father and the
holy angels. I assure you that some here will still be alive to see
the kingdom of God.”

Before each of these passages, Jesus talked about the personal

cost of following him, followed immediately by the statement that
within a week the Transfiguration took place. But what is meant by
“until they see the kingdom of God with power”?

It could refer to the Transfiguration, but this makes nonsense out of

Jesus’ emphatic statement about it happening long enough in the
future that only some would still be alive to see it. Or it could refer to
the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but that was still too
soon. Yet if it refered to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple
in 70 AD and thereby met the “still alive” criterion, the other details
must be allegorized, since Jesus made no glorious appearing, the
angels were not seen, and the kingdom of God did not arrive in any
visible sense. If the “church” is deemed the kingdom, the problem is
that it had already begun on Pentecost.

We should also consider that this phrase about coming in power with
the angels is seen as well in the Sheep and Goats passage in Mat.
25:31-46, which would place this arrival at the end of the Tribulation,
clearly well beyond any normal mortal lifetime. Rev. 1:7 says, “Look!
He is coming with the clouds and every eye will see him; those who
pierced him and all the tribes of the earth will grieve.” There are
obviously two groups of people here. “Those who pierced him” (the
Jews) are distinguished from “every eye” (the Gentiles). The phrase
“all the tribes on the earth” is always applied to all the world; see
Gen. 12:3, 28:14, Ps. 72:17, and Zech. 14:17.

What are we left with then? Though a more nuanced interpretation is

less ideal, it may be the only one to solve the problem. We know
that the kingdom was genuinely offered to Israel, but they rejected it,
and as a result it was greatly delayed. Could it be that this statement
Jesus made was also contingent upon their acceptance of the offer?
We have all but ruled out any other possibility, if we remain
consistent and reject the easy path of spiritualization.

Acts
There could not be a clearer statement of delayed prophecy than
that of James at the Jerusalem Council: “Israel is being set aside
until the Lord takes from among the Gentiles a people for Himself.
Then he’ll return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle” (Acts 15:13-
18). Israel’s “being set aside” was not completed until the temple
was destroyed in 70 AD. So if that marks the end of all the
prophecies, then the Gentiles were never gathered, because the
setting aside must precede the gathering. Neither can the setting
aside have been completed with Jesus’ death and resurrection,
since it’s only afterwards when James says it’s “being” set aside (at
least present and ongoing, but possibly also future). It’s equally clear
that “David’s fallen tabernacle” had not yet been rebuilt. Israel did
not have a sovereign kingdom in the first century, and its presence
was not drawing the Gentiles to seek the Lord. Just as Peter’s
citation of Joel at Pentecost did not see the fulfillment of every detail
of the prophecy (e.g., signs in the heavens), so also the gathering of
the Gentiles beginning in the first century did not constitute the final
fulfillment of Amos 9:11-12 as referenced by James.

The Letters
Paul wrote, “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and
our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to
become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from
us… asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.” (2 Thes.
2:1-2) A figurative or symbolic coming would hardly alarm anyone,
especially if the judgments to follow were likewise symbolic. The
people’s very alarm was ample proof that they believed in the literal
fulfillment of the coming of the Lord and the Tribulation to follow.

Preterists may argue that the people could only have been fooled if
they understood that this was all symbolic, since it was not
observable. But again, they were not only fooled but fearful— a
reaction that makes no sense if the judgments were likewise
symbolic. And once again it would be special pleading to take the
signs as symbolic but the persecutions as literal.

The Revelation
Citing Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus,
Eusebius, and Jerome, scholars have determined that the
Revelation was seen and written toward the end of the reign of
Domitian, the Roman emperor following Nero. Nero died in 68 AD
and Domitian in 96 AD (source). The consensus is that it was seen
and written around 95 AD. So the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD
was long past and thus not the fulfillment of Revelation. And since
there is little doubt that Revelation is referring to the same final
“week” as Daniel, it must therefore be that prophecy’s final and
complete fulfillment.

Some who are not scholars have tried to argue that the references
in these writings were ambiguous; e.g. “The problem here is that the
word ‘it’ in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book
he wrote, or John himself” (source). But such alleged ambiguities
are not mentioned by scholars, and “it” would not refer to John
himself.
Preterists may ask why John would not mention the destruction of
the Temple if the Revelation post-dated it, but there is no compelling
reason for him to do so since this was not a historical record but a
vision from God. We might also ask why none of the early “church
fathers” mentioned it as being a fulfillment of John’s prophecy.

The letter to Laodicea in Rev. 3:17 treats it as a prosperous city. But

it had been ruined by an earthquake around 61 AD, which makes a
date during Nero’s reign impossible. Cities could not so quickly be
rebuilt, much less return to a high level of prosperity.

Polycarp states that his church, the one in Smyrna, was not even in
existence in the days of the apostle Paul, leading up to the
destruction of Jerusalem. Smyrna is never mentioned in the Book of
Acts, or in any other New Testament epistle (source). How did this
church so suddenly appear, and so quickly be slandered by “those
who say they are Jews but are not”?

If Nero had been the Antichrist, he would have been destroyed as

scripture states in 2 Thes. 2:8 (“whom the Lord will do away with by
the breath of his mouth, and will destroy when he appears at his
arrival”). But Nero committed suicide, two years before the Temple
was destroyed. There is also no evidence that Nero ever set foot in
Jerusalem, much less the temple. Neither is there any evidence of a
mark on the heads or hands of the people so that they could buy
and sell, any time in history. Preterists must somehow justify naming
Nero as the literal Antichrist while making everything else about him
symbolic— and symbolic of what, they cannot say.

Conclusion
Preterism can only stand by denying historical evidence for the date
of the Revelation, and by inconsistently applying the label of
“symbolic” to select scriptures. Paul warned against such teachings
in 2 Tim. 2:17b-18: “Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who
have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has
already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.”

John was undeniably the last apostle to die, yet he of all people
should have been “caught up together with them in the clouds to
meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thes. 4:17) had all things been fulfilled
by 70 AD. There was no return of Jesus to rescue Israel or keep the
temple from being destroyed, and clearly Satan has not been bound
for a thousand years nor thrown into the Lake of Fire. To say this all
happened but life goes on as if it didn’t, is to remove all meaning
from words and make it impossible to really know anything at all—
including whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Additional reading:
Preterism Series
Another Preterism Article
Preterism’s Inconsistencies
 Prophecies Still to Come

Introduction
This chapter will attempt to integrate all remaining Biblical
prophecies from both the Old and New Testaments. Too often we err
in our interpretations because we’re unaware of the complete scope
of things, whether they have to do with Bible prophecy, other Bible
topics, or even secular history. So it’s worthwhile to gather all those
details together and look for points of similarity as well as difference.

We should also be aware that prophecies aren’t always fulfilled or

completed at a single point of time. For example, Daniel’s prophecy
of the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled by Antiochus
Epiphanes hundreds of years before Jesus came (see the chapter
on Daniel), yet Jesus predicted another future fulfillment. This same
principle will apply as we study events yet to come. We know, for
example, that the Age of Grace (the present age) has had many, but
not all, of the characteristics Jesus described for “the beginning of
birthpangs”. We don’t know whether these birthpangs concern the
Age of Grace at all.

A study of the separateness of Israel and the Body of Christ (1 Cor.

10:32) is vital for understanding remaining Bible prophecy, so please
see the chapter on that topic. The bulk of prophecy is focused on
the people and land of Israel. But most of what concerns Christians
is found in the Letters, with the remainder in the Revelation. So if,
for example, we wanted to know whether Christians will suffer any or
all of the final judgments, we would not look for this in the Old
Testament or even the Gospels. Especially regarding the Seventy
Weeks prophecy of Daniel, it was all specified for the people of
Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the temple (Dan. 9:24). The first
69 Weeks were for them, and so will be the 70th.
The Age of Grace ends not by a specific date or sign, but by an
unknown number. As we can see in Acts 15:16 and Rom. 11:25,
God began to turn away from the Hebrew-exclusive era to that of
the Gentiles after Jesus returned to heaven. This transitional period
ended at the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of
the temple, as will be examined later. So anything to do with the
nation of Israel was halted, though not abandoned, and will be
resumed once the Age of Grace ends.

God seems to focus on one group of his people at a time. He

focused on the people of Israel, then interrupted that to turn toward
the Gentiles. So when he shifts his focus back toward Israel, he
shifts it away from the Body of Christ. If this is accurate, then we
should expect Christians to be taken to heaven before the battle of
Ezekiel 38 at the latest. But if there is an overlap as between the
beginning of the Age of Grace and the destruction of the temple
(about forty years), then we may indeed see this battle, which is
followed by a period of seven years with no clear connection to the
Seventieth Week of Daniel. However, if prophecies about the return
of Israel to the land can apply at least paritally to the present time
(since 1948), then the period of overlap may be nearly over.

The Body of Christ will not experience the wrath of God (Col. 3:6, 1
Thes. 1:10, 1 Thes. 5:9, Rev. 3:10, Luke 21:36). Please note that
the phrase “the wrath of God” can also refer to the general attitude
of God toward his enemies in this life, or to the eternal state of such
rebels. To determine whether it means the specific time of God’s
judgments or “the Day of the Lord”, we must consider the context.
But regardless of which meaning one may choose, it’s never
directed at Christians.

In general, the Day of the Lord refers to any period of time

characterized by the direct and obvious intervention of God.
References are Is. 2:12, Is. 13:6,9, Ezk. 13:5, Ezk. 30:3, Joel 1:15,
Joel 2:1, Joel 2:11, Joel 2:31, Joel 3:14, Amos 5:18 and 20, Obadiah
15, Zeph. 1:7 and 14, Zech. 14:1, Malachi 4:5, Acts 2:20, 2 Thess.
2:2, 2 Peter 3:10,, Rev. 6:16-17, 11:18, 14:10,19, 15:1 and 7, 16:1,
14, and 19, and Rev. 19:15. Some were fulfilled in the past, but
since the past fulfillments weren’t always the same length of time,
we cannot say with certainty that the future one(s) will be a certain
length of time. Among the future ones, we can see that the
beginning of this time is not as sharply defined as we would like.

The Age of Grace Ends

The apostle Paul gave a sequence of events that mark the end of
the Age of Grace. He called it The Departure, that is, the “snatch
up” or removal of the Restrainer (John 14:2-3, 1 Cor. 15:35-58, 1
Thes. 4:13-18, 2 Thes. 2:1-12):

1. The Lord will descend from heaven

2. The archangel will shout
3. The (last) trumpet of God will sound (ref. also Ex. 19:16-19,
Num. 10:2; contrast with Rev. 11:15)
4. Dead Christians will be raised in immortal bodies
5. Bodies of the living Christians will be instantly transformed to
immortal
6. All are snatched away into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air
7. This is a message of comfort and hope (no mention of any
disasters or world leaders)

Who are “they” who say “peace and safety” in 1 Thes. 5:3, after
which there is “sudden destruction”? Whoever is not “you” in the
Body of Christ. The way we aren’t caught by surprise is by always
being watchful and ready (Phil. 3:20), rather than by somehow
knowing the exact date and hour. Keep in mind that Jesus directed
his comments toward the people of Israel, not the as-yet unrevealed
Body of Christ (Rom. 11:25, Rom. 16:25, Eph. 3:6-9, Col. 1:26-27).
So what he said about watching and being ready, as well as praying
to escape (Luke 21:36), was for them and not us. But of course,
Christians of all times are to be eager to see Jesus return, and to
live so that we won’t be ashamed when he does; this is taught
throughout the Letters.

The Transitional Battles

The geography and ethnic groups cited in these passages are
identifiable and have the motivation expected of the era before the
Tribulation. It’s highly unlikely that this would be the case afterwards.

Destruction of Damascus (Is. 17) – It will suddenly lie in ruins,

replaced by grazing flocks, when the glory of Israel has faded
almost completely, and then people turn back to God.
Intent of nations bordering Israel to wipe it out (Ps. 83) –
Enemies of Israel band together to wipe it off the map: Edom,
the Ishmaelites, Moab, the Agrites, Byblos, Ammon, Amalek,
Philistia, Tyre, and Assyria. These correspond roughly to
modern-day Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria,
northern Iraq, and possibly parts of Egypt.
Gog (the title of the ruler) of Magog (his land) and nations
around Mediterranean Sea intend to take spoil from a nation
recovered from war (Ezk. 38-39; weapons used as fuel for 7
years afterwards). The contrasts between this battle and the
one in Rev. 20:8-9 at the end of the Millennium are the sources
of the armies (certain nations vs. all the nations of the world)
and the manner in which the armies are defeated (earthquake,
attacking each other, plague, rain, hail, and sulfur vs. fire from
heaven). Magog was populated by the descendants of Japeth
who went to the area now known as Russia, though some hold
that all these nations are in Asia Minor. Meschech and Tubal
refer to areas north and east of Magog, Persia is modern Iran,
Cush and Put are northern Africa, Gomer settled along the
Danube River in modern eastern Europe, and Togarmah settled
in Turkey.
We don’t know whether Christians will be on earth to witness these
things, as they may well take place before the enforcement of the
seven-year treaty that marks the beginning of the Tribulation. There
was an overlap between the beginning of the Age of Grace at
Pentecost and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, so it’s
possible that Christians may see these battles. However, though the
duration of the battles is unknown and their relationship to the
seven-year treaty is also unknown, they would still be a sign to us
that our Departure is very near.

So while this doesn’t technically violate the signlessness of our

Departure, remember that even the apostle Paul believed it could
happen without warning in his own day. Otherwise he would have
included these events in his sequential list given to the
Thessalonians. In fact, the second letter was written to counter a
forgery that claimed the Day of the Lord had already arrived (2
Thes. 2:1-2). They would not have been fooled if they knew the
battles listed above had to happen first, and Paul doesn’t make any
mention of them there.

Jesus’ Public Statement About the End

Times
When Jesus’ disciples remarked about the magnificence of the
temple, he told them that it would be destroyed to the point where
not one block rested on another (Dan. 9:26b, Mt. 24:2, Mk. 13:1-2,
Lk. 21:5-6). This was said publicly, while they were still on the temple
grounds (Mt. 24:1), and it was fulfilled by the Roman ruler Titus in 70
AD. Everything else was said privately at a later time. It’s possible
that the prophecy about the people of Judea fleeing when they
would see Jerusalem surrounded by encampments was at least
partially fulfilled at this time, though it was largely only the Christians
who escaped. And it should be noted that Titus didn’t set up any idol
in the temple, nor go into it and declare himself God.
Jesus’ Private (Olivet) Discourse to Peter,
James, John, and Andrew
Mt. 24:3a and Mk. 13:3 tell us that the Olivet Discourse was given
privately to Jesus’ inner circle of disciples. They asked three
questions (Mt. 24:3b, Mk. 13:4, Lk. 21:7), after which Jesus gave a
lengthy response:

1. When will these things happen?

2. What is the sign of your arrival?
3. What is the sign of the end of the age?

General Introduction (Mt. 24:33)

Jesus gave his disciples certain signs to look for as the arrival of the
Kingdom of God drew near. Remember that these were signs for
Israel and concern the prophecies for Israel, rather than for
Christians. And it’s the arrival of the Kingdom of God that the
disciples asked about, which is preceded by the Day of the Lord.
That Day will begin suddenly and without warning, while people are
going about their daily lives.

Signs to watch for (Mt. 24:32-33, Mk. 13:28-29, Lk. 21:28-31).

When you see all these things, the Kingdom of God is near:
false Christs and prophets
wars nearby and reports of distant wars
famines
earthquakes
lawlessness and cold-bloodedness
gospel of the Kingdom proclaimed worldwide
Jerusalem surrounded
the Abomination of Desolation
the Great Tribulation
dark sun and moon
stars fall
 the Sign of the Son of Man
the Son of Man coming in the clouds
trumpet blast for angels to gather the chosen people from
all over the heavens
This generation (Mt. 24:34-35, Mk. 13:30-31, Lk. 21:32-33) will
not pass before it all takes place. Debate rages over the
meaning, but it will include the appearance of “all these things”,
meaning the signs Jesus had just given to signal the arrival of
the Kingdom of God. And since these things didn’t happen in
the first century, “this generation” cannot refer to the one of
Jesus’ day. Then the question is whether it refers to the whole
nation of that time, or to the lifespan of people born then. Even
if it’s the latter, we cannot say with any certainty what the length
of that generation may be, or exactly when the signs began to
appear. Thus date-setting is futile. It would be reasonable to
take it to mean that the Day of the Lord will not span a
generation; in fact, we know from Daniel that it will last seven
years.
No one knows the day or hour (Mt. 24:36, Mk. 13:32-33, Lk.
21:34-35) for the arrival of the Kingdom of God.
Like days of Noah (Mt. 24:37-39, Lk. 17:26-27)
Like days of Lot (Lk. 17:28-29)
Taken or left (Mt. 24:40-41, Lk. 17:30-35). In context, this
applies to when the people of Judea flee upon seeing the
Abomination of Desolation. This context also includes the
examples of Noah and Lot, where the righteous were taken
and the wicked left to suffer judgment.
So watch (Mt. 24:42-44, Mk. 13:37, Lk. 21:36a)
Pray to escape (Mt. 24:20, Lk. 21:36b)
When least expected (Mt. 24:45-51, Mk. 13:34-36). There
are two possible ways for not expecting something to
happen: (1) presuming it will not come in our day, and (2)
losing hope. But Jesus indicates that while the people of
Israel still believe their Master will return, they expect him
to come at a much later time.
 The ten virgins analogy (Mt. 25:1-13). Again, this is not for
Christians but for Israel. Jesus gave another indication
about some of them being excluded from the Kingdom of
God in Mat. 8:11-12.
The good and bad servants (Mt. 25:14-30)

Beginning of Birthpangs / Seal Judgments (Mt. 24:8,

Mk. 13:8d)
False Christs (Mt. 24:4-5, Mt. 24:11,23-28, Mk. 13:5-6, Lk.
17:23, Lk. 21:8, Rev. 6:1-2)
Wars/uprisings (Dan. 9:26d, Mt. 24:6-7a, Mk. 13:7-8a, Luke
21:9-10, Rev. 6:3-4)
Famines (Mt. 24:7b, Mk. 13:8c, Luke 21:11b, Rev. 6:5-6)
Plagues (Mt. 24:7b-8, Luke 21:11c, Rev. 6:7-8)
Earthquakes (Mt. 24:7b,9, Mk. 13:8b, Luke 21:11a, Rev. 6:12a)
Black sun, red moon, stars fall, sky recoils (Joel 2:30-31, Rev.
6:12-17)

The Tribulation / Trumpet Judgments (Dan. 9:26c, Mt.

