Read it Closer #39

The future is in the power of the tongue, so everything you confess will come to pass. (‭Proverbs‬ ‭18‬:‭21)

Is that what the Bible says? Are Christians able to speak their future into existence? Can we name and claim whatever we desire? Do our words create future reality? Let’s read it closer. 

Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit. (‭Proverbs‬ ‭18‬:‭21‬ NKJV)

Many Christians believe that our words can determine our future. If you say, “I’ll never be healed of cancer”, then you are keeping yourself from being healed. However, if you were to say, “I claim healing in the name of Jesus from my cancer”, then you will automatically be healed, if you have enough faith. If you aren’t healed, then you just didn’t have enough faith to believe God would heal you. Likewise, some believers claim that they can become materially wealthy by simply claiming God’s material blessings into their lives. This is known as the “Word of Faith” movement, or also known as “positive confession”, both concepts pejoratively labeled as part of the “health and wealth prosperity gospel”. The above verse in Proverbs is one of their favorite verses. 

To understand this verse, we must understand that Proverbs, first of all, is not a book of bible promises. It is a book of general wisdom which gives advice to younger people about many details of life. When it says something like, “the diligent become rich”, or the “lazy become poor”, it is a generalization of what normally happens in life. However, they are not promises from God because sometimes lazy people win the lottery, and hard working people lose their jobs and become bankrupt. So we can know from the get go that to say the power of life and death is in the tongue is not a promise from God that whatever we say will inevitably come to pass. 

Even if the verse were a promise from God, there’s no reason to assume that the verse is even saying that we can change reality with our words. It could simply mean that our words have the power to speak encouragement and life into someone’s life, or speak discouragement and death into their life. But even still, I think it’s more than that. The second half of the verse says that those who live by the tongue will eat its fruit. In other words, those who speak too much will receive the consequences of their words. If you spread gossip about someone behind their back, eventually it will ruin your reputation or your relationship with that person. If you constantly speak encouragement into people’s lives, then one day when you need it most someone will encourage you too. Your tongue will most likely bring about some future circumstance, this is true; but it’s not guaranteeing a specific circumstance.  This is where Word of Faith people make a grave error. They believe we can create the future with our words just like God created the world with His word. This is preposterous because we are not God; we do not have the power to change reality. The only influence we can have on reality is to ask God in prayer to intervene on our behalf within reality. And that only takes a mustard seed of faith, Jesus said. So if God chooses not to heal us, it’s not that we didn’t have enough faith (because we don’t need much to begin with), it just means that God is choosing to not intervene. How many Christians in America are fooled by what they hear from television preachers!

Read it Closer #38 (Easter 2015)

“because the creation itself also will be destroyed because of its corruption. For we know that the whole creation will be eliminated when Jesus returns. Not only that, but we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit eagerly wait to spend eternity in heaven.”(‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭21-23‬)

Is that what the Bible says? Will the present universe be destroyed at some later time? Did Jesus rise from the dead so we can float around in heaven for eternity? Let’s read it closer. 

“because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” (‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭21-23‬ NKJV)

Anyone can read this passage of scripture and see that the common understanding of these questions is not what the Bible teaches. Paul described here a creation that is groaning to be delivered like a baby in the womb. My understanding of this is that God has decreed there will be a new creation. This doesn’t mean necessarily that He will destroy the present creation and create a new heavens and earth. It can just as easily mean that He will restore the present creation and form it into the new heavens and new earth. In fact, this must be the only way to interpret this passage in Romans.  

