The Harvest Herald Journal

The Spirits in Prison

2007-11-18T12:31:00.000-06:00

1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

The topic of this essay is the identity of the "spirits in prison", to whom Jesus preached in the Spirit. Initially it would seem that he somehow went back in time to preach to the people of Noah's time. Another equally enigmatic interpretation would be that he preached to the departed spirits of those who were unbelieving in Noah's time while he was in the grave.

An immediate problem with the first is the question of why only those of Noah's time and not anyone else in the rebellious history of mankind?

This problem extends to the second interpretation as well, but, more importantly, the preaching seems to have happened after his resurrection or quickening, not while he was in the grave, which might still give creedance to the idea of his proclamation to departed spirits, although this alone presents a multitude of problems. One problem, again, is why only the departed spirits of those of Noah's time?

Another interpretation of this passage is that he made proclamation to the angels who rebelled in their unions with the daughters of men. The support passages for this are ...
2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
...and....
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

While this interpretation has some merit, it has problems of its own. While these angelic prisoners are associated in scripture with the flood of Noah's time (Peter's account), the verses are immediately followed with the events of Sodom which is also done in the account by Jude without mention of the flood. The angels leaving their first estate may have more to do with the sexual sins of men which are not exclusive to the flooded world. Furthermore, why would Jesus need to preach to these imprisoned angels and why would we need to know about it? Lastly, while the rebellious angels and their activities contributed to the wickedness of men, it can be argued that this type of activity was not exclusive to the pre-flood world, so again, why only the angels who were disobedient in the days of God's long-suffering before the flood?

Before taking a serious look at the original passage in question, we should take a few moments to address the reasons we cannot easily see the plain interpretation of holy scripture. Instead of just being able to read scripture and understand it simply and harmoniously, we have to reverse or discard all other definitions of words or traditional ideas before we can see clearly which takes up so much of our time and energy. One such definition is that a spirit is a departed soul of a deceased person, which will not be addressed in this particular essay, but, will suffice to say this idea is nowhere supported as anything other than erroneous in scripture.

Aside from the familiar spirits of the witches most noted in the Old Testament, which incidentally is translated as a mumbling or empty vessel, "spirit" is properly translated as wind, breath, or moving air. Without the personifications traditionally associated with "spirits", wind is the excellent associative description of the term. It is invisible, yet powerful; able to move things, which in the context of the "spirit of (place the numerous applications here...ie..man, jealousy, wickedness, God..etc..)" makes it chiefly an ACTIVE influence or motivator. God's spirit is so influential it can create and sustain life.

When scripture says..
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
...there appears to be a contradiction in terms in that angels are spirits, right? Yes, angels by nature would be invisible powerful beings and thus spiritual, but, in the context of this verse, he makes his angels to be active influences in the lives of men. Reference the angelic activities in the Daniel regarding the prince of Persia as well as the spirit who volunteered to be a "lying spirit" in the vision of Machaiah in 2 Kings 22/2 Chronicles 18.

The term "spirit" refers to the invisible, powerful things that motivate, animate, and influence us IN ACTION, be it God himself, angels, emotions, thoughts, unexplained illness, or anything else where the affect can be seen, but, the cause is not.

Having said that, to discover what is being refererred to as "spirits in prison" and why, let's remind ourselves of what Christ was here to do...

Psa 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

The spirit of disobedience from disbelief imprisons the sons of men. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ sets us free from this bondage. In spirit, Christ "having gone(YLT)", meaning having made this journey, preached and preaches to the spirit of imprisonment that also kept those who would not get on the ark in Noah's time. The parallel of baptism that saves us and the ark that saved Noah is the sole reason for Peter's limitation to Christ only preaching to those particular "spirits", namely the spirits of disbelief and disobedience that imprisons the whole of man and prevents him from seeing what is readily available for his salvation.

1Pe 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Free Will vs. God

2007-09-27T01:47:00.000-05:00

Just how free is our will?

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Within these passages we do indeed find an amount of freedom in our wickedness if we so choose to follow the paths of our flesh. God does not commit the atrocities around us, we do. He does not fight, lust and kill, we do. He does not cause us to sin, our hearts do...

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

It is due to the inherited flesh we have these evil desires. The human race is fallen because of Adam's sin and not of its own choice.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Mankind, left to its own devices, truly is to be pitied. Are we even capable of knowing what is best or good for us and yet we are taught that God gave us free will so the issue of our salvation would rest with us and not Him? OUR choice for ultimate salvation and yet we can't make it past breakfast without an evil thought.

The question is, does God plan to leave us this way? Is our already imperfect will more powerful than the Almighty Creator? Or are these other verses true?

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

If it is God's will that all men be saved, then who is the mightier? Man's will or God's? If He so chooses to allow men to be wicked for a time for His purposes, who are we who have been saved by grace and not of works and who stumble repeatedly to not glory in the fact that His plan is to ultimately bring His children back in line during the time of Christ's return ...

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

NOW is NOT the time of restitution, but, when Jesus returns to do so! Now is the call into the kingdom of the bride who will reign with Christ over the world and resurrection.

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

We must, in this age preach repentance and grace to all for the purpose of drawing out the bride and body of Christ who will receive life at his coming in order to bring about judgment and through judgment, reconciliation.

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Now is the high calling of God. For Christians to be watchful for the coming of our Lord to defeat sin and death and heal a dying world. To resurrect all of Adam's fallen posterity and heal their infirmities, their unbelief, and their rebellion(free will) be it by fire or second death. The penalty for Adam's sin has been paid, otherwise, mankind would simply die out like animals. Now what needs to be destroyed is the flesh(rebellion) that causes sin and death.

Remember the resurrection happens in stages.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

The totality of whom will be saved from death is denoted in the phrase "all in Adam"/"in Christ shall all be made alive", but in order....those who are his at his COMING, then the end; all those who are not his at his coming, which if we understand resurrection, is a returning to life of all who have died. The difference being that those who are Christ's will have passed from judgment into life and will be glorified and immortal while all else are resurrected into mortality for judgment until the end of the 1000yrs when they receive the life already given to the saints.....

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Reign with him over the "dead"(in trespasses) until death is destroyed and all receive life.

If all this be true, then we do have free will in one of two areas.

1. We can, like Christ, cease to have any will at all.... Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

...and be wondrously given the honor and undeserved privilege of reigning at his side in this grand work of the kingdom, or....

2. Continue rebelling against our Father out of ignorance(as is the case with most of the world, especially before Christ lived) or with knowledge and store up wrath for ourselves.

Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Further, if God has no control over our will, how then did He blind an whole nation of people that you and I could be saved?
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

The collective free will of all Israel who were waiting on their Messiah certainly had no bearing when God decided, for our sakes to ignore it. Either way, we are our Father's children, whether we remain with Him, or seek our own hearts. Let us not be the prodigal son who sought the flesh until he had to become broken and contrite and returned to his father, but, let us neither be the elder son who thought his foolish brother unworthy of saving.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

A Scriptural Example of 'Eternal Fire' - Part Two

2007-08-15T18:27:00.000-05:00

Part One

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." Matthew 10:14-15

In Jude 7, the Bible speaks of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how the destruction of these cities is set forth as an example of God's wrath against sin and unrighteousness. What the Bible does not say, is that the inhabitants of these cities were punished by being tormented in hell for all eternity. The passage simply does not say that, nor will you find that concept anywhere in scripture.