24:14b)
Treaty enforced for seven years (Dan. 9:27a)
Beast/prince deceives the world (2 Thes. 2:9-11, Rev. 13:14)
Persecution (Mt. 24:9, Mk. 13:9,11, Lk. 21:12-18, Rev. 6:9-11)
False prophets (Mt. 24:11)
Strife/coldbloodedness (Mt. 24:10,12, Mk. 13:12-13a)
Endurance for salvation (Mt. 24:13, Mk. 13:13b, Lk. 21:19, Rev.
13:9-10)
Gospel of Kingdom (Mt. 24:14a, Mk. 13:10, Rev. 14:6)

The Great Tribulation / Bowl Judgments (Mt. 24:21)

The Abomination of Desolation (Dan. 9:27b, Mt. 24:15, Mk.
13:14a, Rev. 13:5,15 [at or after 7th trumpet])
 The ruler who commits the Abomination:
Called the Son of Perdition, the Man of Lawlessness, the
Beast (Dan. 7:7-8,11, 2 Thes. 2:3b, Rev. 13:1-8, Rev.
17:12-13)
(The name Antichrist [1 John 2:18] is actually better applied
to the False Prophet / Second beast of Rev. 13)
Will perform miracles (2 Thes. 2:9-10, Rev. 19:20a)
Claims to be above all gods and sets himself in the temple
of God (Dan. 11:36, 2 Thes. 2:4)
Has no regard for the gods of his ancestors or the one
favored by women (Dan. 11:37; this is not saying he will be
homosexual, since the context is about gods)
Honors a god of forces/fortresses and a “foreign” god (Dan.
11:38-39)
Fights kings of north and south, invades many nations,
takes great plunder (Dan. 11:40-43)
Alarming reports from east and north will cause him to
destroy many more nations in a great rage (Dan. 11:44)
Will make camp near the Mediterranean Sea and “holy
mountain”, but he will meet his end there and will be
defeated by the breath from the Lord Jesus (Dan. 11:45, 2
Thes. 2:8)
Judeans must flee to mountains (Mt. 24:16-20, Mk. 13:14b-18,
Lk. 17:30-33, 21:20-22, Rev. 12:6 [for 1,260 days])
This is the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer. 30:7)
Battle outside of Jerusalem (Rev. 14:19-20)
Jerusalem plundered (Zech. 14:1-2)
Unprecedented suffering (Dan. 12:1, Mt. 24:21-22, Mk. 13:19-
20, Lk. 21:23-24)
False Christs and prophets (Mt. 24:23-26, Mk. 13:21-23)
Gather in Valley of Megiddo (trad. Battle of Armageddon,
though no battle actually happens; Joel 3:1-2, Joel 12-14, Rev.
16:16)

After the Great Tribulation (Mt. 24:29a, Mk. 13:24a)

 Cosmic disasters (Is. 13:10, Is. 24:20, Is. 34:4, Joel 2:31, Joel
3:15, Mt. 24:29b, Mk. 13:24-25, Lk. 21:11, Lk. 21:25-26, Rev.
16:18-20)
Sun and moon dark
Stars fall from sky
Powers of heavens shaken, sky recoiled
Fear over roaring of sea
Mountains and islands shifted
Sign of Son of Man in sky (Mt. 24:30a)
Descent of Son of Man in clouds (Mt. 24:27,30b, Mk. 13:26, Lk.
17:24,21:27, Rev. 19:11-14)
Lord’s army arrives, Bride and Bridegroom leave chambers
(Joel 2)
The Lord stands on Mt. of Olives, splitting it in two, and fights
against all the nations (Zech. 14:3-5)
Defeat of Beast (2 Thes. 2:8, Rev. 19:15,21)
Where body is, vultures gather (Mt. 24:28, Lk. 17:36-37, Rev.
19:17-21)
Beast and False Prophet thrown alive into the Lake of Fire (Rev.
19:20b)
Satan imprisoned (Rev. 20:1-3)
Trumpet blast, angels harvest the elect (Mt. 24:31, Mk. 13:27)
Sheep and goats (Mt. 7:21-23, Mk. 25:31-46, Lk. 13:24-30)

The Millennium
Israel re-established in land, restored earthly Jerusalem and
temple (Ezk. 36-37, Ezk. 40-48, Jer. 30:10, Jer. 16-24, Amos
9:11-15)
Rule by Christ and the souls of those who refused to worship
the Beast or take its mark (Rev. 20:4)

After the Millennium

Satan released (Rev. 20:7)
Final battle of Gog/Magog but from all nations around the world
(Rev. 20:8-9a)
Satan’s world-wide army destroyed by fire (Zech. 14:12-13,
Rev. 20:9b)
Satan in Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10)
New heavens and new earth without any sea (Rev. 21:1)
New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, Rev. 21:9-22:5)
 Prophecy Fads and Misconceptions

The Muslim Beast

One modern prophecy fad is to believe that the coming Beast will be
the Muslim Mahdi (or Twelfth Imam). But can this be supported from
scripture?

First of all, we need to distinguish between the Beast and the

Antichrist. There are two beasts mentioned in Revelation: the First
Beast and the Second Beast or False Prophet. The first is stricly
political and will be the one possessed by Satan at the midpoint of
the Tribulation, desecrating the temple and declaring himself God.
The second has to do with religion and would thus be the only one to
qualify as an antichrist. This is the one who will demand that
everyone worship the First Beast, and who will order the Mark to be
enforced (see next section).

So the only possible connection of Islamic prophecy to the end times

would be to the False Prophet. But since no Muslim would pretend
to be Allah, their Mahdi would not demand that the world worship
anyone on earth. But will either of the Beasts be Muslim, even if not
the Mahdi? After all, the method of execution for many will be
beheading (Rev. 20:4). However, this one fact is hardly enough to
identify the False Prophet as a Muslim. This is during the second
half of the Tribulation, after the False Prophet has demanded that
the whole world worship the First Beast, who has declared himself
God. Thus the beheadings of Rev. 20:4 can have nothing to do with
Islam. It may well be that beheading is simply the preferred Satanic
method of execution.

Does scripture support someone of Muslim heritage who simply

apostasizes? That is, can we trace the lineage of either of the
Beasts arising from either Islam or a nation that practices it? In the
Seventy Weeks prophecy of Daniel, we’re told that there is a coming
“prince”. It was to be the people of this prince that would destroy
the temple, which happened in 70 AD. The Roman army often
included people of many ethnicities, but the lineage of those people
does not necessarily apply to the prince himself. So who was the
prince? The Roman general Titus. He was neither Arab nor Muslim,
since Islam was not invented until the 600s AD. While one might
point to the Ottoman Empire as having ruled the general area out of
which the Beasts might come, the Roman Empire was always ruled
by Europeans. The type or shadow of the Beast, Antiochus
Epiphanes, was a Roman of Greek lineage. As for the False
Prophet, nothing at all is said about his lineage or people.

But what did Jesus mean when he said in John 5:43, “I have come
with the authority of my Father and you won’t accept me, but if
someone comes by their own authority you’ll accept them”? Many
believe this means the Antichrist will be a Jew. Now since many
Jews will reject the Beast when he desecrates the temple, it could
only apply to those who remain. However, Rev. 13:1 says the First
Beast arises out of the sea, which symbolizes the non-Jewish
nations. Rev. 13:11 says that the Second Beast arises out of the
land, which symbolizes the people of Israel. Yet it’s the First Beast
who enforces the 7-year treaty.

There is a book by Phillip Goodman called The Assyrian Connection

that proposes a Syrian (Micah 5:5) as the Antichrist. He argues that
the Antichrist will arise out of the eastern leg of the old Roman
Empire, an area presently dominated by Islam. But none of the
passages to which he appeals clearly point to either the coming
Antichrist or the then non-existent religion of Islam. Not even
Antiochus Epiphanes, who first fulfilled the prophecy of the
Abomination of Desolation, was Assyrian. Even so, the phrase “the
Assyrian” could be an expression meaning “the Assyrian people”,
just as we might say that “the American” is going to rise up against
tyranny. More details and theories can be found at this article.
(Disclaimer: Walid Shoebat was never really a terrorist or an expert
on Bible prophecy.)

Perhaps the strongest argument against a Muslim Antichrist is that

the present Islamic nations will be wiped out either early in the
Tribulation or just before it starts; see the chapter on prophesies still
to come. In fact, all religions will be outlawed when the Beast
declares himself God, including the ancient Babylonian religion. The
Antichrist will not be an atheist, but neither will he be identified with
any former religion. Islam certainly is serving a Satanic purpose and
supplies the motivation for the Psalm 83 coalition against Israel, but
it will not be a significant entity in the Tribulation, nor will the
Antichrist or either of the Beasts be Islamic.

The Mark of the Beast

Revelation 13:17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is
the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Revelation 14:9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone
worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their
hand…”

What is the Mark? The beast’s name or number. It is not our

personal ID. Even if the world went back to using beads for
currency, this mark would still be required to do business. So
technology doesn’t matter, it’s whether this Mark represents your
willing citizenship in the Beast’s kingdom.

How is the Mark given? Etched on the forehead or right hand. Why
these two locations? The most likely reason is that it refers to the
Beast’s withered right arm and blind right eye (Zech. 11:17).

When is it given? After the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15). How do we

know when the seventh trumpet has been sounded? Following is a
list of the judgments of the trumpets in order, by chapter and verse
in Revelation. We will not see the Mark of the Beast until after all of
those things have happened. So since not even the first trumpet has
sounded, we aren’t even close to seeing the Mark of the Beast.

1. 8:6-7 (1) Hail, fire, 1/3 earth burned

2. 8:8-9 (2) Blazing mountain, 1/3 sea destroyed
3. 8:10-11 (3) Burning star Wormwood, 1/3 rivers embittered
4. 8:12-13 (4) Heavenly bodies’ light reduced by 1/3
5. 9:1-12 (5) First woe on earth: Locusts from the Abyss torment
enemies of God for five months
6. 9:13-21 (6) Second woe on earth: Four Messengers, 200 million
soldiers, 1/3 population killed
7. 11:1-14 temple measurements and two witnesses
8. 11:15-14:20 (7) Third woe on earth: the two Beasts

Some people think that any and all references to beasts in the Bible
can be applied to this context, such that pretty much anyone and
anything can be called the Mark of the Beast. By this method, even
Israel or Jesus would qualify. The foolishness of this idea is obvious;
it’s only being mentioned because there are actually people who
think this is how the Bible should be interpreted.

The Two Witnesses

Rev. 11:1-12 describes them as individual human beings with
miraculous powers, who wear sackcloth and prophesy for 3-1/2
years. This is the same description found in Zech. 4:3, Zech. 11, and
Zech. 14. They are killed by the Beast during the 6th trumpet
judgment, left in the center of Jerusalem for 3-1/2 days, raised back
to life by God, and then taken up to heaven while their enemies
watch.

Anyone and anything that doesn’t match all these criteria is not
either of the Two Witnesses. So they aren’t Israel and the Body of
Christ, nor any random political leaders, nor the Old and New
Testaments, nor any other off-the-wall candidate.

Blood Moons, Tetrads, and Shemitah Years

A “blood moon” is simply a lunar eclipse where conditions are such
that the moon appears reddish in color. A tetrad is when four such
eclipses occur in a row. A Shemitah year is so named for the
command to Israel to let their fields remain unplowed every seventh
year so the land could rest. This is strictly for Israel, not anyone
else, and none of the curses for failure to observe these years apply
to any other nation.

None of these concepts are part of Bible prophecy. Phrases such as

“the moon will turn to blood and the sun to darkness” are indeed
found in scripture, but each context shows that they aren’t routine
astronomical events, and they happen at the same time as the
darkening or falling of the stars. One way all of these things could
happen at once is during a volcanic eruption where the sky is
blocked out, and another would be divine intervention. But the
normal astronomical events cannot all happen at the same time.

Theories such as those promoted by Mark Biltz or Rabbi Jonathan

Cahn leave out any tetrads that didn’t occur on a significant date in
history, and not all of the ones that did were before the events they
allegedly pointed to. This is cherry-picking the data and fudging the
dates. They also lead us to wonder why the biggest events, such as
the Holocaust, were not foretold by any such signs.

Scripture does say that the heavenly bodies serve as signs and to
count off years, but this hardly means that every alignment of stars
or every tetrad is a prophetic sign. So there is no reason to think
that the latest astronomical alignments or phenomena are foretelling
world events. One must be careful when connecting dots.
Mystery Babylon
There are plenty of theories as to the identity of “Mystery Babylon”.
But let’s look at the Biblical description and see what it actually says.

1. She sits on many waters (Rev. 17:1) but is in the desert (Rev.
17:3a)
2. She rides the red beast with 7 heads and 10 horns (Rev. 17:3b)
3. She wears royal robes and carries a chalice holding the filth of
her promiscuity (Rev. 17:4)
4. She has written on her forehead a secret name, “Babylon the
Great, mother of harlots and everything disgusting” (Rev. 17:5;
the Greek says a secret name, not that the name is Mystery
Babylon)
5. She is drunk with the blood of the holy people and martyrs or
witnesses of Jesus (Rev. 17:6a)

After John sees this vision, the angel explains what it symbolizes.
And since the angel does this, there is no reason or justification for
taking the answers as symbols.

1. The beast preceded the time of John, was not in power in his
time, and will arise again from the Abyss (Rev. 17:8a), and is
also the 8th king (Rev. 17:11)
2. The heads represent mountains which are kings; 5 have fallen,
one was currently in power, and one will come later (Rev. 17:9-
10)
3. The ten horns represent ten kings who have not yet come
(Rev. 17:12a) and will hate and destroy the woman (Rev. 17:16)
4. The many waters the woman sits upon represent many nations
of people (Rev. 17:5)
5. The woman represents “that great city that has sovereignty
over the kings of the earth” (Rev. 17:18), who has gained wealth
by trafficking in all sorts of goods as well as human beings (Rev.
18:11-13)
The angel does not give the meaning of the desert. It may simply
mean the place where John saw the vision, but it could also refer to
the site of the ancient city of Babylon in the plains of Shinar (Gen.
10:10), which is in Mesopotamia, in modern Iraq, about 30 miles
south of Baghdad (see Bible Atlas). It may also be related to a vision
in Zechariah 5:5-11, where a personification of evil is carried to
Shinar to be set in place. The city was built by Nimrod, who rebelled
against God and established his own religion, which came to be the
source of the worship of Horus and Semiramis, and their various
names including Baal and the Queen of Heaven. So Babylon is
both a literal city and the root of all false religion.

Who or what is the Beast/8th king? It could not be Rome, since

Rome was in power in John’s day. Yet it had to exist before John,
and so it’s not any kingdom, state, or power that hasn’t existed in
ancient times. And since it has carried the woman, it must be as old
as she is.

Who are the seven kings? Five of them preceded the time of John,
one was in power in his time, and one was yet to come. Ten
legitimate Roman emperors preceded the time of John, and the
eleventh in his time was Domitian. Further, it seems unlikely that the
angel would be talking about a line of kings from a single kingdom.
So the seven kings represent kings and their kingdoms. Now we
look for five empires before Rome, and the most likely were Egypt,
Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece. But who or what will be
the final empire? All the kings have had something to do with the
Beast, so what do they all have in common? They are all powers
that ruled the known world. The Beast will be the final world
empire, with roots that go back to ancient times. There is nothing in
the text to identify it as “the city on seven hills”.

Who are the ten kings? They will be from kingdoms that have not
existed in the past, and they will be all of one kingdom, since the
word for kingdom in Rev. 17:12 is singular. They will share their
power with the eighth king for a short time, likely half the Tribulation.
Of what significance are the many waters? They represent the
population of the world and are under the authority of the woman,
not the beast. What has the beast “carried” since ancient times, and
will throw off and destroy? The most likely answer is ancient
Babylonian religion. We know that the Beast will do away with the
worship of any god or king but himself at the midpoint of the
Tribulation, so that’s when religious Babylon is destroyed.

What is “that great city that has (in the first century) sovereignty
over the kings of the earth”, that will still be in power during the
Tribulation? It cannot be a country, but it has to be doing diplomacy
around the world just like a country; that is, it’s a city-state. It must
also be guilty of shedding the blood of the holy people. So we can
eliminate any modern city without ancient roots, such as New York
or London. The only city-state that could qualify would be either the
literal city of Babylon, or another city that has been the
headquarters of a revived ancient Babylonian religion. Many
believe the Bible predicts a one-world religion, but this is not the
case; the only world religion will be to worship the Beast.

Has this city ever moved in the past, so we could justify saying that
it’s not the name of the city but its characteristics that identify it as
an entity that existed in the first century and will exist again? We
have a clue in Rev. 2:13, in the letter to the Congregation in
Pergamos, described as the city “where Satan has his throne”. This
is where the priests of the Babylonian religion moved after their city
was destroyed. Quoting Harry Ironside in Babylonian Religion:

When Christ came into this world the mystery of iniquity was everywhere holding
sway, save where the truth of God as revealed in the Old Testament was known.
Thus, when the early Christians set out upon the great task of carrying the gospel to
the ends of the earth, they found themselves everywhere confronted by this system,
in one form or another; for though Babylon as a city had long been but a mystery,
her mysteries had not died with her.
 When the city and temples were destroyed, the high-priest fled with a company of
initiates and their sacred vessels and images to Pergamos, where the Symbol of the
serpent was set up as the emblem of the hidden wisdom. From there, they
afterwards crossed the sea and immigrated to Italy, where they settled on the
Etruscan plain. There the ancient cult was propagated under the name of the
Etruscan Mysteries and eventually Rome became the headquarters of
Babylonianism.

The chief priests wore mitres shaped like the head of a fish, in honor of Dagon, the
fish-god, the Lord of life-another form of the Tammuz mystery, as developed among
Israel’s old enemies, the Philistines. The chief priest when established in Rome took
the title Pontifex Maximus, and this was imprinted in on his mitre. When Julius
Caesar (who was an initiate like all young Romans of good family) had become the
head of the States, he was elected Pontifex Maximus, and this title was held
henceforth by all the Roman emperors down to Constantine the Great, who was at
one and the same time, head of the church, and high priest to the heathen. The title
was afterwards conferred upon the bishops of Rome, and is borne by the pope
today, who is thus declared to be, not the successor of the fisherman-apostle Peter,
but the direct successor of the high priest of the Babylonian mysteries, and the
servant of the fish-god Dagon, for whom he wears, like his idolatrous predecessors,
the fisherman’s ring.