Jesus, when he arose from death, was the first resurrection of the new creation. All other resurrections before were merely temporal resurrections and the people died again. But Jesus’ resurrection was a special one because He rose never to die again. He arose immortal and with a glorified body. He is the beginning of the new creation. When He returns, all other people will be raised as He was with new resurrected bodies. This is the new creation. Paul describes this process as a baby being born. The present world groans with anticipation of being delivered from its present bondage. Notice he said it will be delivered not destroyed! Also, in like manner, we Christians groan together within ourselves in anticipation of our adoption, which is the resurrection of our bodies. Just as we will not be destroyed but recreated, so will the present universe in like manner go through the same renewal. We will have new bodies. Human beings with bodies live on earth not in heaven! We will not be disembodied spirits in heaven floating around forever! That is a heresy of Gnosticism. No, we will have new bodies and live on a new earth. Revelation 21:1-3 says that when Jesus returns, the church, which is the new Jerusalem, will come down from heaven and will remain on earth. We will only be in heaven until Jesus returns. Then we will come with Him down to the earth where we will always live with Him (1 Thess 4:17; the word “meet” in this verse means to meet a general as he enters a city and to accompany him). Jesus said ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’, not heaven (Matt. 5:5). He also said that our prayer should be that His kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). His kingdom comes down; it doesn’t go up! More than that, what would be the point of creating a new earth if we weren’t meant to live on it but we’re meant to live in heaven forever? If God’s plan was for us only to live in heaven forever, there would be no need for a new earth. Therefore, for these reasons, we will live on the new earth with our new bodies, not in heaven for all eternity. The latter view is a pagan invention, the former is the Christian hope. 

A good book on this subject that I am currently reading is N.T. Wright’s “Surprised by Hope”. 

Read it Closer #37

“Repay evil with just war…If it is possible, as long as others are peaceable with you, live peaceably with them. If they are not peaceable towards you, you can fight back”. Romans 12:17a-18

 Is that what the Bible says? Is there a certain point in which our responsibility to be at peace with all people ceases?  Can we legitimately support war as Christians? Let’s read it closer.

“Repay no one evil for evil. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” (‭Romans‬ ‭12‬:‭17a-18‬ NKJV)

These verses unequivocally state that Christians are commanded to live at peace with all people.  Paul makes an emphatic declaration that as long as we are concerned, as much as depends on us, we cannot support conflict with others. In other words, we must live at peace with others, even if they do not want to live peacefully with us.  This statement would nullify the idea that we can legitimately fight back or start a war with our enemies. The context of this quote is where Paul says we should love our enemies and let God take vengeance on them, not through our own means: 

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse… Repay no one evil for evil… If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:14, 17a, 18-21).

How can we bless our enemies who persecute us if we are willing to shoot them dead if they threaten us?  How can we support a war against our enemies in another part of the world when Jesus said we are to love our enemies to prove that we are God’s children (Matt. 5:44-46)?  God the Father shows mercy to His enemies (we once were those enemies!), how could we support a government (even if its our own) that wants to kill our enemies through war?  How could we say that that government is on the side of God when Jesus clearly was for peace and for making peace?  Jesus wanted His followers, the peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), to bless their enemies, to love them, and to do good to them (Matt. 5:44).  One who takes up a sword, or a gun, or places a vote to support a candidate who would do the same is fighting against Jesus’ hope for peace and enemy love.  Do not find yourself in opposition to the kingdom of Christ by affiliating with your man-made institution, whether your government or the official position of your religious establishment. 

 
“We are up to the hilt advocates for peace, and we earnestly war against war.  I wish that Christian men would insist more and more on the unrighteousness of war, believing that Christianity means no sword, no cannon, no bloodshed, and that, if a nation is driven to fight in its own defence, Christianity stands by to weep and to intervene as soon as possible, and not to join in the cruel shouts which celebrate an enemy’s slaughter”. -Charles Spurgeon

Read it Closer #36

And how shall they preach unless they go to college, enter seminary, and get hired and ordained by an institutionalized Christian establishment? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” (‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭15‬)

Is that what the Bible says? Did the earliest preachers need to go to seminary to be trained? Is it required today? Has the modern institutional church turned the many offices of church leadership into career-based professions? Let’s read it closer. 

And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” (‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭15‬ NKJV)

Many aspiring young men and women dream of being used by God in a fulltime capacity furthering the gospel of the kingdom of God. I was once one of these aspiring young people. I still aspire to do all I can to be used by God in whatever way to further His kingdom, although I cannot do it “fulltime” in good conscience without begging people for money, which I don’t feel at liberty to do. 