But the Bible has much more to say about the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah; such as in the passage above where we read that 'It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city' (those cities in Judea which had rejected the preaching of Christ's disciples).

What are we to make of this? Immediately there are problems for the commonly held belief that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently burning in hell. The judgment spoken of here is clearly the future and final judgment of mankind. If the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are already burning in an eternal hell then this makes little sense. What good would it do to judge them in the future if they are already burning in hell?

Typical of the response given by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians is the interpretation of the Dake's Annotated Study Bible":

"Teaching degrees of Punishment in hell"

Or the note from the Defender's Study Bible:

"This statement clearly sets forth the principle of degrees of punishment in hell..."

Will we ever begin to realize just how blind our preconceived ideas make us to what the Bible actually says? How can Matthew 10:14-15 be talking about 'degrees of punishment in hell', when once again, 'hell' is never mentioned in the passage? How is it that the passage clearly reads 'IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT' when our commentators boldly instruct us that this means 'in HELL'?

But furthermore, taking these commentators at their word, how can this passage possibly mean that it will more more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah 'in hell' than for the wicked Judean cities that rejected the Messiah? Does that make any sense at all? If hell is actually like what we're always told it is, then what could a statement like this possibly mean? Do the wicked inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah get a cooler corner of the lake of fire? Are their burning souls made less sensitive to the tormenting flames and the devouring worms? Does it matter much since this conscious punishment supposedly lasts for all eternity? What kind of nonsense is this that we're so quick to inject into the word of God?

But if we take the Bible for what it actually says rather that what we've been told it means we can ascertain a few facts:

1) The passage does not say that it will be more tolerable for Sodom 'in hell'; it says 'in the day of judgment'. Why are so many believers so quick to inject their preconceived ideas here while apparently losing their ability to read plain English? If this passage is speaking of 'degrees of punishment' then these punishments are meted out within the time frame specified in the passage; 'In the day of judgment'. The concept of punishment in 'hell' is entirely absent.

2) It says that it shall be more tolerable for 'THE LAND of Sodom and Gomorrah' in this 'Day of Judgment'. We can ascertain from this that 'in the day of judgment' there must be a 'land of Sodom and Gomorrah' to judge. Therefore these lands must be restored in order to be judged. If the concept of various 'lands' being judged in the 'day of judgment' is foreign to you, then perhaps you might consider whether or not your understanding of the 'day of judgment' is correct.

3) The passage says nothing about the eternal destinies of these lands following the judgment.

Little attempt is made by evangelical or fundamentalist commentators to explain these facts. Having already decreed that the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah have been destroyed forever, and that their inhabitants are already burning in an eternal hell, the best they can do is assert that these passages teach 'degrees of punishment in hell'. But none of this changes what this passage actually says. If we are going to be scriptural then we must conclude that the final judgment upon the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah has not yet taken place, and that these lands will once again exist when this judgment takes place.

I can already hear the howls of protest. Based on Jude 7, and the fact that it says that these cities were destroyed by an 'eternal fire', how can I be suggesting that these cities and their inhabitants have any future restoration in the 'day of judgment'? Simple. Because:

1) The 'eternal' destruction of these cities isn't what you think it is....

2) The 'day of judgment' isn't what you've been taught that it is, and...

3) The Bible says so.

But isn't this a contradiction? How can an 'eternal destruction' allow for any future restoration?

Fortunately the Bible answers this question for us. Examine carefully the following passage where the prophet Isaiah is warning the land of Judah of their coming destruction:

"Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; Yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city: Because the palaces shall be forsaken; The multitude of the city shall be left; The forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, A joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, And the fruitful field be counted for a forest. Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, And righteousness remain in the fruitful field. " Isaiah 32:13-16

Now here's a passage you're not likely to hear preached on Sunday morning. Isaiah is warning the nation of Judah about their coming destruction and the perpetual desolation to follow. Notice carefully that 'the palaces shall be forsaken' and the 'forts and towers shall be for dens FOR EVER'. Well that sounds pretty final doesn't it? 'Forever' means 'for all eternity' doesn't it? Or does it? Notice what comes next...

'The forts and towers shall be for dens FOR EVER... UNTIL the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field.'

Notice what this passage does not say; it does not say that this desolation of Judah lasts until the 'spirit be poured out from on high'. It says that the desolation lasts FOR EVER, until the 'spirit be poured out from on high'.

How many people have ever taken the time to consider this - that scripturally a destruction which is to last 'for ever' only lasts 'until' God restores it by the pouring out of His spirit? This is not my interpretation or opinion, it is simply what the Bible says.

The inescapable conclusion in this passage is that 'for ever' is simply as long as God intends it to last - this is the only scriptural conclusion that we can come to. Even the most conservative commentators are here forced to admit this.

For example, the Bible Knowledge Commentary States:

"The desolation (whether by Assyria or Babylon) would come on the land forever (‘ôlām). This Hebrew word does not always carry the same force as the English word “forever.” From verse 15 it is obvious that Isaiah saw a day when the desolation would cease. So it is better to understand ‘ôlām here as meaning “for a long indeterminable time.” (emphasis mine)

The Pulpit Commentary admits:

"For ever. This expression must not be pressed. Hyperbole is a recognized feature of poetry written under strong excitement.... Until. The expression “until” modifies the previous “for ever,” showing that the desolation was not always to continue. "

I couldn't agree more with these conclusions, but the problem for them is this: Since they are forced here to admit that a destruction which is expressly stated to last 'for ever' will ultimately come to an end, then how can they say by the same logic that the perpetual destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah can never come to an end, particularly when we are explicitly told by Jesus that these cities must exist 'in the day of judgment'? If the desolation of Judah lasts 'for ever' until God restores it, then why is this not also true of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Do we believe what the Bible says? Are we willing to admit that we might have been mistaken?

Some might reason that while such a restoration is promised for the nation of Israel, such a restoration is never promised for the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah. But such reasoning is completely mistaken.

The comparison between the wickedness of Israel and that of cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is not unique to the New Testament, such as in Matthew 10:14-15, but is also found in the Old Testament:

"As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:48-50

Notice the comparison here. The sins of Jerusalem are being compared to the sins of Sodom. The Lord declares that in his eyes, Jerusalem had sinned far worse than Sodom which had been destroyed for their wickedness. Because of their guilt, Judah and Jerusalem were also to experience destruction and desolation. As shown above, this destruction was also foretold by the prophet Isaiah - destruction that was was to last 'for ever' until Judah and Jerusalem were restored by God's spirit.