So the city may change names and locations, but its character as
the headquarters of the ancient mystery religion remains the same.
Remember that this is the woman and not the beast. The woman
is the Babylonian religion headquartered in a city-state that has
existed in one place or another over the centuries; the beast is the
world government; the seven heads are a line of world emperors;
the ten crowns are new kings of one world kingdom who hand their
power to the beast. Keep in mind also that every kingdom has a
king; every empire has an emperor. So though the Beast is a
kingdom, it’s headed by a man, whose names include “the son of
perdition” and “the man of lawlessness”.
 The Millennium and Beyond
First, a brief outline:

The Millennium
Israel re-established in land, restored earthly Jerusalem and
temple (Ezk. 36-37, 40-48, Jer. 30:10, 16-24, Amos 9:11-15)
Rule by Christ and the souls of those who refused to worship
the Beast or take its mark (Rev. 20:4)

After the Millennium

Satan released (Rev. 20:7)
Final battle of Gog/Magog but from all nations around the world
(Rev. 20:8-9a)
Satan’s world-wide army destroyed by fire (Zech. 14:12-13,
Rev. 20:9b)
Satan in Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10)
New heavens and new earth without any sea (Rev. 21:1)
New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2,9-22:5)

Revelation says nothing about the Millennium except that Jesus’ rule
is augmented by judges comprised of those who had been
beheaded during the Tribulation. This is called “the first
resurrection”, yet it is clearly not applicable to the resurrection of the
dead in Christ, since all of these people are those who had been
beheaded for refusing to take the Mark of the Beast.

Some of the remaining Old Testament prophecies transpire during

this time, such as the surviving Gentiles bringing their wealth into
Jerusalem (Zech. 14), and the restoration of the land of Israel and a
sacrificial system (Ezekiel 40-48). The measurements of the earthly
city of Jerusalem distinguish it from the heavenly New Jerusalem
that will descend at the end of the Millennium; careful attention to
the details will show this to be indisputable. It may be that just as the
first temple was a scale model of the one in heaven (Heb. 8:5), so
also the earthly city will be a scale model of the New Jerusalem.

After the Millennium, Satan is briefly freed again to deceive the

nations. This brings history full-circle from the Garden of Eden,
where God proves in both cases that people will rebel against God
even in a perfect environment. The world has been repopulated by
righteous survivors of the judgments, but the children of these
survivors will have no memory of the world run by Satan and evil
people. They too will have to make a conscious choice about
whether or not to live in the kingdom of God, and Satan will
conscript all who choose the latter.

So at the end, Satan himself is thrown into the Lake of Fire, and all
the people who ever rebelled against God are thrown in as well.
Death and Hades are thrown in too, since there is no more need for
them. Then, in Rev. 21, we are told many details about the New
Jerusalem. It isn’t stated that this huge city ever touches the earth,
but only that it descends from heaven. It is called “the wife, the bride
of the Lamb”, and nothing is ever said about the people of the
newly-rebuilt city of Jerusalem in the land of Israel moving to the
New Jerusalem. It is possible that the land city is for Jews, while the
new city is for Christians.

What happens after that, we are not told. But there is nothing that
says we’ll be stuck playing harps forever, or grow wings, or any of a
hundred other tales that have been told over the years. If we love
and trust God, we can be sure that there was more to all this human
history than sitting on clouds for eternity. All we know is that “No eye
has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived the things God
has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9).
 The Prophet Daniel
This chapter focuses on the prophecies in the book of Daniel. The
content is adapted from the author’s online book, Bible Prophecy:
Foundation and Future.

Though prophecies are scattered throughout the Old Testament,

arguably the best-known and most remarkable of them are found in
the book of Daniel. Much of its content has already come to pass,
but not all, and not all completely. But the most important aspect of
Daniel is that it gives a sequence, whereas the sequence or timing
of the others is less clear. Since Daniel gives an overview of history
in advance, we must have a good grasp of its content before
considering any of the others.

An abomination in prophecy is understood to mean that an idol is set

up in a holy place that belonged to another god (see Ezekiel 8 for
example). Its purpose is to defile the other god’s temple. Its first use
in the Bible is in Daniel 9:27, immediately after “he will put an end to
sacrifice and offering”. The next two references are in Dan. 11:31
and 12:11 and include the phrase “profane the sanctuary”. To
provide additional context for use of the word, apocryphal books
(between the Testaments) also use it in the context of desecrating
the temple. Antiochus Epiphanes, who died in 164 BC, is the only
historical figure to deliberately fill the temple with unclean things,
especially a statue of Zeus with his own face on it in the Holy Place.

So Daniel’s prophecy of the Abomination was indeed fulfilled by

Antiochus Epiphanes. But long after all of this, Jesus spoke of the
Abomination as still to come. Paul also spoke of the “man of
lawlessness” (2 Thes. 2:3-4) entering the temple and declaring
himself God at some future time, which certainly qualifies as
desecration. Also, in Rev. 13:14 we’re told that an image or idol will
be made, which all people on earth will be forced to worship, though
it doesn’t say it will be put into the temple.

This is just one of many prophecies that seem to have a “now but
not yet” fulfillment; they’re fulfilled in part at one time but fulfilled
more completely at another time. Then the question is whether the
complete fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy was met in the destruction
of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. It should also be emphasized
that a complete fulfillment must meet every criterion and detail
without exception.

Please take a moment to read these scripture quotes for Jesus’

statements about events surrounding the future fulfillment of this
prophecy. They are presented as lists for easier comparison.

Mat. 24:14-22

The gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world

as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
When you see “the abomination of desolation” (as declared
through the prophet Daniel) standing in the Holy Place
Then those in Judea must run away into the mountains.
After that will be great oppression, the likes of which has never
happened from the beginning of the world until now, nor will ever
happen again. In fact, if those days had not been cut short, all
flesh would have been wiped out, but they will be shortened for
the sake of the chosen people.

Mark 13:14-20

When you see “the abomination of desolation” standing where

shouldn’t be
Then those in Judea must run away into the mountains.
The suffering of those days will be unlike anything that has
happened since God first created the world until now, and will
never be again. In fact, if the Master didn’t cut those days short,
 no living thing would survive. But those days will be cut short for
the sake of his chosen ones.

Luke 21:20-28

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by military encampments,

you will know that its ruin is near.
Then those in Judea must run away into the mountains.
For there will be terrible stress on the world, and great rage
against this people. They will be killed in battle and taken
captive to all the other nations. Then Jerusalem will be trampled
on by the nations until their time is up.
Then there will be signs in the sun, moon, and stars. And on the
earth, the nations will be filled with anguish and perplexity due to
the roaring and turbulence of the sea. People will be deathly
afraid and apprehensive of what is coming upon the whole
world, for the forces of the heavens will be shaken.
Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with great
power and majesty. But when you see this all coming to pass,
stand up and raise your heads, for you are about to be rescued.

History shows that the people of Judea were indeed scattered

among the Gentile nations, and that Jerusalem has been trampled
by them throughout. Even today there is much Gentile control over
Jerusalem and the Israelis aren’t allowed to build their temple in its
ancient location. Of course, there have been many wars and many
natural disasters in the last two thousand years.

Asking the Right Questions

Did anyone desecrate the temple in 70 AD? Though it was burned
and dismantled by the armies of Titus, he didn’t set up any idol in it.
Neither did he take his place in the temple and proclaim himself
God, per 2 Thess. 2:3-4 and Rev. 13:1-8, Rev. 14-15.
Did the people of Judea flee to the mountains when they saw
Jerusalem surrounded? There is no indisputable record of any mass
exodus at that time to the mountains. (The city of Pella, where many
Christians are thought to have fled before the siege, is at a fairly low
altitude according to this source). In fact, the Roman armies allowed
people into Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover but refused to let
them leave, in order to put great strain on their resources and
supplies during the seige.

Was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple “sudden” (1 Thes.

5:3, Luke 21:34)? Clearly not; the events leading up to the final
siege didn’t happen in a day; see this source.

Did Nero, whom some identify as the final fulfillment of the

prophecies of both Daniel and Revelation, die as specified in 2
Thess. 2:8 and Rev. 19:19-21? No, he committed suicide. Neither
did he or any of his associates cause the whole world (even if limted
to the Roman Empire) to take a mark on their forehead or right hand
and forbid commerce without it.

Did Jesus return in the clouds, accompanied by all the signs in the
sky, and set up his visible earthly kingdom for a thousand years?
This should have happened at or very shortly after the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD if that event marks the final
fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy and Revelation. Yet the only way to
claim it happened is to completely spiritualize it, and this is
inconsistent with the claim that everything else, such as the
destruction and the abomination, was literal and physical.

So while some aspects of the prophecy were fulfilled in 70 AD and

others in the ensuing centuries, other important details have yet to
occur. We cannot presume that only the unfulfilled parts remain,
since we have already seen that Jesus put events such as the
Abomination in the future in spite of it having been fulfilled by
Antiochus Epiphanes in the past. So how much of the prophecies of
Daniel and Revelation remain is anyone’s guess. But we should note
that the Abomination and fleeing Jerusalem is also seen in Rev. 12
and 13.

However, there are parts of the book of Daniel that have had many
details fulfilled in the past. In fact, Dan. 2-7 and 11 have been the
most perplexing aspects of the book to critics of Bible prophecy due
to their detailed predictions of successive kingdoms. We need to be
aware of this, since some mistakenly hold all of it to be yet future
and confuse it with modern events. We will now look at those, and
then go back to look at another prophecy that remains unfulfilled.

Specific Prophecies
We will look now at particular prophetic visions and messages by
chapter, but not in order.

Chapter 2
Ch. 2 is Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue whose head was
made of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze,
lower legs of iron, and feet of a mixture of iron and clay. Daniel
identified the head as Nebuchadnezzar himself, king of the
Babylonian Empire. After him would follow a lesser kingdom (Medo-
Persia, ruled by Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian), then
another (the Grecian Empire, ruled by Alexander the Great), and
finally one that would smash all others (Rome).

It is commonly believed that the two legs represent some kind of

division or separation, yet the statue also has two arms and two
feet, without anyone presuming such separation. The significance of
the statue is in the metals, not the structure, except for the feet as a
mixture of iron and clay. Just as we do not separate the ten toes into
two groups of five, so also we should not think that the two lower
legs (curiously, the upper legs or thighs are never seen as a division
either) represent any division. As for the feet and toes, the text
states that the iron and clay represent a divided kingdom of strength
and weakness, composed of a mixture of “seeds” (Dan. 2:41-43).
Whether this mixture means a clash of cultures and ideologies, or
even between humans and semi- or non-humans, the focus is on
their inability to blend, not the reason for the inability. The division is
between strength and weakness, not east and west.

Chapter 8
Ch. 8 is a vision about a goat and a ram, and the angel tells Daniel
that the ram’s two horns represent the kings of Media and Persia. It
describes the conquests of Alexander the Great (“the first king of
Greece”), after whose death four of his generals would rule:
Lysimachus, Cassander, Seleucus, and Ptolemy. The “little horn”
coming later was none other than the vile Antiochus Epiphanes, who
didn’t die in battle but from an infestation of worms. There is more
detail here.

Chapter 11
It is the four generals who are described in detail in chap. 11.
Ptolemy I was “the king of the south”. The “daughter” was Berenice
(actually granddaughter, as her father was Ptolemy II), who was
given in marriage to Antiochus II in a doomed plan to achieve
political gains by intrigue and deception. After various raids and
generations, this “king of the south” was Ptolemy IV and then
Ptolemy V.

The “king of the north” was Antiochus III, who as prophesied was
utterly defeated in 217 BC. The details fit historical record as with
the Ptolemies, right up to the “contemptible person” Antiochus
Epiphanes. It is he who is believed to have engineered the murder of
“a prince of the covenant”, Onias III, the high priest. The first
chapter of the apocryphal book 1 Maccabees details his plundering
of the temple and other acts of savagery.
Again, though these things were indeed fulfilled in the past, we
cannot dogmatically state that no future fulfillments remain. But
neither can we presume that these alliances and military campaigns
will be repeated in the future. In all the details of the remaining
prophecies given in Revelation, there is no mention of the kings of
the north and south and details that would connect them to future
events. So though a future fulfillment is possible, it seems most
unlikely.

But starting in verse 36 we read of “the king who exalts himself” who
has “no regard for the gods of his fathers or the desire of women”
and will instead “honor a god of fortresses”. We might still tie him in
with the preceding discussion of Antiochus Epiphanes and the kings
of the north and south, but these new details have no historical
precedent. More importantly, they’re tied in with chapter 12 which
begins with “At that time” and includes the resurrection of the dead.
See also this article.

Chapter 12
So it seems that Antiochus Epiphanes is a very clear type or
foreshadow of the ultimate future fulfillment in the Antichrist (popular
name for the Beast in Revelation). Early in chapter 12 is where we
see the phrase Jesus used, “a time of distress such as has not
happened from the beginning of nations until then”. There has been
much terrible suffering in the world since 70 AD, such that the fall of
Jerusalem at that time cannot have been the ultimate fulfillment of
the prophecy.

But because of this overlap and duality, teachers of Bible prophecy

must exercise restraint and caution in looking for modern
fulfillments. All we can be sure of is that those things without any
historical match will certainly take place.

Chapter 7
The first half of this chapter is a dream about four beasts, and the
second half is the interpretation, focusing primarily on the fourth
beast. Though the first three are described as a winged lion, a bear,
and a winged leopard, the fourth is not compared to any known
animal. It has ten horns, three of which are replaced by another
horn. The angel states that this beast will overcome the righteous for
3-1/2 years. The description of the fourth beast exactly matches that
of Revelation (e.g. 13:1, 5-8, 17:12-13). Since none of this describes
the situation of 70 AD, it must be yet future.

Chapter 9
Now that we have a good grasp of all that was prophesied through
Daniel, we can focus on the Seventy Weeks prophecy of chapter 9,
since it lays out a clear sequence for all remaining prophecies about
Israel. The first 69 of those weeks was marked as completed when
Jesus came. Now seven years remain, divided into two halves at the
point where the 7-year treaty is broken by the Abomination. So
when we see this same event in the New Testament, we know
that it marks the midpoint of the seven years, such that 3-1/2
years remain before the return of Jesus to the earth and the
restoration of Israel and Jerusalem.

We must not overlook the stated purpose of those Seventy Weeks:

to end and atone for sin, begin eternal righteousness, seal up
prophecy, and anoint or dedicate the Most Holy Place. These things
are all specified as applying to “your people and your holy city”,
meaning the people of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. Thus the
atonement for sin and end of all prophecy will not be completed until
that final seven years ends. This is a very clear and focused
prophecy to and about Israel and Jerusalem, rather than the Body of
Christ or the world at large. Certainly the judgment of the nations is
included on other accounts, but this particular prophecy is very
exclusive.
The Seventy Weeks prophecy of Dan. 9:24-27 is easily the most
familiar to students of Bible prophecy:

Seventy “sevens” are decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish
transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in
everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint
the Most Holy Place.

Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and
rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be
seven sevens, and sixty-two sevens. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but
in times of trouble. After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed One will be put
to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will
destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue
until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with
many for one seven. In the middle of the seven he will put an end to sacrifice and
offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes
desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

To summarize:

1. The prophecy concerns the people of Israel and Jerusalem, not

the Body of Christ.
2. Purpose: to finish (complete) transgression.
3. Purpose: to put an end to sin.
4. Purpose: to atone for wickedness.
5. Purpose: to bring in everlasting righteousness.
6. Purpose: to seal up (complete) vision and prophecy.
7. Purpose: to anoint the Most Holy Place in the Temple.

The Seventy Weeks would begin when the decree was given (turned
out to be Nebuchadnezzar) to rebuild Jerusalem, and it would stop
short of the final week when the Messiah would be killed. There
would be a prince to come, known now to have been Titus, whose
people destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. This is the
same event Jesus referred to about not one stone being left upon
another (Mat. 24:2), as it was literally fulfilled when the Romans
wanted the melted gold that had run between the blocks. After this
event there would be wars and desolations. Then after that span
of wars would come he who does all of the following:

1. Confirm a 7-year covenant or treaty with “many”

2. Violate the treaty at the midpoint by ending sacrifice and
offering in the temple
3. Set up an idol in the temple

Clearly Jesus did not set up any idols, nor make and break any
seven-year treaties. The same he does all of this.
 The Rapture
What, and when, is this event called The Rapture? To answer those
questions, let’s begin with these principles:

1. Having a good understanding of all scripture is required in order

to teach any part of it. That means no cherry-picking or ignoring
context.
2. Every interpretation of the Bible hinges on whether there’s a
sharp distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ.
Disagreement on that point means disagreement on everything
else.
3. Neither of those “main branches of the tree” should call each
other names. If one side is calling the other names, that side
has a much bigger problem than prophecy views. Argue the
idea, not the person. Neither side has been designated the
infallible interpreter of scripture, so we must be humble and
remember that we’re all imperfect in our understanding, and
that genuine believers can disagree without one of them being a
heretic, a false teacher, or a devil.
4. The pre-tribulation Rapture is the most straightforward
conclusion to reach from the basis of the Body of Christ not
being Israel, as explained elsewhere in this book.

Following is a claim-and-rebuttal section, then additional analysis

and a summary. “Pre-tribulational Rapture” will be abbreviated as
PTR, and these are not in any particular order of importance.

Claims and Rebuttals

People who believe in the PTR are conceited and

“holier than thou”
The opposite is true. PTR believers simply see the promise in
scripture that Jesus will remove his Body before the wrath of God is
poured out on the world. It doesn’t depend on the quality or maturity
of Christians, but simply their being in Christ. No PTR believer
bases their “blessed hope” on their own righteousness, any
more than all the Christians who reject PTR base their
salvation on their own righteousness. In fact, if anyone is “holier
than thou”, it would be those who pride themselves on their alleged
ability to “overcome” during the wrath of God.

The PTR teaches that Christians will not suffer, so it

sets them up for falling away from the faith.
This is burning a straw man; PTR teaches no such thing. Jesus
promised persecution to his followers (Mark 10:30), and Paul in 2
Tim. 3:12 said, “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life
in Christ Jesus will be persecuted”. Even today, many Christians
are suffering terribly and dying for the Name of Jesus. So anyone
who teaches that Christians will not suffer is clearly in error,
regardless of their views on prophecy. The fact is that PTR only
concerns the wrath of God and the time Daniel was told was for
punishing the unbelieving world and bringing Israel back to God.
Since the first 69 weeks of years of the prophecy of Daniel had
nothing to do with the Body of Christ, then neither will the
70th. And since all other generations of believers escaped the
Tribulation, why would only one generation require this extra
refining?