In the passage above, all Paul says is required for a missionary or elder of a church is that they are called, and that they are sent. The first concept must be subjectively understood by the believer (hopefully conveyed by God and not a selfish motive like economics or prestige). The second concept of being sent is the responsibility of the Christian community and elders the believer finds him or herself in.  At no point in Paul’s mind was there any idea of formal training that was required for either of those concepts to come to fruition. It wasn’t until a pseudo form of Christianity took over the whole known world in the fourth century that leaders in the Catholic Church were formally trained in an educational setting. There were, however, discipleship schools that existed before then, but we know of no requirement for Christian leaders to graduate from them in order to go out and fulfill God’s call on their lives. Even Paul himself trained disciples in a school atmosphere in the book of Acts (19:9), so to receive some form of academic training may not be inherently wrong (although we don’t know how “academic” Paul’s school was, and I’m sure he didn’t charge tuition!).

However, to require educational training in order to hire certain preachers does a few things unknowingly. First of all, it puts pressure on young, gifted believers that they feel they need a certain amount of head knowledge to further the kingdom, where primarily experiential knowledge matters to God. Secondly, it requires that many young believers go into debt and go to an undergraduate college and then go further into debt to go into a graduate program at a seminary. Not least of all is the fact that it creates disciples who are very narrow minded in their theological systems of interpretation since most seminaries have a specific denominational or theological preference which is near impossible to escape. Young believers are restricted from weighing controversial arguments objectively (since your grades depend on fitting the status quo). But I think the biggest detriment seminaries bring to Christianity is the fact that it creates professional ministers of the gospel. Preachers and church leaders see themselves as an elite group of qualified individuals where Jesus said all Christians are on the same level as brothers and sisters and that we shouldn’t call people by religious titles (Matt. 23:8-10). It’s so easy for a preacher to see his calling as a career choice since most church leaders are salaried employees of the denomination or institutional establishment. Therefore, there is a professional and economic bondage they are under where in no way can they displease the church board or bigwigs of the denomination. Money is a great motivator for pastors because they often have not been in the real world working a secular job. To follow their conscience over their denomination could bring a catastrophe on their economic situation and their ability to provide for their families. Also, it is apparent that preachers enjoy their work (why else would they do it?), and with that is a great temptation to love speaking in front of people for the praise and accolades of men. Jesus specifically warned against being called a ‘father’, ‘teacher’, or even ‘pastor’ lest the disciples become like the Pharisees who loved greetings in public places because of their positions of authority. Jesus condemns such thoughts and motives (Matt. 23:5-7). We should all be known as brothers and sisters, not distinguished leaders and laymen (Matt. 23:8-11; for more clarification, see this post #23)

So, what do we do with all of this? I’m not saying it’s a sin to go to seminary, or to be a church leader. In fact, I’m sure there are many church leaders or graduates from seminary who overcome all of these temptations (even though they may be a remnant). Yet there’s no question that our modern day traditions in this regard have produced at least some pastors who have fallen into one or more of these traps.  However, I know for myself, I would never desire to make professional the call of God on my life, or to place myself any higher than any other believer in status or title. I’ve been freed from the bondage of traditions of men when it comes to modern day institutional church, recognizing that most of our traditions are from the Catholic Church, not the Bible. In the Bible, Christians met mostly in homes and public places (Romans 16:3-5; Col. 4:15; Acts 2:42-47), and their meetings looked very different than our modern ones which echo the Catholic traditions (1 Corinthians 14:26ff). I see myself as having the gift of teaching and of pastoring, but I feel no tug toward becoming a pastor with a capital P. I can point anyone towards Christ, I can hold bible studies in my home, I can lead people towards the Great Shepherd in just as many ways if not more than the preachers who give long sermons. I can live life with other believers and show them the way of Christ by living it alongside them, which is much more preferable to me than just preaching it. As St. Francis said, “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” I hope to further the kingdom by promoting it part-time in the Spirit, at no cost to the hearers, rather than do it as a career full-time, very possibly in the flesh, asking for money and following the traditions of manmade establishments. Let everyone follow their own conscience. 