Similarly, the book of Ezekiel also speaks of this future restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. But within the context describing that restoration we read an absolutely astonishing statement concerning the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah:

"I will restore their fortunes, both the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes in their midst, that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all that you have done, becoming a consolation to them. As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughters shall return to your former state." Ezekiel 16:53-55

Again, the restorations of Judah and Jerusalem are promised, but they are promised along with the restoration of Sodom! To be sure, Sodom was extremely sinful and their destruction served as an example of God's wrath against sin. But the nation of Israel, having been given so much more divine favor incurred more guilt than even Sodom. Both nations were destroyed, and both have suffered perpetual desolation. But just as God promised restoration to the nation of Israel, he also promised restoration to the land of Sodom. Because wicked Israel felt that they were so much more righteous than the surrounding nations, they will suffer great remorse in the judgment when they see the restoration of Sodom - a remorse which will be magnified by Sodom receiving a more 'tolerable' judgment.

So what have we learned from all this?

First, that the Bible never says that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were sent to hell, only that the destruction of their cities is set forth as an example of the vengeance of 'eternal fire'. Second, that this eternal destruction and desolation lasts only as long God ordains it to last. And lastly, that Sodom and Gomorrah are promised a future restoration along with the nation a Israel - a restoration which will occur 'in the day of judgment'. The concept that inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently suffering in an eternal hell is not only absent, but in direct contradiction to what the scriptures actually say.

I hope this this brief study on the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah will challenge all believers to reexamine their belief in the doctrine of eternal torment, and to ask once again if what they have been taught is really based on the scriptures alone.

A Scriptural Example of 'Eternal Fire' - Part One

2007-07-20T00:58:00.000-05:00

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 7

In a previous post I attempted to demonstrate very briefly that the doctrine of eternal torment is simply not a scriptural teaching, but is based on various assumptions already present in the mind of the reader which are injected into the scriptures. The popular ideas about hell are completely absent from the very scriptures that are too often quoted to prove that hell is a reality. Christians need to examine their hearts and ask themselves if they're interested in what the Bible really teaches, or if they're more interested in defending long held and cherished beliefs no matter what.

The only sure guide for determining what a passage means is to let the Bible define its own terms and language. So many Christians insist that they do just that, but their doctrines betray them. For example, why do so many Christians regularly preach that the 'Gehenna Fire' (often translated 'hell fire') of the New Testament is an eternal place of conscious torment for human souls, when scripturally the only thing it is ever said to burn are human corpses?

The passage quoted at the top of this posting is just one more place in the scriptures where people think they find scriptural 'proof' of hell. But again, when we let the scriptures define their own language, this passage becomes fatal to that concept. How so?

We read that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha are set forth as an EXAMPLE of 'eternal fire'. If this verse is supposed to offer 'proof' for the existence of some fabled hell-hole of eternal torment then this is surely strange. Most people are familiar with the Old Testament story about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. The wickedness of those cities was so great that God destroyed them by raining down fire and brimstone from heaven. But friends, that's where the story ends concerning God's wrath against them. You cannot find anywhere in your Bible where it says that these wicked people landed in hell after their cities were destroyed.

Now let's think about this. Sodom and Gomorrha are supposed to be an EXAMPLE of vengeance by 'eternal fire'. Even more than that, they are SET FORTH as an example of such a fire. If this is 'proof' of an eternal hell, then what evidence, scriptural or otherwise, are you going to SET FORTH AS AN EXAMPLE to prove it? You have no scriptural proof, and certainly not one shred of physical evidence to prove this. What happened to these cities is an example of what an 'eternal fire' is and does. Immortal souls burning in hell are never set forth as an example of anything.

The meaning of this passage ought to be crystal clear if not for the 'theological blinders' which obscure the minds of so many professing Christians. The wrath of God against these cities utterly destroyed them and wiped them off the face of the earth, and they were never rebuilt. The fact of their destruction and perpetual desolation to this day is the true example of what God's eternal fire is. This is a provable, visible, and tangible fact which can be set forth as an example of God's wrath against unrighteousness and sin. Why do so many feel the need to cloud such a clear example by trying to use this passage as proof for an unscriptural myth?

The total and perpetual destruction of these cites can be set forth as a clear example of God's wrath. On the other hand, no one has ever presented one soul burning in hell as an example of anything.

But the scriptural facts about the people who suffered this fate do not end here. I know that most Christians want to confine the people of Sodom to hell for all eternity, but is that what the Bible really says? Oh, I hear you now; 'The fire is eternal' you say. But, scripturally speaking, are you sure you even know what an 'eternal fire' is?

The truth might surprise you...

To be continued...

Replacement Theology

2007-07-16T09:23:00.000-05:00

I once would tell you that I do not believe in "replacement theology". That being the Christian church (or some denomination thereof) has replaced the Israelites according to the flesh as God's chosen people.

I have since embraced this idea fully, although not quite in the "traditional" way.

Before I venture further, allow me to describe briefly, one small part of a debate concerning the trinity doctrine that had been conducted under the guise of a radio interview. The trinitarian host did not present adequate scriptural arguments for his and the church's traditional view, but made a statement to the effect of: "So do you(the unitarian) believe yourself to be smarter than 1700 or so years of Christian tradition?" Of course, these kinds of statements were delivered merely to discredit the unitarian apologist's position in the minds of the listeners by nothing more than on overwhelming sense of being outnumbered and outweighed by the traditional and centuries old views of the church.

The irony is that the church also held the belief that the earth was flat for centuries. Was that true because it said so? It is ridiculous to even respond to such redundancy. The Protestant Reformers themselves, after 13 centuries, declared the Roman Catholic church to be filled with error and denounced it. Were they smarter than 1300 years of traditional views?

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The previous scripture uses the term "traditions" and I accept that fully as the teachings of the Apostles delivered orally and in the letters that make up the New Testament. These traditions, however have been twisted, skewed, and completely misunderstood and misapplied by the "scholarly" interpretations and "traditions" of church leaders and expositors for millenia as was forewarned by the self-same Spirit-inspired apostles....
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

These vehement warnings by Paul were, by the text, expected to come to fruition immediately after his death, NOT 1700-2000 years later.

So where does that leave us? I say look to scripture for a dynamic example of a people who were given divinely-inspired instruction and demolishing the context in light of time and tradition.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Was not our Lord Jesus admonishing his Jewish brethren(Israel) for completely misreading and misapplying the words of God delivered to them by the hands of Moses and the Prophets? Did they not, seeking their own justification and elavated status, misapply scripture in order to divide themselves (Pharisees and Sadduccees) about what is or is not the right interpretation? And were they not blinded and not able to see the truth, or had not ears to hear?

The same error was to come into the church and spoil it over time and, as uncomfortable as many readers may feel at this thought, at God's will.....
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

One need only research a bit into one's own Protestant history to see who was thought to be this "Wicked". This apostasy was apparantly a means, among many other things, to test God's elect. Namely, do we love truth that we might be saved, or do we take pleasure in unrighteousness that we might believe a lie.

Time and tradition ruined the Jews. Likewise, time and tradition have ruined the church. Neither concept was foreign to the inspired messengers of God.

Therefore I embrace a "replacement" ideology. The modern church has replaced Israel as the current, chosen misinterpreter of His Word and Will and the vain twister of all things holy and I would respond in kind to the radio host....."Is 1700 years or so of man's traditon smarter than the Holy Scriptures?"