Those who oppose PTR may in fact be unprepared for the sudden
appearing of Jesus; they look for the Antichrist instead of the Christ.
They will also not receive “the crown of righteousness, which the
Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day— and not
only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing” (2 Tim.
4:8). If PTR is wrong, it will be time for those who boasted of their
preparation and discernment to prove themselves. In contrast, PTR
believers would never be fooled, since the Antichrist will not do any
of the following:

sound the trumpet of God

give the shout of the archangel
raise from the dead all Christians who have died
give the dead new, immortal bodies
instantly transform the bodies of the living Christians to immortal
take all of us (not invite us to board a spaceship) to meet him in
the air

We also know that we are already sealed with the Holy Spirit, so we
will not accept any other seals. The Mark of the Beast is a pledge of
loyalty and has to be taken knowingly and voluntarily, and Jesus
would never say “take this mark or starve to death”.

The PTR is a recent invention.

The most common citation of this being a new teaching is a
teenager named Margaret MacDonald, who claimed to have had a
prophetic vision in 1824. But she did not have a vision of any
Rapture at all, let alone a PTR (see this quotation from a preterist
source). Further, no PTR teacher ever cites her or her alleged vision
for any reason. Critics who would then allege a conspiracy to hide
such a source would be arguing from silence, not to mention
opening themselves up to similar charges. There are also earlier
references to PTR.

Another historical fact is that between Constantine the 1st and the
Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had control of what the
vast majority of people believed. So whatever they were against
would not be written about extensively, especially by people who
faced persecution for going against the RCC. So there were many
things not written about during those centuries. And since the RCC
did not teach any Rapture view, it should come as no surprise that
the Rapture, regardless of timing, would not be found in the history
of that era.

The PTR was a heresy started by Darby and made

popular by Scofield.
Darby stated that he saw the PTR in scripture, three years before
MacDonald’s (non-rapture) vision. Scofield was noted for his
teaching of Dispensationalism, as well as his Reference Bible. The
PTR is a logical conclusion to draw from a dispensational approach
to scripture, but this approach is hardly heresy. The allegorical
approach is at least as open to the same charge, as is so-called
Covenant Theology wherein no distinction is made between the
Body of Christ and Israel.

The PTR is escapist and cowardly.

In Luke 21:36 Jesus said to “pray that you may be able to escape
all that is about to happen”; in Rev. 3:10 Jesus said, “I will also
keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the
whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth”. Is Jesus
teaching that escape is cowardly? How about Isaiah 26:20? “Go, my
people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide
yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by.”

The PTR creates an extra coming of Christ.

By that argument, Jesus should not come back at all, since the Old
Testament does not say the Messiah would come twice. And where
does scripture even say how many times Jesus can or must come?
Who decided that there is a Second Coming and not a third? We
only know of the two comings in the Old Testament by hindsight,
noting that there are two sets of Messianic prophecies that could not
both be true for a single coming. This sets a precedent for the future
as well. We see in the NT two sets of prophecies regarding Jesus’
return, and note that they both cannot be true for a single coming or
appearing. So just as the Old Testament said nothing about how
many times the Messiah would come yet we know it’s at least
two, so also the New Testament says nothing about how many
times Jesus will return yet we know it must be at least twice. And
Jesus does not touch the earth when he comes for his Body; we
meet him in the air.

The first resurrection isn’t until Rev. 20:5-6, after the

Tribulation.
That passage identifies the people being resurrected as those who
had been beheaded for not worshiping the Beast or taking the Mark.
So no Christian who died by some other method than
beheading will take part in this first resurrection. And what about all
the Christians who die during the first half of the Tribulation, before
the Mark is given? Also, these people only reign with Christ for the
Millennium. Further, the passage contrasts this resurrection of the
Tribulation saints with the resurrection of all the rest of the dead
from all ages of history, at the White Throne Judgment in Rev.
20:11-15. Though it isn’t named as such, this is the second
resurrection.

Neither of these two resurrections apply to the Body of Christ. As

stated clearly in 1 Thes. 4:17, not all Christians will experience
death, so not all Christians will ever be resurrected; a person must
die in order to rise. If it is then argued that our resurrection is in
Christ, then how many resurrections are there for those Christians
who died during the Tribulation and are raised again at the end of it?
How many times can the dead rise without dying again? We must
conclude that the first resurrection in this context refers only to
people who came to faith during the second half of the Tribulation
and were martyred by beheading.

Another passage often overlooked on this matter is the scenario

provided by Jesus in Mat. 25:31. This is the well-known judgment of
the “sheep and goats” which clearly happens when he returns to
earth after the Tribulation and sits on his throne to judge the
survivors. We have already noted that this is not the final judgment
of all the dead. Another reason it is not the judgment of the Body of
Christ is that salvation is by faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9), and the post-
tribulation view agrees that the Body of Christ has been given
immortality by this time. So we must conclude that this is a judgment
of the still-mortal survivors of the Tribulation.

There are two groups of people before the separation of sheep from
goat even begins: the ones to be judged, and “the least of my
brothers and sisters”, But who are “the least”? It’s possible that they
could be the Body of Christ, but it’s also possible that these are the
Jews who fled to the place of safety when they witnessed the
Abomination of Desolation (Rev. 12:6, 14). They are not being
judged since God kept them safe for the entire duration of the Great
Tribulation, “out of the serpent’s reach”. Their safety is proof of their
being righteous.

Regardless of the identity of “the least”, the indisputable fact is that

there will be righteous mortals repopulating the world after the Body
of Christ has been immortalized and raptured. And since this is true,
then there is no necessary reason for the saints of the Tribulation to
be part of the Body of Christ.

The PTR ignores what Jesus taught in Mat. 24.

Anti-PTR ignores practically every other passage about end-times
prophecy, putting Mat. 24 in a vacuum. Many are also confused by
the signs and disasters in Revelation, thinking that all instances of
earthquakes for example are one and the same event. But consider
this: Jesus told of extreme cosmic events after the Great Tribulation
which will make it clear that it is indeed the end (Mat. 24:29-31, ref.
Isaiah 13:10; 34:4):

sun and moon go dark

 stars fall from sky
powers of heavens (skies and/or space) shaken
extreme turbulence on earth, with oceans roaring and splashing
the appearance of the sign of the Son of Man in the sky
he descends in the clouds in great power and majesty
trumpet blast to send out Messengers to collect “the chosen”
from all over “the heavens”

On the surface, the first four signs appear to match up with the 6th
Seal of Revelation (Rev. 6:12-14), which is clearly not the end of the
Great Tribulation:

the moon is red instead of black

the stars fall to earth
the sky itself “rolls up like a scroll”
every mountain is shifted from its place.

There is at least one Old Testament reference to such things as well

(Joel 2:31), and it too places them “before that great and terrible
day of the Lord”:

I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of
smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

So we see that very similar signs both precede and follow the 70th
week of the prophecy of Daniel.

The PTR is the “strong delusion” prophesied by Paul.

The delusion Paul mentions is sent from God to “them” (2 Thess.
2:10-13), not from Satan to Christians. So there is no basis in
scripture for this ridiculous charge, and it can be made just as easily
against opposition to PTR. Since PTR comes mostly from Paul in the
first place, one would be hard-pressed to show how he would call his
own teaching delusional.

Paul taught that the Rapture isn’t until after The Man of
Sin is revealed.
The passage being referenced is 2 Thes. 2:1-12, specifically vs 3:

Don’t let anyone trick you in any way, for that day will not come until the Departure
happens and then the Lawless One, the destroyer, is revealed.

But “that day” refers to “the day of the Lord” in the previous verse,
which is not the Departure or Rapture. Moreover, the people Paul
was writing to were afraid that they had missed the Departure and
would now go through the Tribulation. Who fears an allegory, or is
afraid they missed the Tribulation? Conversely, who should be
comforted (1 Thes. 4:13-18) by a teaching that has them going
through the Tribulation?

We tell you this by the Word of the Lord, that we who are alive when the Lord
appears will not be in line in front of those who have died. For the Lord himself will
descend from heaven with the loud command of the archangel and the trumpet of
God; the first to rise will be those Christians who have died, and then we who are
alive will be snatched away at the same time with them in the clouds, to meet the
Lord in the air. Then we will always be together with the Lord. So comfort each
other with these words.

Here is an example of how the PTR interprets 2 Thes. 2:1-8a:

Now about that question you asked regarding us meeting Jesus in the air. Don’t let
anyone fool you! We said nothing like what that fake letter claimed, that the
Tribulation has already started. The Tribulation cannot begin until after the
Rapture, and then the Lawless One will be revealed. How could you forget what I
 told you? And you know what’s holding him back for now. Although lawlessness is
already here, it’s only after the Body of Christ is taken out of the way that the
Lawless One will be revealed.

The PTR invents a “last trumpet” before the last one

mentioned in Revelation.
The 7th trump is not the last trump. The 7th is of an angel and a
judgment (Rev. 11:15), while the last is of God and is a blessing (1
Thess. 4:16). There was a “last” trumpet for Israel before the time of
Christ (Numbers 10:5-6), which Paul’s readers would have
understood as a call to leave or break camp, as opposed to those of
Revelation which had not yet been given.

The wrath of God does not begin until the Bowl

judgments.
It is undeniable that Jesus, the Lamb, is also God. So any wrath
coming from Jesus is, by definition, the wrath of God. This is
acknowledged no later than Rev. 6:16, but note that it is the people
of earth making this statement, not God or John or any heavenly
angel. Also note that all of the Seals are opened by the Lamb, even
though the results on earth are “natural” for the first four. That is, the
Lamb instigates the Seal judgments, so they are all the wrath of
God.

The Rapture is at the 6th Seal judgment.

This claim is based upon presuming the identity of the “multitude in
white robes from every nation” in Rev. 7:9-17. But the Greek
grammar clearly indicates their origin and scope: they come out of
the Great Tribulation. There is no indication that this was a past,
singular event, and their origin is not just “tribulation” but “The Great
Tribulation”. This same expression is used by Jesus to describe “a
time of trouble never seen before and never to be seen again” (Mat.
24:21), and this is immediately after Jesus quotes Daniel’s
statement about “the abomination of desolation”. So the multitude
comes from the time of the Bowl judgments, even though John sees
them at the sixth seal.

There is nothing connecting Daniel to Revelation.

As already explained, Daniel 9:27 says that the Beast will break a
seven-year treaty at the midpoint. We find that same event in Rev.
13:1-8, indicating the midpoint there:

Then I saw a beast rise out of the sea, and it had ten horns and seven heads… The
whole earth was astounded at the beast, and they worshiped the dragon for
giving jurisdiction to it. They said, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight it?” The
beast was given a mouth with which to speak great and slanderous things, and its
jurisdiction would be for forty-two months. It opened up its mouth to
slander God and his name, and his sanctuary and all who live in heaven. And it was
allowed to do battle with the holy people and conquer them, as well as to have
jurisdiction over all tribes, people groups, languages, and non-Judeans. All the
earth-dwellers will worship it, whose names have not been written in the scroll
of life of the Lamb who had been slaughtered from the establishment of the world.

So both passages describe a world leader who confirms a seven-

year treaty and then breaks it by declaring himself God and setting
up an abomination in the temple. It’s reasonable to conclude that
both Daniel and Revelation, which no one denies extend to the end
of human history, describe the same period, which Daniel specifies is
seven years.

The PTR contradicts where Rev. says the saints will be

overcome by the Beast.
That passage was quoted above, but the “holy people” are not the
Body of Christ. The terms holy people, saints, and elect were used
of the righteous in the Old Testament as well, so they’re not
exclusive terms for the Body of Christ. That is, though every
Christian is a saint, not every saint is a Christian. And since saints
preceded the Age of Grace, they will also follow it. This must be
considered in context, and when the context is the point being
debated, then the identity of these people depends completely on
one’s view of dispensations. But if dispensationalism is the right
view, then these are not Christians in the Age of Grace. We must
also consider what Jesus said in Mat. 16:18, that “the gates of
Hades” will not overcome his Congregation.

Summary
Recalling the quote of 1 Thes. 4:13-18 above:

1. Jesus descends
2. the archangel shouts
3. the trumpet of God sounds
4. the dead Christians are raised
5. the living Christians are transformed in an instant (1 Cor. 15:52)
6. the two groups are snatched up into the clouds to meet Jesus
7. this is a message of comfort, not dread

Notice also that Paul makes no mention of a time of suffering to

purge, test, or punish the Body of Christ before this event he is now
describing. He is repeating what he had told them before, and the
first thing is Jesus descending from heaven to the sky. No
earthquakes, no signs, no nothing, but only a message of comfort
and hope.

So there it is, in the simplest terms. It is “that blessed hope” for

which “there is a crown of righteousness” for all who long for Jesus
to come. May we all be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus, so
that we can, as Jesus said, “escape all these things” to come.
Mapping Daniel to Revelation
The chapter on the prophet Daniel includes a section on the Seventy
Weeks prophecy of ch. 9, where we see that a final seven years
remains. It will begin with the confirmation of a seven-year treaty,
and now we will see where this treaty and its violation matches up
with Revelation:

Recalling the earlier quote of Rev. 13:1-8 and how it shows where
the midpoint of the 70th Week is, the 7th trumpet must mark the
midpoint. Therefore, all the trumpets are in the first 3.5 years. It is
unknown whether the Seals are before or after the beginning of that
time, as they may comprise a gap between the Rapture and the
confirmation of the covenant for 7 years. The Rapture precedes the
Seals because we must be gone before the wrath of God begins.

Other New Testament Prophecy Passages

Now about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him:
Please, sisters and brothers, don’t be easily disturbed or alarmed in your
minds or spirits, because no word or letter has come from us saying that the Day
of the Lord is already here. Don’t let anyone fool you by any means, because
that won’t happen until after the Departure, and then the Lawless One,
the Destroyer, will be revealed. He opposes everything and elevates himself
over every god or object of worship, even to the point of seating himself in the
Temple of God and proclaiming himself God. You have forgotten that I told
you these things when I was with you.

But you know what’s holding him back for now, to keep him from being
revealed before his time. For although the secret of lawlessness is already in
operation, it’s only after the Restrainer is taken out of the way that the
Lawless One will be revealed. This is the one the Lord Jesus will do away with
by the breath of his mouth, and will neutralize when he appears at his arrival. He
will come when Satan is at the height of his power, which he held by means of signs
and fake miracles and seduction. All this will happen to those who would rather die
 than love the truth that would save them. As a result, God will force them to
take the wrong path and believe the lie. This is how all who rejected the truth
and celebrated injustice will be condemned (2 Thes. 2:1-12).

Paul wrote to calm the people who had received a forged letter
claiming to be from him, wherein they were told they had missed
The Departure and were now entering the Tribulation. He was
exposing the false teaching and restoring the true teaching he had
brought them before. Had he taught them they’d go through the
Tribulation, they would not be comforted by his words, nor would
they be afraid they had missed the Tribulation (!!).

The Day of the Lord is not the same as The Departure. This has
to be very clear. Paul states the order of events:

1. The Departure
2. The revealing of the man of lawlessness
3. The Day of the Lord

Paul also gives important details about The Great Lie:

1. It comes from God.

2. It is given to “them”, who “rejected the truth and celebrated
injustice”.

God will not delude his own people or accuse them of hating truth
and loving wvil. Neither will true Christians accept any other seal
than that of the Holy Spirit, “the deposit guaranteeing our
inheritance” (2 Cor. 1:22).

Conclusion
The continual slander against the PTR view is based upon failure to
understand it or blind acceptance of lies from its enemies. We do
not smugly watch the world decay, nor ignore the terrible
persecution of Christians now or in history, nor wish for the suffering
of the lost. Neither are we unprepared for suffering, as this was
promised by Jesus to all his followers.

The truth is that we are highly motivated to spread the Gospel so

others too can “escape all these things” as Jesus said. What things?
Not the typical wrath of Satan and man, but the wrath of God to
come.

Who will really be unprepared? Is it not the ones who disbelieve in

the pre-trib Rapture? The Beast cannot duplicate all the
requirements of Jesus coming for his Body, and instead of coming in
the air the Beast will arise out of the earth.

As for the Mark, Christians are already sealed and would never be
fooled into taking another one. But opponents of PTR will be caught
off-guard by the Rapture, and may well be among those caught
“beating their fellow servants” when Jesus arrives; just look at social
media comments for examples of such beatings. Even mid-trib
Rapture believers heap abuse upon PTR over a difference in timing
of 3-1/2 years, and will call us stupid, wicked, deceived, evil, false
Christians. Many believe that Christians today will be called to suffer
in a way no other believers of any generation have suffered.
Instead,

[We] wait for his Son from the heavens, whom he raised from the dead: Jesus, the
One who rescues us from the coming wrath. ~ 1 Thes. 1:10

Don’t let disturbing thoughts fill your minds; trust in God, and trust in me. There are
many residences in my Father’s home. If there weren’t, would I have told you
I’m going there to get a place ready for all of you? That being the case, I will
return to you and accept you as my own, so that you can be where I am. ~
John 14:1-4
 Three Prophetic Cities
This chapter focuses on three future cities: Jerusalem, the New
Jerusalem, and The Lord Is There. The content is adapted from the
author’s online book, Bible Prophecy: Foundation and Future. To
compare The New Jerusalem of Rev. 21 (NJ) and the “city” of
Ezekiel 40-48 called “The Lord Is There” (L), we must first calculate
their respective sizes. No dimensions are given for the Jerusalem (J)
of Zech. 14.

Converting cubits to miles:

1 mile = 63,360 inches

1 cubit = 21 inches
(cubits * 21) / 63,360 = miles

The “Sacred District” containing the areas for L and the priests,
Levites, and workers, measures a square of 25,000 cubits, or about
8 miles. The city itself is 5000 cubits or 1-2/3 miles square. The
temple inside the District (but not inside L) is 500 cubits (including 50
cubits spaces around it) or .17 mile square.

The length, width, and height of NJ are all 12,000 stadia or 1400
miles. The wall is 144 cubits or 252 feet thick.