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Eternal Torment In Hell - A Scriptural Teaching?

2007-07-15T21:57:00.000-05:00

For a formatted PDF version of this material, please click here.

We are assured by nearly every Christian denomination, as well as every obscure Christian sect, that what they believe is based ‘solely on scripture’. Usually, if we were to ask any of these various groups why their particular interpretation of the scriptures should be favored against an opposing viewpoint we would likely be told that the others must surely be influenced by some extra-biblical authority, while ‘our interpretation is based solely on the scriptures.’

Sola Scriptura – or, scripture alone – has become the ‘stamp of authority’ for an innumerable myriad of conflicting and altogether contrary doctrines. Surely to a neutral outside observer these words must seem totally meaningless. Apparently anything can be proven ‘by scripture alone’.

Or can it?

To test this, let’s examine for a moment a doctrine that is believed by millions of Christians, taught in hundreds of Bible Colleges and Seminaries, and proclaimed in countless churches every Sunday: namely, that Hell is a place of eternal torment.

This thought, that the wicked will spend eternity in a hell of eternal torment, is one of the most basic and fundamental beliefs of Christianity and has been for centuries. We are assured by many of its adherents that this doctrine is based on ‘scripture alone’.

But is it? Let’s confine ourselves to the ‘scriptures alone’ and see what we come up with.

The word ‘hell’ as it appears in our English Bible is actually translated from one Hebrew word (Sheol), and three different Greek words (Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna). Any honest Pastor, Scholar or Bible teacher will tell you that three of these words have little or nothing to do with our modern conception of hell as a place of everlasting torment. Don’t believe me? Ask them.

For example, the Hebrew word Sheol simply means ‘the unseen’. In the Old Testament Sheol received both the good and the wicked; it is often synonymous with the grave. Put simply, Sheol means ‘the death state’ and is never connected with the concepts of hell and eternal torment as taught today[1].

Likewise, the Greek word ‘Hades’, which appears eleven times in the New Testament, is used in precisely the same way as the Hebrew ‘Sheol’[2]. At 1 Corinthians 15:55 the King James Version renders this word as ‘grave’. Revelation 20:13[3] makes it clear that Hades must be emptied prior to the final judgment. Once again, our widely held conceptions of hell and eternal torment are not to be found in those Bible verses that use the Greek word Hades.

Thirdly, the Greek word Tartarus is used only once in the New Testament (2 Peter 2:4), and refers only to the punishment of fallen angels. Tartarus is never used in reference to human punishment either now or in the future, and so also has nothing to do with our modern conceptions of eternal punishment in hell.

This leaves us with one Greek word - Gehenna. Concerning this word we are assured that it certainly does teach this doctrine of eternal torment.

But does it?

This word Gehenna appears only 12 times in the entire New Testament, and is almost always translated ‘hell’ by modern translators. I ask the reader to carefully consider the following verses:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Matthew 5:29

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Matthew 5:30

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." Matthew 18:9

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Matthew 23:15

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Matthew 23:33

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:" Mark 9:43

"And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:" Mark 9:45

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:" Mark 9:47

"But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." Luke 12:5

"And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell." James 3:6

It should be obvious from the above that ‘Hell’, whatever it may be, is to be avoided at all costs, and the seriousness of the judgment mentioned in these verses should never be diminished. But for the sake of this discussion, that’s not what we’re trying to prove.

Remember , the proposition that we are attempting to prove using ‘scripture alone’ is that ‘hell is a place of eternal torment’. Confining ourselves to ‘scripture alone’ and examining the four original language words which are variously translated into the English ‘hell’, this is the whole of the evidence. [4] Three of these original language words; the Hebrew Sheol, and the Greek Hades and Tatarus, have nothing to do with the teaching of an eternal torment in hell, and the remaining word, Gehenna, appears only in the 12 verses listed above.

So what’s the problem? One might think ‘Well see, the Bible DOES talk about HELL, at least in those 12 verses you listed.’

But this IS THE PROBLEM.

Even if we allow that the Greek word Gehenna has been properly translated into English as ‘HELL’[5], none of the 12 places in which this word occurs describes hell as a place of eternal torment as taught by so many today. Look at the list of verses above; none of them mention torment.

Put another way, the Bible never says that anyone is tormented in hell.[6]

I’m not sure that the average Christian who believes in eternal torment fully appreciates this problem. He or she is usually so conditioned by what they already believe about hell, that they cannot see that these concepts ARE TOTALLY ABSENT FROM EVERY VERSE IN WHICH THE WORD ‘HELL’ APPEARS.

To appreciate what this means, let’s say that I asked the average Christian to show me from their Bible one verse that states that hell is a place of eternal torment. This can never be done. Why? Because the entirety of the evidence, so far as the actual words which have been translated ‘hell’, has been given above – not one of them speaks of torment.[7]

But if we really want to base what we believe ‘solely on the scriptures’ then the evidence above presents an even bigger problem for those who teach eternal torment in hell.

Let’s carefully look at our Bible and see what we can learn about the ‘hell’ presented in the 12 verses listed above.

We see that ‘hell’ is a place of ‘unquenchable fire’. But scripturally (since scripture is our SOLE guide) what does this mean? What is an ‘unquenchable fire’? Is it a fire that never goes out? Isn’t that what we’ve been taught to believe about the ‘unquenchable fire’ of hell?

Careful examination shows that the scriptures make many references to ‘unquenchable fires’. But what may surprise you is that many of these ‘unquenchable fires’ are no longer burning. For example:

"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched." Jeremiah 7:20[8]

Here the prophet Jeremiah is warning the Jewish nation about their impending invasion and destruction by Babylonian armies. But did the fury and the fires spoken of here last for all eternity? Absolutely not. As the New American commentary states:

‘In this case God’s anger was going to be poured out on the land like burning pitch that would not be quenched until it had consumed everything it touched’[9] (emphasis mine)

So, scripturally speaking, an ‘unquenchable fire’ is not one that burns FOREVER - it is simply one that burns until it has accomplished its purpose. Therefore, using scripture alone one cannot prove that ‘hell’ is a fire that never goes out. That idea is simply not scriptural. To be sure, like the unquenchable fires of old, the fire of ‘hell’ will burn until it accomplishes its purpose. This, however, is no proof that its fires will never burn out.[10]

What else can we learn from the 12 ‘hell’ verses listed above?

We learn that hell is a place where ‘the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched’. Well, that sounds rather ominous, but scripturally, what does it really mean?

Here Jesus is quoting the sixty-sixth chapter of the book of Isaiah which reads:

"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Isaiah 66:24

Sticking to the scriptures ALONE, what do we learn from this passage? What is this ‘fire’ burning, and what are these ‘worms’ feeding upon?

CARCASSES – or dead bodies![11] Once again, the modern concept of souls being tormented after death is entirely absent!

How in the world did the picture of fire and worms consuming dead carcasses get turned into the modern teaching of immortal souls being tormented for all eternity? Certainly not by following scripture alone!

So what have we learned using scripture alone?

1) That four different words are generally translated into the English word ‘hell’, but of these only Gehenna is believed to refer to the eternal hell of common Christian thought.

2) None of the verses containing the word Gehenna speak of physical torment.

3) Scripturally, an ‘unquenchable fire’ is not one that never goes out, but one that burn until it accomplished its purpose.

4) Even if an ‘unquenchable fire’ is ‘eternal’ the only thing it is said to burn are carcasses, and certainly not conscious immortal souls.

This brief study isn’t meant to address every scripture which is usually offered in order to ‘prove’ that there is a hell in which the lost will be eternally tormented. However, I hope that the reader will be compelled by this evidence to study this topic further. Are you really sure that what you’ve been taught about hell is based ‘solely upon the scriptures’?

So let me ask the average Christian today:

Since your belief in hell as a place of eternal torment is supposedly based ‘solely on scripture’, and since none of the verses that contain the word ‘hell’ actually teach it, which verses in the Bible really teach what you believe about hell?

________________________

Footnotes:

[1] I invite the reader to verify this for themselves. The Hebrew word sheol occurs 65 times in the Old Testament. A careful reading of these verses will easily prove that the modern concept of torment in hell cannot be established from any of these.

[2] In the LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, sheol is rendered by the Greek hades.

[3] "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hades delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Revelation 20:13

[4] I understand that other scriptures are cited in defense of this doctrine, but we should expect to find this doctrine at least once among the actual Greek words which supposedly reference this place of eternal torment.

[5] The proper translation of gehenna is itself a matter of much debate and its widespread translation into the English ‘hell’, a word which carries so much preconceived theological baggage, is simply begging the question.

[6] Among common passages cited in opposition to this are Luke 16:24 (‘I am tormented in this flame’ ) and Rev 14:11 (‘The smoke of their torment ascendeth for ever and ever’). The ‘torment’ of Luke 16 (which many admit to be of a symbolic rather than a literal nature) is clearly in reference to ‘hades’ and is to be distinguished from the supposed ‘final hell’ of gehenna. Even ‘conservative’ scholars admit that hades does not represent the absolute and final state of the wicked. The word ‘hell’ does not appear in the context of Revelation 14. While the imagery of that verse is usually connected with the concept of an ‘eternal hell’, the association is an imaginary one in the mind of the reader and not based on a careful reading of scripture. The imagery is taken directly from Isaiah 34 in which the judgments take place upon the earth and are poured out upon the living. Only to those who have been conditioned to believe in an eternal hell of torment after death do these verses become descriptive of that condition.

[7] The Anchor Bible Dictionary admits this: ‘Although not describing the torments of Gehenna, Jesus warned his disciples to take all precautions not to fall victim to it.’ Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (2:927). New York: Doubleday.

[8] See also Jeremiah 17:27, Jeremiah 21:12, Ezekiel 20:47, Ezekiel 20:48, Amos 5:6

[9]Huey, F. (2001, c1993). Vol. 16: Jeremiah, Lamentations ; The New American Commentary (108). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[10] Other verses such as Matt 18:8 describe this fire using the Greek word Aionios which is often translated ‘eternal’. However, a careful examination of all ways in which this word is used proves that it need not mean, and indeed often cannot mean ‘unending’.

[11] The Hebrew word Peger appears 24 times in the Old Testament and never means anything other than a corpse.

Queries on Satan

2007-07-09T11:16:00.000-05:00

QUERIES ON SATAN,
BY THOMAS TABOE.

If our race consist of ten hundred millions,
And Satan should spend his whole time with the billions,
Pray how long a time would he spend with each soul,
In an age of thirty years should he visit the whole ?

Is Satan omniscient ? or has he to run
From one to another that his work may be done?
If the first, he's a God; an omnipotent evil;
If the last, he's a poor and laborious Devil.

Pray, who made this monster? Did the maker see through
The Whole of the mischief the creature would do ?
If so, was he kind in the work he had done ?
Which damned half our race and murdered his son ?

If to prison they are doomed, and hell is their home,
And comparatively few from headquarters may roam,
Pray, how many infernals must God have created,
If each with a demon is constantly mated ?

What Color is the Sun?

2006-09-18T16:39:00.000-05:00

A man once built a holy house for his posterity. He painted the walls yellow because this was a sacred color to him. He knew, however, that his enemies wished to undermine his will and authority and would soon sneak in and attempt to change the colors in his house, so he left an inscription saying: “These walls are now and forever the color of the sun. Beware, for, certain men will sneak in and seek to corrupt these colors.”

Not so many years passed after the forefather’s death that these men did indeed creep in and repaint the walls red saying that this was the true color of the sun. They did so, claiming a more clear view of the sun and its dynamics in order to establish themselves as leaders of the holy household. The common people, however, immediately exclaimed outrage since any sensible person can look up and see that the sun is yellow and not red.

Many years of fighting and arguing finally took its toll and eventually, the people, weary from the arguing, either silently succumbed to these new and ambitious leaders and their offspring or just ignored the whole dilemma assuming that even though it made no sense that the sun be considered red, these scholars must know something the lay-people did not.

As the ages went on there would, however, be those zealous ones who would stand and question the red versus the inscription saying: “This certainly is not the color of the sun! Has someone crept in and changed the colors?”

The leaders would then cry: “Behold, it is YOU who are attempting to creep in a change the colors!! Everyone, come and see these men of whom our forefather warned us who would one day seek to corrupt these colors!!!”

These zealots were burned, tortured, or cast out as heretics for seeking to preserve the truth once delivered to them from their forefather.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 16: The Unjust Steward (Accompanies "Notes on Luke 16")

2006-05-22T19:07:00.000-05:00

See Also Notes on Luke 16

Through this parable, the Lord admonishes the Jews for their adultery against the covenant as described in Malachi 2&3. The Jews in their generation were known for their love of money as is described in this very chapter of Luke (vs. 14...And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.) , and, therefore, their prudence with worldly riches would be their means of survival once they were cast out of the stewardship. This same love of money, however, was one of the ways in which they had gone astray from God's covenant in that their love of money and greed caused them not to follow the ways of charity and holiness to God and Israel. One cannot serve money and the Lord.

Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

The Jews had been commiting fornication with the surrounding nations and God was about to turn them over to the nations to be received into their "eternal habitations" which simply means that once the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70ad, the Jews would have no nation and be dependant on buying their survival for an indefinite amount of time until God "grafts them back in".

Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

In verse 8 of the parable the commendation from the steward's lord was not an implication of righteousness, but, a simple recognition of the steward's prudence in the ways of the world. It may also be perceived that the Jews were being abandoned to their love of money since in being unfaithful in the least thing, which would be the mammon of unrighteousness, they were not to be entrusted with the true riches of the law and covenant.

One interesting aspect of this parable is that the steward was apparently a handler of goods or potentially a money-lender dealing in another's goods. During the Dark Ages the church forbad lending with interest among Christians which in turn made Christians less likely to loan to each other. Similarly, based on the same Old Testament rules, the Jews could not lend money with interest to fellow Jews, but, could lend to the gentile Christians and therefore, with the limited rights afforded the Jews by the church, the only successful occupation left to the Hebrews was in fact: money-lending. This stigma has been with the Jews ever since.