Similarities between NJ and L

Gates: twelve total, three on each side, named after the tribes
of Israel
Trees(s) along river: bear fruit each month for food, leaves for
healing
Differences
Name: NJ vs. L
Size: NJ is over 800 times larger than L
Wall: NJ is 252 feet thick, L is unknown but cannot be the same
River:
flows from center of NJ, but from the south side of the
District temple
goes to unknown destination from NJ but to the Dead Sea
in the District
NJ has one tree on either side ("the Tree of Life"), but
District temple has vast numbers of trees on either side
Sea: none in the new earth, District is bordered by the
Mediterranean and Dead seas
No night in NJ, but “six working days” and the New Moon
regarding the District temple
There are no mortals in NJ, but “the prince” of the District has
children (Ezekiel 46:16)
We know the locations of J and L, but not NJ, nor anything else
about the geography of the new Earth

Key Facts About J

City is captured and ransacked, with half the population exiled
No day or night distinction (same as NJ) when Jesus touches
earth
Living water flows from J (not a temple), half to the Dead Sea
and half to the Mediterranean Sea
City gates do not match either NJ or L

Analysis
While all three are cities and there are some similarities, the
differences force us to conclude that rather than three descriptions
of one city, there are indeed three separate cities: The New
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, and The Lord Is There. NJ and J have a river
flowing from the city, while L has none; only the District temple has a
river flowing from it. NJ and J speak of no day/night distinction, while
L refers to “six working days” and the New Moon regarding the
temple (Ezekiel 46). And of course, NJ is far too large to fit the
descriptions of either of the other cities.

J and L exist after Jesus returns to the earth to set up his kingdom
at the end of the Tribulation, and NJ descends from heaven after the
Millennium. J and L are in times when people are still mortal, while
the time of NJ is when “the curse is no more”. Nothing in NJ’s
context limits the lack of curse to only NJ, and there is no reference
to any more places for the dead or judgment seats for the dead to
face. So J and L are during the Millennium, while NJ is after it.

The only other reference to a future Jerusalem is Isaiah 65:17-25, in

a context where there is mortality, though in a time of great
abundance and peace. This would seem to match the J of Zech. 14,
except for the statement “new heavens and new earth”, which is
mentioned in Rev. immediately before NJ descends from heaven.
Yet the statement in Isaiah 65 does not say that this new heaven
and earth precedes the restoration of Jerusalem, but that God “will
create” them. Yet on the other hand, everything in that passage “will
be”. But given the sequential character of Revelation as opposed to
the other passages, it would seem that the order of events is clearer
there and should carry more weight.

Chapters 1-24 of Ezekiel predict the captivity of Israel, chapters 25-

32 predict the judgment of the other nations, chapters 33-39 predict
the return of Israel to its land, and chapters 40-48 predict the
Millennial Kingdom. Since all the fulfilled prophecies have been
literal, there is no justification for treating the remaining prophecies
as figurative or only spiritual.
One timing difficulty is the vision in Ezekiel 43:7 where God says
from within the temple, “This is the place of my throne and the place
for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites
forever”. And to this day, the temple has not been built. Its stated
purpose will be to shame the people of Israel for their former
practices and defilement. It would seem unlikely that such a shaming
and lesson for Israel would be perpetuated for eternity. And the
sacrifices and festivals aren’t identical to those prescribed by Moses.

Another puzzle concerns the “prince” mentioned in chapters 40-48.

Whoever this may be, this person will be mortal since the passages
speak of his children. This person also does not perform the
functions of a priest. Neither can this be King David, since David
died long ago rather than being taken alive to heaven as were Enoch
and Elijah. And David was promised that someone from his line
would always be on the throne of Israel, so this person will be from
his line.
 Two Prophetic Paths
This chapter focuses on the unique identities and destinies of Israel
and the Body of Christ or Christian community / congregation. These
comments are adapted from the author’s online book, Bible
Prophecy: Foundation and Future.

Bible prophecy interpretation depends upon whether or not Israel

was to retain its identity beyond its dispersion in 70 AD. Those who
see Israel as having been abandoned forever by God will interpret all
remaining prophecies as applying to the Body of Christ (yet they
accept on Israel’s blessings and not its curses). But those who see
Israel as having been given irrevocable promises by God interpret all
remaining prophecies about Israel as literal.

So first we must know what God promised to Israel. In Jeremiah

31:37 we’re told that God will never reject the people of Israel in
spite of all they’ve done, and in Ezekiel 36:22-23 it states very
clearly that the purpose is to prove God holy in spite of their habit of
giving him a bad name among the nations of the world. We see in
those and other passages that God is not yet finished with Israel,
since his purposes do not depend upon the faith of its people.
In fact, God states clearly that Israel has profaned his name and
made him the object of scorn among the Gentiles. So the argument
that Israel today is not the chosen people of God is invalid, since it
has nothing to do with their merit. God has scattered them before
but brought them back again, so there’s no reason to presume that
he won’t do so in the future.

This doesn’t just concern the people, either, but also the land.
The original land of Israel was determined by God Himself: “the land
of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and
Jebusites” (Ex. 3:8, 13:5, etc.) This area is currently known as
Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, part of Turkey, and
Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank. God promised this area
to Abraham’s descendants.

Clearly, both the land and people of Israel belong to God. In their
present state of unbelief and hostility to their own Messiah, they
must be purged and purified. But it will be by the hand of God,
not Christians or Gentiles, since whoever comes against God’s
people comes against him (Zech. 2:8). So while we’re not
obligated to support or condone what they’re doing as a nation,
neither are we to attack or condemn them— as if we or any other
nations have a right to point fingers at others.

There is ample archaeological evidence of these ancient Hebrew

cities, culture, artifacts, and language (see this pro-Israel source and
this anti-Israel source). Yet there’s no evidence for any such people
as Palestinians; there’s no coinage, no inscriptions, no language,
nothing. It’s often and loudly claimed that a so-called Palestinian
people had prior occupancy, yet not even the Dome of the Rock was
built until 691 AD. A.C. Cresswell in his book Origin of the plan of the
Dome of the Rock notes that those who built the shrine used the
measurements of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which of course
was preceded by Israel (see this book, and this article).

Now we must address the charge that none of the people in Israel
today are true Jews by descendance from Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, but are Khazars and thus the fake Jews spoken of in the
book of Revelation. Though this may be provable genetically for
some of the people, it’s not true of all of them. Neither is it true that
all of them are atheists, Kabbalists, or occultists. Yet God spares his
people no matter how small the number (“remnant”), and the land
still belongs to God. In addition, Gentiles were always allowed to
convert to Judaism and given full rights as Jews (Isaiah 56:3-8). So
even if the people of Israel today were proven to lack genetic
descendance from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this doesn’t prevent
them from being considered the people of God.
To answer yet another charge, the establishment of modern Israel
by ordinary political means doesn’t mean it isn’t a fulfillment of Bible
prophecy. Was God supposed to just have us all wake up one
morning to see that there was a nation of Israel? How else would
anyone accept that God had something to do with it? The fact that
Israel’s existence in the future was predicted long ago is proof
enough that this is of God— though Israel did in fact appear
suddenly, per Isaiah 66:8.

A question for Christians who say that God has broken his promises
to Israel due to unbelief: What makes them think God won’t also
break his promises to Christian communities whose people lack faith
or keep indulging in sin? Many congregations today are filled with
corruption and worldly hedonism; they have relegated the Bible to
myth or irrelevance in the modern world; they embrace all the
depravity of the wicked and mock the few voices of rebuke and calls
to holiness. If God can abandon Israel, then God can also abandon
us. Those who smugly say that God is finished with Israel should not
think God won’t turn his back on them as well.

Having established the foundation of Bible prophecy as that God

won’t abandon Israel, it follows that the remaining prophecies about
the people and land of Israel will be literally fulfilled. Israel and the
Body of Christ have separate destinies and purposes, as explained
by both Peter and James in Acts 15, and by Paul in 1 Cor. 10:32
where he lists “Jews, Greeks (Gentiles), and the Congregation of
God”. Though there is but one Kingdom of Heaven, there are
various “provinces” depending on when a righteous person lived
(see the chapter on Dispensationalism, along with articles here and
here). If God can break his promises to Israel, he can break
them to us, and none of his promises would mean anything.
Thus so-called Replacement Theology, whether the Body of Christ
replaces Israel or the Body of Christ is absorbed into Israel and
must obey the Levitial law, means that God does not keep his
promises to glorify his name rather than ours. So prophecies in the
Old Testament apply to the people and land of Israel specifically, not
to the as-yet unknown and unrevealed Body of Christ.

Now just as Israel has its own history and promises, so also does
the Body of Christ. It is only in the New Testament, especially the
Letters, where the “mystery” (secret) of this new Congregation
is revealed (Rom. 11:25, 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:9, 3:3-9, Col.
1:26-27, 2:2, and 4:3). Not even the Gospels tell us much about
prophecies concerning the Body of Christ, since Jesus stated clearly
that his primary mission was to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Mat.
15:24). Neither will the events of Revelation be primarily about the
Body of Christ, which is never addressed after the seven letters in
chapters two and three. We are “not appointed to wrath” (1 Thes.
5:9) and have never shared in the guilt or prophecies of Israel. No
other righteous people from any other age before or after the Age of
Grace were or will be promised the Holy Spirit as a deposit
guaranteeing salvation (2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5, Eph. 1:13-14). Unlike us,
Israel was never described as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27, Eph.
4:12). Regarding Eph. 3:6, which states that through the Gospel
both Jew and Gentile are united into one Body, it also states that this
unity is found “in Christ Jesus”. It doesn’t say that Gentiles are
absorbed into Israel.

We are a unique entity, neither Jew nor Gentile, without any detailed
commands for sacred buildings or rituals. We share with Israel
neither law nor priesthood (Heb. 7), prophecy nor judgment, risk of
being disowned nor exiled and scattered. Since our salvation and
righteousness are found not in ourselves but in Jesus, we can
no more be taken from him nor choose to leave him than he
could do such things to himself (1 Cor. 6:19b-20a).

One other important principle to establish is that there was no death

or mortality before sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). Therefore,
death and mortality cannot continue after sin has been done away
with, since they’re part of the curse and that curse will end (Rev.
22:3). So whenever we encounter a passage of scripture that
speaks of mortality, even if people live long and happy lives, we
must conclude that the passage refers to a time before the curse is
taken away. This is also true of the matter of final, personal
judgment. If we read a passage about the judgment of the dead and
the destruction of Death and Hades, then no one can be judged
afterwards. Therefore, no one can die after that point, since they
would never be judged and there’s no place for them to go.

As another example, if we see a passage that speaks of the land of

Israel, we must not apply it to the Body of Christ. Or if we read
about endurance to be saved, we know it doesn’t concern us, since
we who are in Christ are credited with his righteousness, and it’s a
received gift rather than an earned wage (Rom. 6:14, 11:6, Eph. 2:8-
9). As noted earlier, we are not to suffer the wrath of God, for the
same reason that we’re only righteous because we belong to
Jesus. This hardly means we don’t suffer in this age of grace (Act
5:41, Rom. 5:3, 8:17-18, Heb. 11), but that this is not the wrath of
God which will be poured out on the whole world (Rev. 3:10).

Summary
The Bible is primarily about the people and land of Israel.
Scriptures to and about Israel aren’t to be applied to Christians
or Gentiles.
Scriptures to and about Christians aren’t to be mixed with or
applied to the people or land of Israel, or to the Gentiles.
Unique properties of the Body of Christ include salvation as a
gift, righteousness found only in Jesus and not ourselves,
personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and exemption from the
wrath of God.
Since death (mortality) only began as the curse earned by sin,
then the end of the curse is the end of sin and mortality.
No one can live a mortal life after all personal judgments are
completed and there’s no more place for the dead.
Now when we examine any prophetic passage, we need to ask
questions like these:

Does the context indicate that the passage can be taken

literally, figuratively, symbolically?
Has this event happened in history to complete fulfillment?
Was the prophecy given before Israel existed? Before
Pentecost? Before the Age of Grace was revealed?
Are the “saints” having to endure and work for their salvation?
Are they being overcome by “the gates of hell” (Mat. 16:18) or
suffering the wrath of God?
Are there any mortals still on the earth?
Is there any personal judgment after this, or any place for the
dead to go?

Note: The terms “saints” and “elect” refer to the righteous of any
age; they aren’t unique to Christianity. Everyone in the Body of
Christ is a saint, but not every saint is in the Body of Christ.
 Science

How the Bible and the Christian faith relate to

what is called science
 The Bible and Science
Is science the true god of the Bible? Many Christians seem to think
so. Please note that in this chapter we’ll be talking about cosmology
and evolution (in more detail in their own chapters), not empirical
(testable) science and engineering.

What is empirical science?

True science is the pursuit of understanding our world, but when it
comes to claiming something is a scientific fact, certain procedures
are required, called the scientific method:

1. Abduction:
1. Observe a natural phenomenon
2. Form a hypothesis about what could cause it
2. Deduction:
1. Experiment to test the hypothesis
1. Independent variable (cause)
2. Dependent variable (effect)
3. Controlled variable (constant)
2. Experiment to test the null hypothesis (attempt to falsify)
3. Analyze the results
4. Repeat
3. Induction: only deals in probabilities

If something is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon and cannot be

tested via the scientific method, then no theory about it can be
called scientific.

What is pseudoscience?
A past event, such as the Big Bang or abiogenesis, cannot meet the
standard required to call itself a scientific theory, much less a fact.
So such theories are mere philosophical assumptions and guesses.
Investigating the past is in the realm of probability and is highly
subjective. In fact, science prides itself on its instability, since what it
theorizes today may be abandoned tomorrow. So pseudoscience is
the only thing that really evolves, since interpretation of data is
according to the philosophical bias of the interpreters. And by the
way, since it’s always changing, its defenders shouldn’t get upset
when people disagree with current theory.

Is cosmology really a science?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines cosmology as:

1a: a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the

universe
1b: a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the
universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure,
and space-time relationships of the universe

(emphasis mine; also note that cosmogony deals only with the
origin of the universe)

Given the definitions of empirical science and pseudoscience, which

should cosmology be classified as? Metaphysics is not physics;
doctrine is not observation; relationships among entities in a
hypotheical realm (space-time) is not observation of the natural
realm. In fact, so-called space-time is conceptually impossible, since
nonphysical entities cannot be bent or considered a physical
dimension— and if not physical, then not scientific. The scientific
method is bound entirely by naturalism, which by definition must
exclude the nonphysical or supernatural. Since space-time is
nonphysical, then it cannot even be a scientific theory.
The standard of truth/fact
If we accept that the Bible is inspired by God, then it must follow that
the Bible is not false and does not teach (rather than merely report)
inaccuracies. So let’s take a look at the cosmology presented by the
Bible, in Genesis 1, Job 38 and 40, and Joshua 10:12-14. Context is
everything, and these contexts, while sometimes poetically
expressed, never paint a picture of the universe that matches
modern cosmology.

Without getting into the details of a debate over the size of the
universe or shape of the earth, consider these questions in light of
how scripture presents them:

Should Gen. 1 bow to a theory that doesn’t even meet the

requirement of being called scientific?
If the Bible wanted to present the six days of creation as literal
24-hour days, how much more clearly would it need to have
been expressed than “evening and morning, the __th day”?
Since the order of creation in Gen. 1 does not match
evolutionary theory, should we dismiss the Bible or evolutionary
theory? Can we ignore the sequence given in scripture? (see
previous point)
Was the earth orbiting the sun in the days before the sun was
created?
On the long day of Joshua, did the earth stop spinning or did
the sun and moon stop moving?
What effects should have been reported in at least some parts
of the world if earth had been spinning and then stopped for
about 24 hours?
Even in the most poetic passages, is earth ever described as a
spinning ball, or that it moves through space?
The Bible only describes the luminaries as the sun, moon, and
stars, with some stars “wandering” (the meaning of planet). On
what Biblical basis do we believe that “planets” are not stars?
Conclusion
Should the Bible bow to an unstable patchwork of guesses and
philosophy? Do we trust God or man? The Bible has passed every
test of its claims about history, so why do we not trust its claims
about nature, which God created? Instead, we try to force-fit
scripture into the latest philosophical framework, or dismiss it as
allegory or “theological messaging”. Who is really our God? Who is
the the most trustworthy source of truth and fact? Scripture must be
read in context, so if the context is historical narrative rather than
moral lessons or wisdom literature, we must take it as factual. And if
current claims of scientific fact don’t match, we can only hope that
someday those claims catch up to reality.
 Biblical Cosmology
The Bible is not a science book, it’s a truth book. But many seem
to think science books are the Bible; that is, they treat what is called
science as the highest authority to which even the Bible must bow.
This matters because the Bible is the inspired Word of God, so it
cannot contain falsehoods. No excuses can be made for the alleged
“primitive” knowledge of the times, especially since the ancients
could navigate long distances without compasses or electronic
signals, and build impressive structures without computers or
motorized machinery. God is not the author of confusion or
deception, and a Bible reduced to allegory every time it says
something we don’t like is not worth our efforts to study, much less
to obey.

What is Science?
We must first of all dispel the notion that “science” is infallible or
settled. In fact, the constant changes in scientific theories are
considered “a feature, not a bug”— and one proudly embraced by
anyone defending them. Today’s vigorously-defended scientific fact
may be tomorrow’s laughable ignorance. Yet one must wonder why
ever-changing beliefs are defended with such fierce zealotry, as if
one’s mother has been insulted. Disagreement with today’s
“science” is treated as damnable heresy, though tomorrow it may be
hailed as the newest advance.

At this point, some may jump to the conclusion that the Bible or the
Christian community is “anti-science”, but the opposite is true.
Genuine scientific practice, adhering to the scientific method (see
chapter on the Bible and Science), is by definition observable,
testable, and repeatable. If it works, it works, and we can observe
this consistently. Why it works is a completely different question, and
the government school system sees to it that certain questions are
not asked. Fact is fact, not theory or conjecture. The Bible deals in
fact/truth, so any claims that contradict it are false. No one can
claim to support the Bible as inspired by God while at the same time
interpreting it throught the lens of ever-changing philosophical
presumptions, as is commonly mistaken for empirical science. A
Christian must chose between the Bible and the religious philosophy
of Scientism.

What is not Science?

Quite simply, any claim that cannot meet the standards of the
scientific method. There are other “sciences”, meaning topics of
study such as biology or geology, which may use the scientific
method as part of their work, so be careful with how that word is
used in context. If something is claimed to be “scientific”, it must at
least require observation and testing, without jumping to
unwarranted conclusions. Above all, to claim something as a
scientific fact, one must rule out any other possible causes of the
observed effect. This is crucial, since merely demonstrating that one
theory is possible does not mean that other theories are
impossible.

So would the theory of evolution qualify as scientific? Only in the

very barest sense, in that some actual experimentation may be used
to determine the composition of a rock or fossil. But the theory as a
whole— whose definition seems to be the only thing that actually
evolves— cannot qualify. Observation and analysis are not scientific
proofs by themselves. Neither does the theory rule out other
theories. So it should be obvious that any philosophical guesswork
on how or when something came to be in its present form can
never qualify as science. Knowing this, we can say with confidence
that the creation account in Genesis can never be debunked by the
theory of evolution— again, whatever that may mean on any given
day. Every attempt to date the earth or living things begins with
begging the question that we must calibrate the scale for millions or
billions of years. It would be like using an oven thermometer to
guage human body temperature.

Likewise, would modern cosmology qualify as scientific? It cannot,

since observation is not a scientific proof in itself. Claims of
instruments sent to distant (presumed) worlds are easy enough to
make, but most of humanity is incapable of testing those claims. We
must trust/have faith in those making the claims; that is, cosmology
has become a kind of esoteric system whereby only the adepts
(scientists) can understand the mysteries. All we can honestly
observe is that there are luminaries in the sky, which move
according to very consistent patterns. In fact, one only needs long
and careful observation of those patterns in order to make
predictions of their future movements. This is how the ancients could
be so uncannily accurate in their calendars. The age, shape, or
location of earth is irrelevant for the predictions of the luminaries’
movements— except when we consider that the constellations have
maintained their shapes for many thousands of years, which greatly
questions the notion that earth has been hurtling at breakneck
speed through endless (presumed) space for billions of years.

What does the Bible say?

Regarding the age of our realm, Genesis 1 is often claimed to be an
allegory (“theological messaging”) where the days are really long
eons. But the repeated phrase “evening and morning, day ___”
leaves no room for speculation or ambiguity. We also see in the 4th
Commandment (Exodus 20:11) that remembering the sabbath day is
in commemoration of creation week and is observed every seventh
day— not every seventh eon. To object that this is symbolic is to beg
the question, since scripture never indicates symbolism for creation
week in any context. The only reason anyone tries to symbolize or
allegorize creation week is the presupposition that “science” has
proved that Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally.
Regarding the structure of our realm, not once does the Bible
speak of earth in terms of rotating, moving, or floating, but
only/always as fixed and immovable:

Gen. 1:14 no sun for earth to orbit until Day 4

Gen. 1:16 sun/moon rule/dominate/begin the day/night. Since
light in Gen. 1:3 is a created thing it cannot be simply God’s
light. Since created light predates the luminaries, then they are
delegated governors of created light, and they will not last
forever (Rev. 22:5).
Joshua 10:12-13 sun and moon stood still, not that earth
stopped rotating
1 Sam. 2:8 world on foundations
1 Chron. 16:30 earth not moved
Job 26:7 northern skies spread over emptiness, earth not
suspended
Job 37:18 skies spread out hard as mirror of cast bronze
Psalm 93:1, 104:5 world firm and secure, never moved from
foundations
Ecclesiastes 1:5 sun rises/sets and hurries back to rise
Isaiah 40:22 circle (not ball) of earth, stretched heavens like
canopy over a tent

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg which means circle,

circuit or compass. Earlier in that same book, Isaiah 22:18 says God
will “roll you up like a ball and throw you”, and the Hebrew word
there is duwr which means round or ball, something thrown. They
knew and understood the difference between a circle and a sphere.

Conclusion
There is simply no excuse for making the Bible bow, via selective
(arbitrary, inconsistent) allegorization, to what is falsely called
science but more accurately called pseudoscience or philosophy. We
cannot obey two very diametrically-opposed masters. We must
demand rigorous proof of every great claim, especially when it
clearly opposes what God revealed to us. We cannot allow peer
pressure or societal shaming to make cowards or compromisers out
of us.
 Evolution
Evolution is a purely naturalistic belief system about the universe,
whose definition is always evolving. Though certainly not an
exhaustive study, this will present the most common claims for
rebuttal.

Natural selection is one of the mechanisms

of evolution.
To select is to remove a subset of what already exists and discard
the rest, not create something new. This is one way in which
bacteria “develop” resistance to antibiotics; the drugs kill off the
competition from the bacteria that already had immunity.

Mutation is another mechanism of evolution.

Mutation removes functionality, which is another way that some
bacteria “develop” immunity to antibiotics. They are devolving, like
everything else. The fruit fly experiment ended in failure; deliberate,
multi-generational mutation only produced bizarre fruit flies— never
horseflies, houseflies, or dragonflies, much less horses, houses, or
dragons. So mutation, like selection, is an enemy of evolution.

Consider also the problem of getting mutated characteristics into the

gametes where they can be passed on. No learned skill can be
encoded in them, and the mutation will not be passed on unless a
mate with the same mutation is found, they produce viable offspring,
and the offspring marry each other to keep the mutation going. The
odds of favorable mutations that don’t render the offspring sterile
are extremely small, but they get orders of magnitude smaller when
applied to developing gills into lungs for example. So much blind faith
is required at every step along the way— and on a path that
unguided processes cannot follow.

Given enough time, anything can happen.

So time can turn frogs into princes? This is magic, not science.
Statistically, an unguided process always results in no net gain; it
winds up in equilibrium. This is illustrated by the famous coin-flipping
experiment: The more trials you have, the closer you get to
equilibrium. So time is yet another enemy of evolution: the more
time passes, the closer we get to no evolution at all. Therefore, if the
universe is billions of years old, we should all be back to pond scum
by now.

Three claims so far— natural selection, mutation, and time— and all
three work against evolution.

Evolution is only concerned with change

over time, not origins.
Evolution must believe in matter from non-matter and life from non-
life; it has no choice. And it is hypocritical for evolutionists to insist
that creationists explain where God came from, while they exempt
themselves from explaining where the first life or the singularity
came from. If someone cannot explain the beginning, they have no
right to claim absolute knowledge of what happened since then in
pre-history.

There is likely to be life everywhere in the

universe. This proves that regardless of the
odds, life does arise from non-life quite
often.
First, this has only been predicted, not observed. Second, the more
life is found on other planets, the more absurd the theory of
abiogenesis becomes, since the odds of it happening even once are
very slim. This again is a belief in magic and miracles that disregards
observation and probability. How can belief in an intelligent Designer
be less rational?

Science will eventually have all the answers.

Time to the rescue again? The more science discovers, the less
likely it becomes that answers about origins or alleged evolution will
come. The smallest living cells, once thought to be simple and
primitive, are now known to be incredibly complex biological factories
of ingenious design. But this is blind faith in naturalism, and if
evolutionists can have faith then so can creationists. We know
through archeology that history has not been a steady climb from
ignorance and simplicity to knowledge and complexity; there were
ancient civilizations whose technology still surpasses our own.

The present is the key to the past.

As just explained in the previous point, the past has been very
different from the present, and this is not a scientific statement
anyway. Science can only examine the present; forensics or legal
evidence is required in order to examine the past. Evolution also fails
to face the insurmountable odds of symbiotic evolution such as
flowers and bees; to think that these interdependencies evolved in
perfect synchrony over millions of years is at least as absurd as
anything proposed by creationists.
Design is only an illusion, something we
presume because we are designers.
How can people look at a jet engine and say “Design!” but look at its
designers and say “Accident!”? This is utter denial; it ignores
evidence of design based upon the designer. How did evolutionists
ever expect to use SETI to detect an intelligent signal from space,
when they refuse to define “intelligent”? The laws of physics/nature
are designs of their own; which came first, the laws or the matter
they act upon? Evolution does not have, never can have, and flatly
refuses to have, an answer. It cannot account for information
coding, which requires a sender and receiver who both know the
code.

Naturalism is unbiased and therefore

superior to supernaturalism.
Naturalism is anti-science because it limits the interpretation of data
and presumes outcomes before the experiment has begun. Take the
dating of ancient artifacts or life for example; evolution must first
presume the scale (very long periods of time, the magic wand) and
then discard or adjust any “anomalies” in measurement which were
unwanted or unexpected. Yet even a child knows that you don’t
measure oven temperature with a body thermometer; the scale is
way off, in spite of both being thermometers. But when the scale is
unknown, a truly scientific approach would be to use a wide variety
of scales. One must presume long ages before choosing a long-age
scale. And if it is objected that certain decaying properties tell us the
scale, the response is that all such techniques begin with
assumptions, not observations.

Conclusion
We’re all still waiting for someone to explain how numerous co-
dependencies (e.g. flowers and bees) all evolved in perfect
synchronization for millions of years without fail. Or how “selection”
creates new information, when to select means to take a subset of
what already exists. Or how an unguided process can ever have a
net gain in any direction; statistically, it’s no different from flipping a
coin, which shows that the greater the number of trials, the closer
we come to no net gain in either direction. Or how learned skills can
be encoded into the gametes in at least one male and one female so
the next generation inherits it. Or how mutation can account for
evolution when every experiment has failed to even begin to turn
one organism into another; e.g. the “fruit fly” experiment, which only
ever produced mutated fruit flies rather than house flies, horse flies,
or dragon flies.

As with its partner atheism, evolution is a blind faith, and it exempts

itself from scrutiny on questions it cannot answer (e.g. abiogenesis).
It is also an un-falsifiable theory since no discovery is ever deemed
sufficient to debunk it; instead, the theory simply “evolves” and is
thus unscientific. Despite the discovery of viable blood cells in the
bones of dinosaurs, despite the discovery of “primitive” animals such
as the Coelacanth alive today, despite the the discovery of the
amazing complexity of life at its most basic level, the theory itself is
clung to like a security blanket. Peer review and universities are
controlled and guarded by evolutionists. Even some of their own
proponents now admit that true scientific discovery has been
hijacked by a religious scientism, much like the prevailing view of the
scientific community with whom the Roman Catholic Church sided
against Galileo.

Further Reading
Debunking Evolution
Science Against Evolution
Evo for Intellectuals
Evolution Refuter
Electric Universe
What Color Were Adam and Eve?
Noah’s Ark, Flood
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Missing Secrets of Magnetism
Common Sense Science
Win the prize for proving cellular evolution
 God and Time
Can God know the future? Must it be set in stone in order for God to
know it? Is God as much bound by time as we are? Can God
change his mind without changing his nature or essence? These
questions are raised primarily by two extremes of theology: Open
Theism and Calvinism.

Analysis
First we need to have a basic understanding of the nature of time,
as best we can. The A and B theories of time can be briefly
summarized as follows:

A
tensed or dynamic; time passes
the future doesn’t exist but is only a potentiality
the past did exist but doesn’t now
the present alone is real
time cannot be traveled
there must be a First Cause
Time is composed of both sequence and duration.
Logical order is sequence without time, since duration
does not change the order.
B
tenseless or static; the past, present, and future all exist
simultaneously
time can be traveled, at least in theory

These passages prove that God is outside of time because he can’t

be constrained or limited by anything but his own nature: Gen.
18:10, Gen. 18:18, Isaiah 46:10, Psalms 90:4, Psalms 139:16, and
2 Peter 3:8. They also prove that God does indeed know the future
and interacts with time. How God knows the future is really
irrelevant to the question of whether he knows it. Our inability to
grasp how does not mean God cannot, and who would think that
God can possibly make a baseless assertion (e.g. “declaring the
end” not meaning “guaranteeing the end”)? Even so, middle
knowledge offers an intriguing solution that does not violate human
free will, and we’ll come back to that later.

Counterfactuals (if-then statements) in scripture indicate

dependencies or conditions for God’s actions (not knowledge):
Gen. 4:7, Ex. 8:21, 19:5, Deut. 7:12, 8:19, 2 Chron. 7:14, Neh. 1:9,
Mat. 21:22, John 3:16, Rev. 22:18-19. But what about when God
says “now I know” (Gen. 22:12) or “I will know” (Gen. 18:20-21)?
What about prayer, can it change what God does in the future or
not? Open Theism claims that such statements prove God does not
know the future. It also claims God is constrained by time, as well as
that God himself changes over time, in spite of Numbers 23:19, 1
Sam. 15:29, Psalm 102:26-27, Malachi 3:6, Heb. 13:8, and James
1:17. Who would say that if any of us changes our mind, or changes
how we relate to another person, then we ourselves have changed
in essence? The logic of Open Theism is severely flawed at its
foundation.

So since God knows our inner thoughts and intentions (1 Chron.

28:9), he knew what Abraham had in mind (Heb. 11:19) and did not
need to test him. The test was for Abraham’s benefit, and ours.
Look also at Gen. 3:9 when God asks Adam where he is; does
anyone think God didn’t know his location or what had happened?
Look at Jonah 3:10; did God really not know which decision the
Ninevites would make? In Jonah 4:2 Jonah says that God’s
reputation of changing his mind out of compassion was exactly
why he ran from him in the first place, since he didn’t want God to
show mercy on the Ninevites. For whose benefit was the change of
mind expressed to us?
The critical error of Open Theism is its illogical leap from scriptural
counterfactuals to God’s inability to know what choices we’ll make.
Rather than defending God’s free will, creativity, or compassion as it
claims, Open Theism limits God’s power and knowledge and stuffs
him into a tiny box that can only hold humans. It ignores the
scriptures saying God does indeed know the future (i.e., it is “fixed”)
because it can’t reconcile them with the counterfactuals. The inability
lies with that theology, not with God.

Fulfilled prophecy is the fingerprint of God on the Bible. How is this

even possible if God cannot know the future? How was Jesus able
to reveal to John “what was, what is, and what will be”, and ’play the
film’ before any of it happened? The other extreme from Open
Theism, Calvinism, claims that God must cause and control every
little detail in order to make prophecies come to pass, but this
violates free will and again puts God in a tiny philosophical box.
Middle Knowledge bridges the gap between both extremes and
preserves both God’s omniscience and the concept of free will.

Middle Knowledge basically means that God knows every possible

outcome from uncountable variables. Does an expert chess player
win the game by controlling the opponent’s moves, or by preparing a
counter-attack for every possible move? Does a racetrack determine
who wins, or only determine the course? In the same way, God sets
the course of history without overriding the will of any person in it.
He lays out the board or track and sets the rules of the contest, then
allows the contestants to make their own choices. But because God
knows all the possible choices, the outcome he chose will prevail.

Conclusion
Open Theism and Calvinism both try to solve problems created by
their theologies, and both of them seem to think these are the only
two possibilties. Is Middle Knowledge the solution to all of them?
Possibly, but who can really know how God does what he does
(Isaiah 55:8-9)? All we know from scripture is that God himself never
changes, but his dealings with us have changed many times (Heb.
1:1-2). Our actions, prayers, choices, and attitudes affect how we
“run the race”, and God speaks to us in terms we can grasp. But he
knows the future and has given us the freedom and responsibility to
live as we choose, either in alignment with or opposition to his will.
 Non-Christian Beliefs

What Christians should know about other

beliefs
 Atheism
Atheism is the philosophical assertion that no gods exist, rather than
having no opinion on whether any gods exist (source). Various
common, informal claims of atheism are stated and refuted below.

Atheism is the absence of belief

Atheism asserts that no gods exist; this is a belief. A true absence of
belief would be agnosticism, where someone may have a personal
conviction that something doesn’t exist yet still allow the possibility
that they could be wrong. And in spite of whether a given individual
atheist may claim that humanism is not the same as atheism, the
Secular Humanism and related documents admit, proudly, that
humanism is indeed a religion:

Humanist Charles F. Potter writes, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of

humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic
Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the
children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
(Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)

John J. Dunphy, in his award winning essay, The Humanist (1983), illustrates this
strategic focus, “The battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the
public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the
proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity— utilizing a classroom instead of
a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and
will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new— the rotting corpse of
Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of
humanism.”
Most who identify as humanists claim it’s only a desire to improve
human interaction, but the quotes above are solidly humanist and
anything but positive or tolerant. It’s a blatant attack upon theism,
especially Christianity. Perhaps the humanists and atheists need
denominations to accommodate all the variations.

Atheists don’t bear the burden of proof or

have to justify their lack of belief in God,
because it’s impossible to prove a negative
Not all negatives are unprovable; it depends upon scope. Someone
could prove there are no unicorns in their garage, but they couldn’t
prove there are no unicorns anywhere in existence. So the only time
a negative cannot be proved is if the scope of the claim is infinite or
otherwise unobservable. However, the one who makes the assertion
carries the burden of proof; the atheist cannot escape this
responsibility just because their claim is absurd, unfalsifiable, or an
infinite scope.

God can’t make a rock too big for him to lift,

so God is self-contradictory and thus cannot
exist
If God is disproved due to self-contradiction, then so is atheism,
since it’s defined by an unfalsifiable assertion. This particular claim is
an absurdity, on the level of a round square, and therefore cannot
disprove anything at all. Further, if both theism and atheism are self-
contradictory, then neither is possible, which means atheism is no
more rational than theism.

The theory of evolution proves from another angle that atheism

cannot be true due to internal contradiction. In spite of the claim of
immunity from the question of origins since “evolution only means
change”, the fact remains that the atheist must believe in
abiogenesis and cannot claim indifference or irrelevance to the
problem. By atheism’s own logic, if evolution is asserted without any
starting point it cannot exist. Otherwise, atheists must concede that
God can exist in spite of lacking a starting point, unless they want to
claim the physical universe is eternal— which is no different from
belief in an eternal God.

Belief in God is no different from belief in

unicorns or Santa Clause; if you believe in
one, you must believe in all
This is also informally known as “the Flying Spaghetti Monster”
assertion: that people have as much reason to believe there is a
Flying Spaghetti Monster as that there is a God. But since people
don’t identify themselves as “a-unicorns” or “a-Santas”, one must
ask why anyone would self-identify as an “a-theist” if they were really
all at the same level of absurdity. The fact that only theism is singled
out proves that even atheists know there’s a difference.

The difference is that evidence and logic back up theism. Since we

observe that matter “runs down”, then it cannot be either eternal or
self-caused. This means there is a First Cause outside of the laws of
physics, one that must be supernatural by definition. So while it’s
entirely rational to assert a supernatural First Cause, the atheist
mistakenly believes that any naturalist theory, no matter how
counter-intuitive, is scientific by definition. But purely
theoretical/mathematical physics has concluded that the moon isn’t
there if nobody looks at it; how is this more rational than concluding
that effects require causes? Rationality is not to be defined only by
naturalism.
There is no evidence for the supernatural
This assertion begs the question by limiting the definition of evidence
to the purely natural, and then using that definition to deny any
evidence exists for the supernatural. To illustrate: If you calibrate a
thermometer to measure in the range of zero to 50 degrees, you
can’t use it as evidence that nothing ever gets below zero or above
50.