This parable should in no way be used to teach that Christians have any justification or use for unrighteous riches.

1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The Key to the Interpretation - Part Three - Two Little Horns

2006-05-20T19:26:00.000-05:00

In 168 B.C. when Rome conquered Macedonia, it was then only a 'little horn'. That is, it was a Latin kingdom of small beginnings. In the centuries following, Rome would 'wax exceeding great' (Dan 8:9) and eventually absorb all the territory occupied by the three previous world empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece).

In a stunning fulfillment of Daniel 8:11, Matthew 24:2, Luke 19:44, and Luke 21:6, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.

Why is it that almost without exception the Christian church in our day fails to recognize Jesus' application of Daniel 8:11 to the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.? Nothing displays this shocking lack of belief in Jesus' words more than the words of the commentators themselves.

John Gill writes:

...and the place of his sanctuary was cast down: not that the temple was destroyed by him (Antiochus), but it was profaned and rendered useless; the worship of God was not carried on in it, but the image of Jupiter was set up in it, and it was devoted to the service of an idol; yea, the altar was pulled down, and all the vessels and ornaments of the temple were taken away and destroyed... (emphasis mine)

Doesn't this amount to admission that by Antiochus the sanctuary was not in fact 'cast down', thus proving that Gill himself has misapplied the passage?

Albert Barnes Writes:

Was cast down - The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was robbed and rifled, and its holy vessels were carried away.

Again, isn't this then a glaring admission of unbelief? Isn't it even more shocking that when we come to Jesus' words in Matthew 24:2 - that of the temple there would not be one stone left upon another that would not be 'thrown down' - that neither of these commentators connect these two passages of scripture together?

In all of this there seems to be a 'prophetical blind spot' when it comes to identifying the 'little horn' of Daniel 8. While most commentators have little trouble identifying the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 with Rome, almost none seem to see to Roman connection in Daniel 8.

Now, surely someone will ask how these things can be so. After all, isn't the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 said to spring from one of the four divisions of the Grecian Empire, while the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 appears among ten other horns of the Roman Empire? Even believing the evidence that Rome did in fact conquer and come out of Macedonia, how do we reconcile this with the 10 horns among which the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 arises?

These are the right kinds of questions and deserving of careful investigation. Unfortunately many believers fall for the wrong kinds of answers!

So the first question we might ask is: Are these horns the same? That is, do they represent the exact same power at the exact same time?

Now, the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 is clearly the Romans who in 70 A.D. cast down the Jewish sanctuary and temple. But not at that time, nor at any previous time can it be shown how that horn arose among ten horns as described in Daniel 7. Whether the ten horns there be literal kings, nations, or powers of another nature, it would be nearly impossible to show show that the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 arose among 10 of any of these.

While the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is clearly Roman too, it is clear that these both cannot represent the exact same thing at the exact same time. What this should however indicate to us is that they are related to each other, and like each other in a very significant way.

The way in which these two horns are related is this:

1) Daniel 8 gives the entire program of the Roman power from its meager beginnings until it is destroyed by Christ's coming and kingdom. It started as a 'little horn' which first conquered Macedonia, then went on to absorb all the territory of the three previous world empires. The Romans cast down the Jewish temple, destroyed the Jewish nation, put to death our Savior, persecuted the early church, put to death many of the Lord's apostles, corrupted the Christian faith by introducing pagan doctrine and idolatry, and under a 'Holy Roman Empire' severely persecuted and put to death many true believers. THIS is the 'little horn of Daniel chapter 8. It is a panoramic overview of the pre-written history of ROME from start to finish.

2) On the other hand, the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 describes the Roman power only in its last state before it falls under severe judgment.

3) Putting these two thoughts together we can conclude that although the Roman Empire would start as a 'horn of small beginnings' it would 'wax exceeding great towards the east, towards the south, and towards the pleasant land'. In this great state represented by the fourth beast of Daniel 7, it would destroy the Jewish temple. HOWEVER, it would subsequently again become a 'horn of small beginnings', this time arising among ten horns of the Roman Empire, and in this last condition become the final persecuting power of the saints.

Note this: Rome would start out small, become great, but then be reduced again to a 'little horn' which would grow into the final persecuting power before it would be destroyed by Christ's kingdom.

How could a kingdom such as Rome start so small, become so great, and then begin again as a 'horn of small beginnings'? These visions seem extremely enigmatic, and in fact their full interpretation was not even made known to Daniel (Dan 12:4).

But make no mistake; the Bible absolutely predicts this very thing elsewhere, but in a passage of scripture that many have found equally as enigmatic and confusing. But might we suggest that this very confusion stems from a misunderstanding of Daniel Chapters 7 and 8?

Note these words given to the apostle John in 95 A.D.:

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition...

Before preceding, note a few observations about this verse:

1) The time frame here is from John's perspective in 95 AD. What he is beholding had existed prior to that time, did not exist in his day, and would arise again.

2) Whatever interpretation we come to should not use loose language. For example, some say that the 'beast' here is the 'antichrist'. In that case one would have to say that the antichrist existed before John's time, did not exist in John's time, and would rise again subsequent to John's time. A definition such as this simply does not work, nor does it work if we simply say that this beast is Rome.

But when we apply the language and the information we have learned from Daniel 7 and 8, it fits into this prophecy perfectly.

Note:

1) Rome started as a 'horn of small beginnings'.

2) It started as a small nation in Italy ruled by Latin Kings.

3) In John's time it no longer existed in this form, but had become a vast empire ruled by emperors.

4) It was at some future time to become again a 'horn of small beginnings' under the reign of LATIN KINGS, and would subsequently severely persecute the saints.

In this the angel would say to John; 'The beast once was a 'little horn' - a little latin kingdom, but this kingdom right now is not. However, it will arise again out of the abyss yet again as a 'little horn', a little latin kingdom of small beginnings, and in that form it will go into perdition.

Note this carefully friends... In Daniel chapters 7 and 8 you see two 'little horns'. Both are Roman but both obviously do not arise at the same time although they are similar in a very important way. Similarly in Revelation 17 you see a beast that 'was, is not, and shall arise' - that is to say that the beast that 'was' is like the beast that 'shall arise' in a very important way. Both are 'little horns' of small beginnings with similar characteristics.

And as the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is the final persecuting power of the saints, so is the beast of Revelation 17 - thus these two prophecies are inseparably linked.

But as the first 'little horn' grew into a beast which desecrated the Jewish worship and temple, the second would grow into a beast which would desecrate the Christian worship and temple. Both are Roman, both had small beginnings, and both began as latin kingdoms.

These truths are generally hidden from the student of God's Word if they fail to recognize that BOTH the 'little horns' of Daniel chapters 7 and 8 are Roman, and both have similar beginnings, although appearing at different times.

Next time we will have much more to say about the 'Beast' of Revelation 17 and 13.

The Key to the Interpretation - Part Two

2006-05-16T19:56:00.000-05:00

Sooner or later God's people are going to have to make up their minds about who they want to believe.