In order for atheists to prove their assertion, they would have to

devise a way to both affirm and falsify (disprove) the claim. As
someone once said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.” So just as the negative assertion “there are no gods”
cannot be either proved or falsified, so also the assertion “there is
no evidence for the supernatural” cannot be proved or falsified.

Religion is a dangerous idea because it’s

anti-science
This claim confuses science with philosophy. Science has strict
boundaries; it must observe, test, and repeat the process. It can
propose theories, but it cannot call them proofs or facts without
observation and repetition. It also cannot decide what the facts
mean apart from a philosophical framework in which to interpret
them. A single observation can be interpreted in many different
ways, even among scientists with the same interpretive bias
(philosophy or worldview). Scientists are human beings not exempt
or immune from faulty logic, bias, prejudice, jealousy, or falsifying
data to protect careers or funding.

The claim is also based upon a false assertion (a presumed danger);

it is patently false that religion is anti-science. In fact, evolutionary
bias is demonstrably anti-science in that it refuses to recognize
where actual empirical science leaves off and philosophical bias
begins. It redefines science to include its own philosophy, then
expresses outrage that others reject this new definition. It also
shows fear of being challenged or having the burden of proof,
because it often uses the courts to prevent certain contradictory
evidence from being made known. True science would only put the
evidence to the test and not predetermine the results.

If being anti-science is dangerous, then hold naturalism to the same

standard as any other philosophy or worldview. All ideas that inhibit,
restrict, predetermine, or otherwise interfere with empirical science
are equally dangerous. And there is plenty of evidence that
naturalism, through academic bias and litigation, does all of those
things. Fear that allowing free choice among students would lead
them to reject a certain worldview is as far from science as any
theistic religion.

As for true danger rather than mere philosophical disagreement,

atheism has no justification for being against such dangerous things
as violence, since it cannot base morality on anything but personal
preference. So while atheism may not actively promote violence
(though individuals sometimes do), it also cannot say why violence is
wrong on any scientific or evolutionary basis. Some atheists may
object that it’s only rational to preserve one’s society and promote
health and safety, but these are not objective, universal, scientific
arguments. Survival of the fittest is inherently selfish and has no
motivation to give others a competitive advantage. Pregnancy and
childbirth are high-mortality and high-maintenance activities, which
are detrimental to personal survival. So altruism is the opposite of
evolutionary philosophy, and cannot be justified objectively by
atheism.

Some rhetorical questions for atheists

An obsession is when something or someone dominates a person’s
mind. So what else can it be called when so many atheists spend
large amounts of time and effort in Christian chatrooms, arguing and
mocking incessantly? Who else spends more time on what they
don’t believe than what they do believe? If all unprovable beliefs are
the same, why don’t atheists put forth the same effort to combat
belief in the tooth fairy or pink unicorns on Mars? Are Christians
really any less consistent than atheists?

And why do atheists even care what anyone believes? If, as they
claim, they are defined by not believing, then why is belief such an
all-important matter to them? Since all attempts at scapegoating
theists have been shown to be fallacious, and since atheists commit
their share of crimes, then what good is atheism doing for society,
and why does it matter since they say we’re merely glorified pond
scum?

Conclusion
Atheism believes that if God made people without free will, they are
puppets he forces to sin and then sends them to hell for sinning. Yet
atheism also believes that if God made people with free will, he
should not have done so, since some people would choose to defy
him and then be sent to hell. Free will and not free will are mutually
exclusive, so what would atheists have had God do? Create no one
at all? If they’re telling God that he must only create people who will
freely choose to obey him, that’s no different in principle from
creating robots. If they’re telling God he’s not allowed to create
anyone at all, they’re saying God is not sovereign, which by
definition means he’s not God.

To atheists, this means that the very concept of God is irrational and
God cannot exist. Yet they themselves believe that all physical
matter somehow came into existence without any cause, since a
physical cause begs the question and a non-physical cause can’t
exist. That is undeniably irrational, yet they believe it must be true
regardless. Thus the dispute between theism and atheism is
between two irrational philosophies, and neither is more rational than
the other.

Atheism operates on a double-standard by decreeing that any

theistic belief is debunked if every one of its members can’t answer
every single question, though atheists claim exemption from the
same demand. It is far from a neutral or harmless belief and even
denies that it’s a belief at all. But we have shown that it is indeed a
belief in non-existence. Atheism even has many zealots and
activists, “priests” who are practically worshiped, and “holy books”
they consider irrefutable. A great many atheists seem more sure of
the existence of God than Christians, since they hate God and his
followers so much and seem to enjoy mocking them. In fact, they
want God to do two mutually-exclusive things: stay out of people’s
lives, yet micromanage them so nothing bad happens.

Atheism is thus inherently negative and self-contradictory, it’s

defined by what it disbelieves and cannot prove, and it behaves
exactly like the theists it claims to be superior to. It redefines terms
such as “free thinking”, “rational”, and “scientific”, and then uses
these novel definitions to vilify its opponents. It wants free speech
for itself while forbidding it to others, whom it accuses of the very
same thing. It is what it claims to be against: a close-minded,
irrational, fallacious, biased, zealous, activist philosophy. The fact
that atheists take offense at such a description is the ironic proof
that the charges are true, because if atheism were the absence of
belief, there would be nothing to either attack or take offense about.

There is no quality in atheism to make it better than other

philosophies. Not all theists practice rites of worship; not all theists
have a holy book; not all theists are narrow-minded in any manner
not equally applicable to atheists; not all theists teach violence or
suppression. If atheists are allowed to say they think they’re right
and everyone else is wrong, then they must grant the same right to
theists. If theists are “ramming their beliefs down everyone’s throats”
when they express their beliefs, then atheists are doing the same
ramming when they express their disbeliefs. In theory or in practice,
there is every reason to call atheism a religion, since Buddhism for
example is a religion without a god as well.

It’s also self-contradictory when some atheists express belief in

karma. It cannot be proved; it cannot be measured; its mechanism
cannot be explained. Thus it’s a blind faith, and one that is at least
as irrational as any theistic faith. Who manages karma? Who weighs
people’s lives? Who decides what they come back as? How does
this return happen? How can anyone believe karma can be
compared to some mindless physical process or chemical reaction,
both of which happen to be highly complex and evidence of
intelligent design? To think this all happens by unguided processes is
clearly irrational. And why is God bad for not preventing evil, yet
karma is good because evil people are being repaid for what they
can’t remember doing in a past life?

There are some good, truly peaceful atheists. But as with professing
Christians, such people are the minority. Both the atheist and the
theist often live in conflict with their stated philosophy. Both use the
no true Scotsman fallacy. Both undermine their own group by doing
the very thing they label a fault in others. Both make many irrational
arguments and fail to take their claims to their logical conclusions.
So again, there is nothing in atheism that can objectively and
consistently be called superior or even preferable to theism,
especially Christianity.
 Gnosticism
For this topic, please read the excellent article here, summarized
below.

1. Sample of Claims (2nd to 4th century AD)

That Jesus had a twin and was married to Mary Magalene
That Gospels originally in the Bible were destroyed
That the cross spoke and walked out of the tomb later
That Judas was a hero who secretly carried out Jesus’
instructions
2. Teachings
The material world is bad and under the control of evil,
ignorance, or nothingness, but the spirit world is good.
A divine spark is somehow trapped in some humans and it
alone is capable of redemption.
Salvation is through secret knowledge by which individuals
come to know themselves, their origin, and their destiny.
Since a good God could not have created an evil world, it
must have been created by an inferior, ignorant, or evil god.
The true, good God created Archons who produced other
Archons until a mistake by Sophia (Wisdom) led to the
creation of the evil Archon who created our world and
pretends to be God. Sparks of Sophia in some humans fill
them with an urge to return to the Pleroma (divine realm)
where they belong.
3. Implications
Mortal flesh is corrupt, so it must be either subdued or
indulged, but either way, Jesus could not have become
mortal or he would have been sinful.
This belief led to Docetism, meaning that Jesus only
appeared to be physical.
An alternative to Docetism was that a “Christ spirit” entered
Jesus’ mortal body until just before he was crucified, or that
 someone else died in his place. The resurrection was a
myth or spiritual only.
4. When Did Gnosticism Arise?
Earliest date unknown, but androgyny was a pervasive
theme since Plato. Some see a connection to
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, or Judaism, and there was
much hatred of the God of the Old Testament.
The New Testament’s statements about the importance of
Jesus coming in the flesh were likely rebuttals to early
Gnostic claims.
Later Gnostic writings from the Nag Hammadi collection are
clear reactions to already-existing Christian apostolic
writings.
5. Valentinus Invented “Christian” Gnosticism
This 2nd century pope claimed to have received teachings
from a follower of Paul named Theodas or Theudas.
His teachings were esoteric (hidden) claims of instruction
from Jesus, which enabled only the adept or enlightened to
understand the scriptures.
The Godhead manifests itself through a process of self-
unfolding in the subsequent multiplicity of being while
maintaining its unity.
God is androgynous (the Baphomet, a known Satanic dyad,
meaning both male and female).
Everything in the physical realm is the result of God
thinking about it. (This is essentially the conclusion of
theoretical physics via the Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser
experiment, which holds that nothing exists unless some
conscious being “knows” it.)
The Son was also brought into being in this way, and was
androgynous like the Father. He manifests as 26 different
entities or Aeons in male-female pairs.
The Fall into sin is a convoluted story of division and
illusion.
Salvation is by achieving Gnosis, which joins a person with
an angel.
6. Early church leader opposition to Gnosticism
Clashed with scripture
Recognized as the same lie Satan had told to Eve
Apostolic succession, hierarchy and offices, and official
canon were largely reactions in an attempt to prevent
heresy.
7. Was it wrong to reject Gnosticism?
Not when compared to the teachings of the apostles.
Burden of proof is on newer teachings.
8. How do we know about Gnosticism?
Much of Gnosticism was only known in the early centuries
AD in critiques of it.
Discoveries since the 18th century proved that the critics
were actually less harsh than they could have been.
The Nag Hammadi Library is the biggest collection of
Gnostic writings, including the forged “Gospel” of Judas,
who it paints as a hero for helping liberate Jesus from his
body.
9. How Christianity related to Gnosticism
Christians considered it rank heresy and an attack on the
true faith.
All Gnosticism’s “gospels” were clearly forged.
Gnostics considered themselves above Christians in
enlightenment.
Gnosticism essentially turns every Christian teaching
upside down and blasphemes Jesus.
 Islam
This is a very basic look at Islam. Here is a more thorough and up-
to-date resource for further reading. Sources used for this chapter:

The Koran Interpreted by A. J. Arberry

The Facts on Islam by John Ankerberg and John Weldon
Behind the Veil-- Unmasking Islam by Abd El Schafi
Aspects of Islam by D. B. MacDonald
Islam: A Way of Life by Philip K. Hitti
Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell

The Quran— External Evidence

The text shows evidence of corruption. It contains many
grammatical errors and non-Arabic words, and there are many
conflicting readings. Many parts of the originals have been lost. For
example, one Sura (chapter) originally had 200 verses in the days of
Ayesha, but by the time of the Uthman standardized text, it had only
73. There are also many instances of verses being added or
removed for political reasons, or due to disputes between Sunni and
Shiite Muslims. After Mohammad’s death there was great confusion
as to what material should be included in the Quran. In the mid
600s, a standard text was made official and all others were
destroyed.

Obviously, compared to the mountain of external evidence

supporting the Bible, there just isn’t much to say about the Quran.
As a result, most Muslim apologists will center their arguments
around attacks on the Bible. This is why it’s so important for
Christians to know the facts about our Biblical texts, and to be
familiar with Christian apologetics.
The Quran— Internal Evidence
Using the current official Quran text, are there any self-
contradictions, or discrepancies with the Bible? Self-contradictions
abound. Either all Noah’s family was saved, or some drowned.
Either God took 8 days to create the world, or he took 7. There are
several different accounts of Mohammad’s original call to be a
prophet.

Discrepancies with the Bible also abound, so the only way for
Muslims to accept the Quran’s teaching that the Bible is God’s Word
is to claim that the Bible has been corrupted. But since the Quran
was written only a few hundred years after the Bible was finished,
how can anyone account for such a huge degree of corruption in
such a short time? If God was incapable of protecting his Word even
for a few hundred years, why should we believe the Quran has been
uncorrupted for over a thousand?

The Bible and the Quran are hopelessly incompatible, and the
evidence overwhelmingly supports the Bible as being the true Word
of God. There is just no evidence of any kind for the Quran to stand
on.

Doctrinal Statements

The Bible
Genesis 16:11-12, 17:18-21, 21:3 Isaac, Ishmael, covenant
Matthew 1:1-17 Jesus’ genealogy from Abraham and Isaac
Luke 3:24-38 Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam
Galatians 4:22-31 two covenants
Genesis 1:26, Ex. 3:14, Deut. 6:4, Ps. 45:6-7, Isaiah 46:9, Matt.
28:19, Luke 11:15, John 14:26, 16:13, John 17:1-5, 20:22, Acts
1:4-5, 2:33, 19:2, etc. proof of the Trinity
 John 5:18, 6:38, 10:30 Jesus & Father One yet distinct
Luke 1:35, John 1:1-5, 14, 18, 3:16 the Son of God
Isaiah 48:16 God doesn’t speak in secret
John 2:19-21, 1 Tim. 2:3-6 crucifixion, resurrection
Rev. 22:13 Jesus is the FIRST and the LAST
Malachi 2:16, Matt. 5:31-32, Mk. 10:2-12, Col 3:19, 1 Peter 3:7
husbands and wives
Deut. 32:35, Isaiah 34:8, Rom. 12:19, 1 Peter 3:9 teachings on
vengeance
John 3:16-17, Acts 4:10-12, Rom. 5:10, 10:9-10, Eph. 2:8-9
Salvation by faith, not works, only through Jesus

The Quran
Note: Sura numbers differ from one translation to another.

Hostility towards Jews and Christians Sura 2:105-115, 129,

9:28-39
No religion but Islam; others are losers Sura 3:79
Believers don’t take Jews / Christians as friends Sura 5:56
Lie in ambush for infidels, who must repent or die Sura 9:5
Salvation by works Sura 9:18
Abraham was a Muslim! Sura 3:60
Mohammad is naught but a Messenger Sura 3:138
Mohammad seal (last) of the prophets Sura 33:40
A man can beat a rebellious wife Sura 4:38

The Quran’s Jesus

Not crucified; it was a likeness of Him Sura 4:135
Not God, just a messenger Sura 4:169, 5:19, 76, 79
Not the Messiah Sura 5:19, 76
Not the Son of God Sura 19:91, 93

The Quran’s God

 Made a covenant with Abraham and Ishmael Sura 2:119
Has no son Sura 19:91, 93
Is the same as the God of the Bible (YHWH) Sura 29:45
Has not begotten Sura 112:1
Is not a Trinity Sura 4:169, 5:77

Motivation

The Bible
The Bible commands us to love God and love other people. It
teaches respect for property and authority, considerate treatment of
the weak, and concern for the lost. It shows us how to administer
justice, cope with adversity, and return the love of God.

The highest ideals known to mankind are found in the Bible. Any
who accept it as the Word of God are powerfully motivated to exhibit
the highest standards in all areas of life. Contrary to most, if not all,
other “holy books”, the Bible emphasizes the condition of the heart
as of first importance, with outward behavior being changed as a
result.

The Quran
Although the Quran does teach respect for property and other high
ideals, its motivation is not the love of God but the fear of him.
Outward behavior is essential to salvation, and believers obey not
because they want to, but because they must. The teachings of the
Quran motivate men to domineer women, to hate and kill, and to
ruthlessly spread Islam by force. Jews and Christians are named as
the enemies of Islam and are condemned to Gehenna.

Practice
The Bible
Practice is, of course, the result of motivation. The obvious result of
following the teachings of the Bible is a civilizing influence on society.
Historically, the Bible has had a strong, positive effect on the
development of humane governments and much scientific research.
Yes, there have been those who did evil in the name of Christianity,
but they did so in spite of what the Bible says, not because of it.
Where true Biblical Christianity is practiced, people are free and
prosperous. The United States has been an example of how God
blesses nations that honor him (and what happens when they stop).

The Quran
The results of acting on what the Quran motivates people to do are
obvious. Islam was spread by the sword, in obedience to the Quran
and by the example of Mohammad. After his death, many who had
followed him abandoned his teachings, thinking they were free at
last. But the true believers persecuted them until Islam was firmly
established. In every country where Islam has been dominant, the
people have been impoverished and oppressed. No Islamic country
allows freedom for all people. Those Muslims that are considered
extreme or fanatical are simply taking the Quran literally. Contrary to
popular opinion, it isn’t the violent Muslims who are not practicing
true Islam, it’s the peaceful ones. Those who claim to be peaceful
must somehow spiritualize the Quran, believing it to teach only
spiritual warfare. But there is no contextual justification for such a
view, and no historical precedent.

To our shame, though, some Christians do the same thing. They

don’t like the clear teachings of Scripture, so they spiritualize them
to mean something else. The people who do that are ripe for
deception, because they will be easily persuaded to accept false
teachings and religions. If the actual words don’t matter, then any
belief will do.
The following quotes are from the preface to Volume II of The Koran
Interpreted:

p. 8 “Whenever I hear the Quran chanted… there is sounding

all the time the insistent beat of a drum.”
p. 10 “When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic
effect that makes the listener indifferent to its sometimes
strange syntax and its sometimes, to us, repellent content.”
p. 16 “This, the mystic’s approach, is surely the right approach
to the study of the Quran.”

Since the Quran is best “revealed” when chanted, it bears a strong

resemblance to shamanism (witchcraft) and Hinduism; the “western”
concepts of analysis and logical reason are abandoned in favor of
emotion and “enlightenment”. This, of course, points out yet another
difference between Allah and the God of the Bible: One is a God of
order and reason, and the other is a god whose writings can only be
truly known through chanting and emotion, the “mystic’s approach.”