In our previous post we discovered that some would have us believe that Daniel's prophecies reach only to events which took place in the second century B.C. and have no connection at all with our day.

Others pretend that Daniel's prophecy skips over more than 20 centuries of time and predicts an 'antichirst' still yet to appear on the world stage.

Ignored in all of this are the words of our Savior. Jesus foretold that the temple and sanctuary of the first century would be thrown down so that not one stone would be left upon another. In saying this, Jesus identified the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 - the horn by which the sanctuary would be 'cast down'.

If any mystery remains in how to properly interpret these prophecies it is not because we do not have the proper 'key' to understand them. No, the real mystery is why so many of God's people absolutely refuse to believe the key that we have been given.

If Jesus is correct, and the little horn of Daniel 8:11 is the Roman power which destroyed the Jewish temple and sanctuary in the first century, then those who try to apply Daniel 8:11 to the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes are WRONG. Furthermore, if Jesus is correct, then those who would have us to believe that this 'little horn' represents some power still to arise in the future are equally WRONG.

But further complicating all of this in the minds of many is the fact that this 'little horn' first appears in Daniel Chapter 7. In that chapter Daniel sees a vision of four beasts. The last beast has ten horns - a 'little horn' rises among them and uproots three of the ten horns.

So the first time we are told of this 'little horn' is in Daniel Chapter 7, and then in the very next chapter we are told of this 'little horn' once again. By refusing to believe what Jesus said about the little horn of Daniel 8 - that it would cast down the Jewish temple of the first century - commentators are forced to deal with Daniel Chapters 7 and 8 in any number of creative ways.

First are those who argue that the 'little horn' of Chapter 7 must be the same as that of Chapter 8 - a logical conclusion; however the gymnastics they resort to to support this conclusion are anything but logical.

For example, some will say that the 'little horns' of Chapters 7 and 8 BOTH represent Antiochus Epiphanes. But this argument simply stretches all credibility. Daniel 7:27 states that the destruction of this 'little horn' brings in a time when the 'kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.' Hardly something that appears to have taken place in the second century B.C.!

Others say that neither of these 'little horns' represent Antiochus because both predict an 'antichirst' still to come.

As we stated at the beginning of this article, sooner or later God's people are going to have to decide who to believe.

Now notice. The 'little horn' of Daniel 7 comes out of the fourth beast. In Daniel 7:23 we are specifically told that 'the fourth beast shall be the FOURTH KINGDOM on earth'. Since the destruction of this 'fourth kingdom' is that which brings in the everlasting kingdom of Christ, we can safely dispose of the lame notion that the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is the Selecuid kingdom of Antiochus Epiphanes.

The four kingdoms of Daniel 7 are:

1) Babylon
2) Medo-Persia
3) Greece
4) Rome

Therefore the power rising as a little horn out of the fourth kingdom is ROMAN. It doesn't get much easier than that. The 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is ROMAN, and the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 is ROMAN.

Ok, now here comes the tricky part...

In Daniel Chapter 8 we have a vision concerning a Ram and a He-Goat. To make matters as short and as simple as possible:

1) The Ram is the Medo-Persian Empire
2) The He-Goat is the Grecian Empire
3) The 'great horn' on the He-Goat represents the unified empire under Alexander the Great
4) The four horns which come up in place of the great horn are the divisions into which Alexander's empire was divided when he died.
5) The four divisions are Asia, Syria, Egypt, and Macedonia.
6) A 'little horn' arises out of one of these four and becomes the power which 'casts down' the sanctuary.

Friends, who are we going to believe? Jesus taught us that the power which casts down the sanctuary in Daniel 8:11 is that power which would destroy the Jewish temple in the first century - that is, the ROMAN power.

Almost NO ONE believes him!

Why? Because they think he must be mistaken.

The power in Daniel 8 - the little horn that casts down the sanctuary must be either Asian, Syrian, Egyptian, or Macedonian, doesn't it? The little horn is said to rise from one of these does it not? So then the power of Daniel 8 surely cannot be the power Jesus was speaking of when he predicted the stones of the temple being thrown down by the Romans, right?

WRONG!

Careful attention to the text, belief in the words of Jesus, and a little lesson in history and geography solves this riddle without question.

First of all, what exactly is a 'little horn'? A 'little horn' is a 'horn' or a power of SMALL BEGINNINGS.

Second, notice Daniel 8:9:

Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

Ok, so a little history is in order.

It is true that Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria severely harassed the Jews and profaned their temple and worship in 168 B.C.

But the text of Daniel 8 is not a description of this. As we noted, Antiochus never 'cast down' the sanctuary, nor did he 'destroy the mighty and holy people' (Dan 8:24). In fact, by 165 B.C the Jews successfully revolted against this tyrant and rededicated the temple. The fact is, the deeds of this king simply do not fit the description of the 'little horn' of Daniel chapter 8.

Sooner or later you're going to have to decide who to believe!

What many students of God's word do not know is that the very year Antiochus desecrated the Jewish temple (168 B.C.) the ROMANS (then a horn of small beginnings) conquered Macedonia - ONE OF THE FOUR DIVISIONS OF ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE.

From that point, and out of Macedonia the ROMANS would WAX GREAT toward the south, toward the east, and towards the pleasant land (the land of Israel). Notice:

- Macedonia is taken by the Romans in 168 B.C.
- By 100 B.C they have almost half of Asia
- By 65 B.C. all of Asia is under Roman control
- By 63 B.C. Israel is under Roman control
- In 70 A.D. the Roman armies destroy Jerusalem and cast down the temple and sanctuary.

The prophecy of Daniel 8 could not have been more exact. Out of one of the divisions of the Grecian Empire (Macedonia) came forth a 'little horn' (a horn of small beginnings) which WAXED GREAT toward the east, towards the south, and towards Israel. (Macedonia lies northwest of Israel). By this power (the Roman) the sanctuary was cast down and the temple was destroyed just as Jesus had predicted.

Those who say that the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 is Aniochus Epiphanes are WRONG. Those who say that this 'little horn' is a future Antichirst are WRONG. There is no confusion or difficulty in these passages if we simply believe the words of our Savior.

In part three of this series we'll compare further the descriptions of the 'little horn' in Daniel chapters 7 and 8, and in doing so unlock one of the greatest mysteries in all Bible prophecy.

The Key to the Interpretation - Part One

2006-05-12T15:51:00.000-05:00

Found in the back of my Cambridge reference Bible is this note about the Book of Daniel:

'The prophetic visions present a succession of world-monarchies, the last of which will severely persecute the saints, but will be brought to an end by the Judgment of God and the advent of his kingdom. Ch. 8 gives the key to the interpretation of the rest; (1) the ram with two horns is the medo-persian dynasty, Cyrus being the greater horn which comes up last; (2) a he-goat with a great horn = Alexander the Great. eventually replaced by four others (i.e. his four Generals); (3) out of one of them (Syro-Greek or Seleucid dynasty) arose a 'little horn' (= Antiochus Epiphanes) which persecuted the saints. ' (emphasis is mine)

Careful readers may note that this prophetic 'key' is less than forthcoming about what this actually means in terms of how the Book of Daniel applies to our current age.