Leading by Example

Jesus
When studying religions, it’s a good idea to find out what kind of
people founded them. It’s one thing for your friends to speak well of
you, but another for your enemies to do the same. This is true of
Jesus. Whether in the Bible or other sources, even his enemies
have had to acknowledge the superiority of his teachings. He is
flawless in every way, and is still the only “religious figure” to have
risen from the dead. After seeing his life on earth and hearing his
teachings, the world must at least acknowledge him as the best
example of a religious leader. No other person in history is as widely
quoted or emulated.
Mohammad
From the Preface to Volume I of The Quran Interpreted:

p. 15 “If Mohammad… was indeed the illiterate person the

Muslims represent him to have been, then… the Quran is, as
they assert it to be, a standing miracle.”
p. 15 “…he was… the victim of a certain amount of self-
deception… liable to morbid and fantastic hallucinations…”
p. 16 “he was… an earnest though mistaken teacher…”

Conclusion
The Quran is composed mostly of endless repetitions of the anti-
infidel theme, with a hodgepodge of some Biblical passages. Actual
doctrinal statements are few and far between. Mohammad and his
successors have waged “holy war” for centuries, and Islamic
countries to this day oppress and persecute non-Muslims.
 Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that their version of the Bible (the New
World Translation or NWT) is the only correct one, and that
mainstream Christians bash them for no reason. Of course they’re
guilty of bashing as well, and the general arguments they present
against our Bible (bias, tampering, etc.) apply at least as much to
theirs, and uniquely to their stepping out of the bounds of semantic
range in order to turn Jesus into a lesser being.

Jehovah is an Anglicized version of the Hebrew word YHWH which

means “I am”. The NWT is fraught with translation errors (see these
scholarly assessments). For example, they render Zech. 12:10b as
“and they will look to the one whom they pierced” when the Hebrew
says “and they will look upon me, whom they pierced”. According to
the Masoretic text, the word used here is the compound “Ahl’lee”,
meaning “upon me”. Here are scriptures that challenge the belief
that Jesus is either not divine at all or a lesser being:

Isaiah 9:6 How can the Son be “the mighty God, the everlasting
Father”?
Isaiah 44:24 and Col. 1:16 YHWH and Jesus are the Creator.
Isaiah 43:11, Luke 2:11, Acts 4:10-12 YHWH and Jesus are the
Savior.
Ex. 34:14, Daniel 7:14 YHWH and Jesus are worshiped as God.
John 1:1-3, 14, 8:58-59, 10:30-33, Rom. 9:5, Heb. 1:8 Jesus is
God (“I AM”, I and Father are one)
Phil. 2:5-11, Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 4:2 Jesus is God in
the flesh
Psalm 110:1, Rev. 22:16 Jesus the Lord is both the Root and
Offspring of David.
Col. 1:14-20 “Firstborn of all creation” doesn’t mean “first
created thing” but “one with authority ruling over all creation”
(see Ex 4:22, Job 18:13, Ps 89:27, Jer. 31:9; Jesus is also
 called “the firstborn from the dead” in Rev. 1:5). Also supported
by v. 16 which shows that Jesus created EVERYTHING that
was created (which, of course, doesn’t include God, who is
eternal).
Gen. 1:26, Ex. 3:14, Psalm 45:6-7 Elohiym is a plural noun but
is used with a singular verb.
Mat. 18:19 “in the name (not names) of the Father, Son, Spirit”
Isaiah 46:9, 48:12-16, John, Acts 2:33, 19:2, Romans 8:11, 27,
15:16, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 3:17-18, 5:5, 13:14, Gal. 4:6, Eph.
1:13-14, Heb. 9:14, 1 Peter 1:2, 3:18, Rev. 22:13, 16 all show
the trinitarian nature of God.

Here are scriptures showing that we cannot be saved by our good

works:

Isaiah 64:6 All our “goodness” is like filthy rags

Php. 3:9 Saved by Jesus’ righteousness, not ours
Eph 2:8-9 You are saved by grace (gift, not reward)
Gal 2:20-3:5 Receive Spirit by believing
Rom. 3 All have sinned (why only God can pay for our sins)
Rom. 6:23 Gift of God is eternal life
Rom. 10:9 Believe and confess
Rom. 4:5 Salvation without works
Heb. 12:2 Jesus author of our faith
John 14:6 Jesus only way to Father

And of course, scripture says that salvation is guaranteed. 1 John

5:13 says that believers know they’re saved.

We must ask ourselves how we determine truth or authority. Without

an objective standard that can be investigated, truth becomes
relative and subjective. If truth is changeable or arguable, then there
is no such thing as truth, and one person’s or group’s truth is no
better than anyone else’s.
Another question is what the JW faith has to offer. Do they have
assurance that they’ll ever get to Heaven? How good is good
enough? Can they lose their place in Heaven? Does their church
kick them when they’re down? (There is plenty of evidence that it
does, as a matter of official teaching and practice.) Contrast this
with the guaranteed salvation of the Bible.

More scholarly quotes about the NWT

Many scholars refer to the New World Translation as a commentary
on the Bible instead of a translation in light of the way the text has
been altered to fit the various Society doctrines. These changes are
particularly evident when the subjects of hell, the Trinity, or the
immortality of the soul are discussed. The following is a
representative list of passages altered in the Society’s Bible:

Heb. 1:8, Luke 23:43, 1 John 5:20, 1 Cor. 11:30, Phil. 2:5, 1 Cor. 14:14, John 1:1-2,
Cor. 5:1, Col. 1:15-18, Gal. 5:15, Titus 2:13, Gal. 6:18, Acts 2:17, Heb. 10:39, 1 Pet.
3:18, 19, Heb. 12:9, Jude 1:19, Heb. 12:28, 1 John 4:1-6, Rev. 5:10, Rev. 8:9, Acts
20:7, Mark 1:4, Col. 2:12

Observations, Evaluations, And Criticisms of

the NWT
These are by noted Greek and New Testament scholars. The
comments are particularly directed toward the NWT translation of
John 1:1, but are indicative of the tone of their observations about
the NWT translation in general.

DR. J.R. MANTEY (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159, of the

Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation): “A shocking
mistranslation”. “Obsolete and incorrect”. “It is neither scholarly nor
reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’”

DR. BRUCE M. METZGER of Princeton University (Professor New

Testament Language and Literature): “A frightful mistranslation…”,
“erroneous…”, “pernicious…” “reprehensible…”. “If the YHWH’s
Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”

DR. SAMUEL J. MIKOLASKI of Zurich, Switzerland: “This

anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean
what the indefinite article ’a’ means in English. It is monstrous to
translate the phrase ’the Word was a god.’”

DR. PAUL L. KAUFFMAN of Portland, Oregon: “The YHWH’s

Witnesses [translators] evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic
tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”

DR. CHARLES L. FEINBERG of La Mirada, California: “I can assure

you that the rendering which the YHWH’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is
not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”

DR. JAMES L. BOYER of Winona Lake, Indiana: “I have never

heard of, or read of any Greek scholar who would agree to the
interpretation of this [John 1:1] verse insisted upon by the YHWH’s
Witnesses… I have never encountered one of them [Society
member] who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”

DR. WALTER MARTIN (who does not teach Greek but has studied
the language): “The translation ’a god’ instead of ’God’ is erroneous
and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or
contemporary, and is a translation rejected by all recognized
scholars of the Greek language, many of whom are not even
Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the
orthodox contention.”

DR. WILLIAN BARCLAY of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New
Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ’the Word was a god.’
a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear
that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is
intellectually dishonest.”

DR. F.F. BRUCE of the University of Manchester, England: “Much is

made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite
article with ’God’ in the phrase ’and the Word was God.’ Such an
omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction… ’a
god’ would be totally indefensible.”

(The late Dr. Barclay and Dr. Bruce are generally regarded as Great
Britain’s leading Greek scholars. Each have New Testament
translations in print.)

DR. ERNEST C. COLWELL of the University of Chicago: “A definite

predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does
not have the article when it precedes the verb… this statement
cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which
reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas: ’My Lord and my
God.’ (John 20:28)”

DR. PHILIP B. HARNER of Heidelberg College: “The verb preceding

an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was
’a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general
category of THEOS but a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the
form the John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the
beginning for emphasis [thus ruling out the ’a god’ translation].”

DR. J. JOHNSON of California State University, Long Beach: “No

justification whatsoever for translationg THEOS EN HO LOGOS as
’the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6
where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct…
I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.”

DR. EUGENE A. NIDA, head of Translation Department, American

Bible Society: “With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a
complication simply because the New World Translation was
apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of
the Greek.” (Responsible for the Good News Bible -- the committee
worked under him.)

DR. B.F. WESTCOTT (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the
English part -- is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): “The
predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is
necessarily without the article… No idea of inferiority of nature is
suggested by [this] form of expression, which simply affirms the true
deity of the Word… in the third clause ’the Word’ is declared to be
’God’, and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”

DR. J.J. GRIESBACH (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the
English part -- is used in the Society’s publication The Emphatic
Diaglott): “So numerous and clear are the arguments and
testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I
can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority
of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this
doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage,
John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no
daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched
out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”

Blue Letter Bible, expose of JW.

From this source

New Testament, 1950. Frederick W. Franz, ed., New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Rendered from
the Original Language by the New World Translation
Committee. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1950.

Bible, 1961. Frederick W. Franz, ed., The New World Translation

of the Holy Scriptures, rendered from the Original Languages
by the New World Bible Translation Committee. Revised A.D.
1961. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,
1961. The Old Testament was originally published in parts from 1953
to 1960. The whole was revised for the one-volume edition in 1961,
and subsequently revised in 1970 and 1984. The publisher of this
version has never made public the names of the translators. But
former members of the Governing Body of the YHWH’s Witnesses
organization have identified the members of the committee as
Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz
(Vice-President), George D. Cangas, and Albert D. Schroeder.
According to Raymond V. Franz, the “principal translator of the
Society’s New World Translation” was Frederick W. Franz.(1)
According to M. James Penton, “to all intents and purposes the New
World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz.”(2) Franz
afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to
1992, and was responsible for the revisions.

The Forward to the first edition of the New Testament (1950)

explained the need for the version, and also indicated the reason for
its name: “It befits the significant time of transition from the old world
to the righteous new world that translations of the Scriptures today
should as far as possible eliminate the misleading influence of
religious traditions which have their roots in paganism.” (p.7,
emphasis added.)

The New Testament adheres to the text of Westcott and Hort. It is a

fairly literal translation, for the most part, but it does have some
peculiar non-literal renderings. These are the result of the
committee’s efforts to conform the version to the doctrines of the
YHWH’s Witnesses. “YHWH” is given as a translation for kurios
(Lord) in the New Testament whenever the Father is meant, but not
when it refers to Christ, the Son. “Torture stake” is put instead of
“cross” because the YHWH’s Witnesses believe that the cross is an
idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And
because this sect teaches that Jesus Christ was merely an angel,
the version reflects a Unitarian bias in several places.
Examples of Unitarian bias
Gen. 1:1-2 “In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there
was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s
active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”
The ruach elohim (“Spirit of God”) of the Hebrew is interpreted
“God’s active force” in order to avoid the Trinitarian understanding of
the “Spirit.”

Zech. 12:10 “…they will look upon the one whom they have
pierced…” Here the Hebrew “look upon me whom they have
pierced,” in which God is the speaker, has been altered in order to
avoid the implication that the one who is to be pierced (on the cross)
is God.

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was a god.” Instead of the literal “the Word was
God,” we have “a god,” which the sect interprets as “an angelic
being.”

Col. 1:15-17 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in
the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things
invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or
governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created
through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by
means of him all [other] things were made to exist.” Because the
sect teaches that Christ was a created being rather than eternal
God, the word “other” is inserted several times. The first edition of
the translation did this without brackets.

Heb. 1:8 “God is your throne forever” (a nonsensical statement) is

put intead of “your throne, O God, is forever” because this
statement refers to Christ.
The New World Translation is widely seen as an example of
sectarian bias in Bible translation.

Bibliograpy
Robert H. Countess, The YHWH’s Witnesses’ New Testament: a
Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures (2nd ed. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian
and Reformed Pub. Co., 1987).

Bruce M. Metzger, “The New World Translation of the Christian

Greek Scriptures.” The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), pp. 150-
153.

Bruce M. Metzger, “The YHWH’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A

Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” Theology Today 10 (1953): 65-
85.

1. Raymond V. Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary

Press, 1982), p. 50.

2. M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of YHWH’s

Witnesses (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), p. 174.
 Mormonism
This is a very basic look at Mormonism, also known as the Latter
Day Saints. Key falsehoods about Mormonism from an ex-member
can be found here.

In studying major world religions, it becomes clear that the founder

of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, plagiarized Islam, as can be seen in
this comparison. To this we can add the male-centric nature of both,
as shown here and here. Both view heaven and earth as places of
perpetual sexual indulgence for men, and perpetual submission for
women.

As detailed in other chapters here, the Bible passes all tests of

authenticity and integrity. No such support exists for the Book of
Mormon; its authenticity depends completely on the integrity of
Joseph Smith and his alleged witnesses. But Smith was proven to
be a liar when he claimed to have translated the golden plates from
“reformed Egyptian”. He took the translation to be verified by a Prof.
Charles Anthon, who concluded that this was merely a hoax made
up by Smith, but Smith claimed he said it was authentic. Some of
the witnesses of the golden plates later disavowed ever seeing them
and were condemned by Smith. So Smith and his witnesses have
been discredited; see also this source.

The subtitle of the Book of Mormon is “Another Testament of Jesus

Christ”. This is countered by 2 Cor. 11:14, which says that all other
teachings than what the original apostles taught are false. The
chapter headings sometimes make reference to America, but it
never appears in the text, and there is no way to identify it from the
vague descriptions of places and geography it contains. Large
sections of text are taken verbatim from the Bible, but out of context
and confused. Over all, the Book of Mormon contains the writings of
one who is described clearly in Colossians 2:18-19.
Concerning priesthood, Mormonism teaches two priestly offices:
Aaron and Melchizedek. But Hebrews 7:12-17 shows that the
Aaronic priesthood was replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, and
that Jesus holds that position forever. No other priests are needed
or qualified. Only those who are in Christ are priests (1 Peter 2:9),
which includes all true believers. Mormon priests simply have no
authority.

We must be discerning. For example, Mormons will say they believe

that salvation is found only in faith in Jesus and that there is one
God. But the meanings of those words need to be specified, since
their church teaches that there are in fact millions of gods running
their own planets. This article quotes their president Hinckley: “As
God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression.”
Salvation for them is faith plus works, and thus never guaranteed.
Mormonism is indeed “a different gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6).
There is a more thorough examination of Mormonism here.
 Marriage

Introduction
Most people would be shocked to learn that the Bible never specifies
what marriage is, beyond the physical union of a man and woman.
There are no instructions on any kind of official ceremony, presiding
official, legal certificate, or even witnesses. All of those things come
from cultural traditions. But such traditions were already in place by
the time scripture was written, and as God’s habit has been, he
worked through, in, and around them. This meant that marriage was
seen also as a contract, and violation of the terms means the
contract is void.

Marriage and divorce have always been controversial topics, but we

must be careful to understand the Biblical context. For example,
when Jesus was asked about divorce (Mt. 5:31-32, 19:3), there was
much more to the question than meets the eye. About the time of
Jesus’ birth, a new type of divorce called the Any Cause divorce was
invented (today we would say “no-fault divorce”). The phrase in
Deut. 24:1 (“a cause of sexual immorality”) originally only meant
unfaithfulness, but a legal loophole was created by dividing it up into
two separate grounds for divorce: sexual immorality and “a cause”.

A rabbi called Hillel argued: Why did God use the phrase “cause of
sexual immorality” when he could merely have said “sexual
immorality”? The phrase “a cause” must refer to something else,
which he decided meant “any (or no) reason at all.” But the disciples
of Shammai disagreed; the whole phrase meant exactly what it said:
“nothing but unfaithfulness”. Of course, if God had meant “any or no
cause”, then all other similar laws were redundant too, but the rabbis
only tried to split hairs on this one.
So what Jesus was being asked was very specific: Was the Any
Cause divorce interpretation legitimate? His answer was clearly No.
But at the same time, neither was Jesus making a statement that
meant divorce had no legitimate grounds except for marital
unfaithfulness. If we study the entirety of the law we see that it also
included various forms of neglect as well (Ex. 21:10-11). Jesus was
not giving an all-encompassing teaching on the topic, but rather a
specific answer to the question of no-fault divorce. To apply it
indiscriminately to every marriage for all time is to twist Jesus’
words.

Christian Marriage
Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, included more detail than what was
recorded in the Gospels. In 1 Cor. 7 he taught that spouses owed
each other both physical love (vs. 3-5) and material support (vs. 33-
34), and in vs.10-16 he addressed more specific situations that can
cause marital discord. The first (vs. 10-11) seems to be aimed at a
particular woman wanting to separate, but the second seems to be a
couple where one became saved after marriage. In vs. 15 Paul first
gives an over-arching principle: The most important thing in
marriage is to live in peace. People tend to take Paul’s meaning
here backwards. He’s not saying couples should force themselves to
stay together in the hope that the other spouse will be saved, but
that we don’t know whether the spouse will ever be saved. He
wants people to show mercy to unbelievers who want to leave, and
not make a couple already divorced in relationship to stay married in
only a legal sense.

Some take Paul’s statements in vs. 25-35 as being about specific

and strict rules on marriage— in spite of what he just finished
saying. They also try to use it to justify the custom of parents
choosing spouses for their children, as if it were an eternal
command. This section is simply an elaboration on the earlier
statements about the pressures married people face and is really
very simple. Paul repeats that people should carefully consider
whether to get married, and if they decide to do so, they should
follow his guidelines, as he says in vs. 35.

In vs. 36-40 Paul appears to be addressing specific situations there

in Corinth, the first being a man who isn’t sure whether he should
marry, and the second being a woman whose husband is apparently
near death. She needed to know what she should do in that case,
especially if she were Jewish and would otherwise be obligated to
marry a brother of her husband in order to produce heirs. Paul says
that Christian women are not obligated to honor this law, especially if
it would mean having to marry an unbeliever.

Summary
God intended from the beginning that marriage would be between
one man and one woman for life (Mat. 19:6). But sin made
concessions necessary, because God is merciful and wants us to
live in peace. Even in cases such as slavery and divorce, God
mandates compassion and opposes neglect and abuse (Mal. 2:14-
16, 1 Pet. 3:7, Eph. 5:25). The Christian community should
encourage and support lifelong commitment, but also recognize
when compassion must overrule legalism. Individual self-discipline
and self-sacrifice, and other qualities of mature Christian adults,
would go a long way toward making divorce a rare thing among us.