Note carefully how it is said that the 'last' in succession of world kingdoms as presented by Daniel is the one which will 'severely persecute the saints'. Then note how this 'last' kingdom is said to be the 'little horn' which is taken to be the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes.

Then among the conclusions one must draw from this supposed prophetic 'key' are:

1) That the last empire explained by Daniel's visions is that of the Seluecid dynasty which ended in 187 B.C. The Roman empire would no where be discussed in these prophecies.

2) That the saints mentioned in these prophecies have no application whatsoever to saints living in the gospel age, but are in fact second century B.C. Jews.

3) That these prophecies predict nothing concerning our day, or the close of this current age.

These are simple unavoidable conclusions that we must deal with - IF in fact the above interpretation is correct.

The fact is that the prophecies of Daniel ch. 8 have posed a problem for Christian interpreters. The above interpretation certainly looks correct doesn't it? Don't the facts of history support those conclusions? After all, this Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes, did arise out of one of the four divisions of the Grecian empire and severely persecute the Jews.

Because of the ramifications listed above, commentators in our day generally deal with these facts in one of two ways:

1) Some commentators admit that while the prophecy applies to Antiochus Epiphanes it also has a further and greater fulfillment at the end of our current age. Therefore Anitochus is made a 'type' of an 'antichrist' still to come. In this way these prophecies are given a greater and more far-reaching fulfillment.

2) Some commentators deny that the prophecy has any application to Antiochus at all and insert a massive gap of time between the break-up of the Grecian empire and the rise of the 'little horn' or 'antichrist' at the end of time just prior to the return of Christ.

Now all of this is very interesting, but forgive me for suggesting that all these theories are utterly useless.

Why? Because the proper interpretation of a difficult passage such as Daniel 8 should never be sought among the theories of men when our Lord Jesus has already given us the correct interpretation.

Notice carefully in Dan 8:11 what this 'little horn' was to do; By it the daily sacrifice would be taken away and the place of the sanctuary would be CAST DOWN.

All of the theories above are already in trouble. While it's correct to say that Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the Jewish temple, he never CAST IT DOWN. Similarly, while futurist authors believe that a future antichrist will defile a newly rebuilt temple at the end of this age, I have never read that any believe the antichrist will CAST DOWN that temple either.

Now, if our Lord has something to say about this then all speculation must cease and we had better be about the business of aligning our thinking to his rather than seeking to justify our own pet theories. So what did our Lord say:

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Mat 24:1-2)

The facts are these:

1) Antoiochus Epiphanes never cast down the Jewish temple.

2) No where is it taught that any future antichrist is going to cast down any future temple.

2) In this age Christians themselves are God's temple and never once is there any hint of that temple being 'cast down'.

4) Jesus said that the very temple then standing in the first century, the one his disciples were pointing at, would in fact be the one that would be CAST DOWN.

Here, my friends, lies the REAL KEY to properly interpreting Daniel 8 and with it all of Daniels visions. All you need to do is identify which power CAST DOWN that temple in the first century and you will have identified the 'little horn' of Daniel 8. It really is that simple.

Without doubt the power in question is that of the Romans, which destroyed the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. and then went on to severely persecute the Christian church. Afterwards it would corrupt the true Christian worship and under the papal system and the 'Holy Roman Empire' would 'magnify itself even to the prince of the host'

This power continues to this day under the nations of Western Christendom.

In part two we will examine how it could be said that the Roman power arose from one of the four divisions of the Grecian Empire.

What I Really Want to Know...

2006-05-07T13:27:00.000-05:00

About two years ago I placed a notice on the Harvest Herald web site indicating that I was then investigating the notion that the Bible may in fact teach the ultimate reconciliation of ALL to God. Even at that time this was not a new concept to me but something I had struggled with for years.

This was not an investigation which was undertaken lightly, carelessly, or quickly. In fact, the ultimate reconciliation of all creation back to the Creator was not a subject I had originally intended to investigate at all, but was in fact what I felt was the inevitable conclusion of my studies concerning the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, and the final judgment and punishment of the wicked.

Finally, last year I updated the notice on the Harvest Herald web site announcing my conclusion that I did in fact believe that the scriptures taught this glorious truth; that all creation will eventually be reconciled back to God.

No single article or opinion expressed on the site has ever generated as much email as this one little paragraph. Most of the email, while not hostile in tone, has pleaded with me to reconsider or to reinvestigate this view. It has been expressed both implicitly and explicitly that I am in danger of spreading heresy.

It was not, and is not, my intention to try to change anyone's mind. But to those who have so much difficulty believing that God will actually save everyone I would ask one simple question - Do you believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

I'm going to assume that every believer who loves God, loves truth, and loves the Bible is going to answer with an emphatic 'NO'. Although the unbelieving world often levels this charge at us, no true Christian actually believes that his Bible contradicts itself.

Holding fast the firm conviction that Bible does NOT contain contradictions, please consider these two groups of scriptures:

Group 1:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
(Mat 25:41)

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
(Rev 20:13-15)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
(2Th 1:8-9)

Group 2:

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
(Col 1:20)

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
(Rom 5:18)

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
(1Ti 2:4-6)

What we have here in these two groups is what appears to be a contradiction.

Now be honest with yourself. Taken at face value, don't the verses listed in Group 2 appear to teach the ultimate reconciliation and salvation of EVERY ONE? I hear this all the time -'Yes, those verses at first may appear to teach that everyone will be saved, BUT...'

On the other hand, those who teach the salvation of all will look at the verses in Group 1 and say, 'Yes, those verses appear to teach the eternal destruction (and/or torment) of the wicked, BUT...'

My point is simply this - That in either case someone is going to have to explain why certain scriptures do not mean what they appear to say. Both assertions cannot be true, and if we hold that the Bible does not contain contradictions then someone is clearly misunderstanding one of these two groups of scripture.

What I really want to know is this:

Why, given two sets of scripture such as these, do the vast majority of Christians seem to assume that a doctrine in favor of eternal destruction or torment is more valid than that which teaches the ultimate salvation and reconciliation of all?

I am often asked - 'Where does the Bible say that ALL will be saved?'

'...even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.'

'But,' you say 'that doesn't really mean ALL MEN, only all SAVED men'

or,

'...by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. '

'But,' you say 'all things doesn't really mean all things...'

But WHY, my friends, do you find this type of reasoning more valid than that which would do the opposite? For example:

Given:

'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels...'

one might say:

'Well then obviously 'everlasting' doesn't mean 'for ever'...'

Why to you is one form of reasoning more valid than the other?

I'm not going to attempt to explain one set of scriptures or the other. What I would ask however is that you examine your heart. If you're honest enough to admit that these two groups of scriptures seem to teach contradictory views, then be honest enough to ask yourself why you think one set of reasoning which takes one group at face value at the expense of the other is the more valid of the two.

In an unprejudiced analysis, is your reasoning clearly superior? Is it free from outside influence, personal prejudice and guided solely by a love of God and a desire to know the truth? Is your reasoning so obviously correct, and the other so obviously flawed as to close this case without further investigation?

Examine your own heart...