Read it Closer #35

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish but that all of the Church should come to repentance.” (‭II Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬)

Is that what the Bible says? Does God desire all people to come to repentance or only His chosen ones? What kind of picture do we paint of God’s character if we accept the latter interpretation? Let’s read it closer. 

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (‭II Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬ NKJV)

Reformed theologians and pastors interpret this verse as follows: “God is patient toward us (the elect), and he’s not willing that any [of the elect] should perish but that all [of the elect] should come to repentance”. I do not believe this is a viable interpretation for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the words “elect” or “church” are not in the verse. There is no reason to assume that Peter is referring to only Christians when he says “us”. Additionally, the words “any” and “all” can denote God’s universal love and patience. More than that, however, is the overall context of the third chapter of this epistle. Peter, before this verse, is speaking of scoffers and unbelievers and how they deny the Lord. Why would Peter all of a sudden change the course of his discussion to give one verse about unconditional election? Clearly, he rather is painting the picture that despite the ungodly world and their response to Christ, God is still yet patient with the world and desires even the scoffers to come to repentance; not only them, but all people who reject His light. 

I think the most important aspect of this whole discussion is how these views portray the overall character of God. Calvinism teaches that God chooses only a select few to go to heaven, and the great majority of all humanity is blinded by God and chosen to go to hell. God could, if He wanted, make these ungodly people believe, because saving faith is supposedly a “gift” that God gives to the elect. God chose to not give this gift to those who end up in hell, even though He could have if He wanted to. Allow me to give you an illustration of this in a way we might relate to. 

God is said in the Bible to be our Healer (Exo. 15:26). Jesus refers to Himself as a physician who came to heal sick people (Mark 2:17). Imagine a human physician who was sovereign over a hospital. He was the highest ranking physician in the hospital. Inside the hospital were hundreds of sick patients, who left to themselves, would die. This sovereign physician chose to heal 3-5% of the patients with good care and medicine, and restored them to good health. The remaining 95-97% he chose to let die, even though He could have saved them if He wanted to. What would we do to a man who ran a hospital like this? We would convict him of malpractice, manslaughter, and murder. Are we more just and merciful than God?

So do you see what kind of picture of God we paint when we accept the Reformed understanding of Election? If a theological system makes God to look like an evil human being, then there must be great question as to its validity. There are many honest, good hearted Calvinist pastors and theologians. You may greatly respect their preaching style, their popularity among certain circles, and the fact that they appear very knowledgeable about the Bible because they went to a cemetery (I mean, seminary).  However, there are other bible scholars who are just as smart as them who reject their teachings and find their source in a man who came from a heretical pagan cult in the 5th century AD.  Do your own research and honestly seek God’s heart. Is it filled with love and mercy? Or has that love been clouded by a pagan view of sovereignty and power? Surely the true God resembles Jesus Christ who wept for the lost instead of rejoicing in their predestined destruction (Matt. 23:37). Amen. 

Read it Closer #34

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who will perish, but to us who will be saved it is the power of God… The natural man will never receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they will remain foolishness to him; nor can he ever know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2:14)

Is that what the Bible says? Is it true that God has determined before the foundation of the world who would receive His message and who wouldn’t?  Does this passage really make that point? Let’s read it closer.

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2:14, NKJV)

Those who ascribe to Reformed theology, as instituted by church father Augustine and later developed by Reformers such as John Calvin, believe that this passage confirms their position that God unconditionally chose who would be saved and who would go to hell before the foundation of the world.  They believe that those who are chosen by God will inevitably accept His message because they have first been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, which gives them insight others aren’t privileged to receive.  Those who are non-elect, or not chosen, are those who will inevitably perish and not receive the gospel, because they are mere natural humans, untouched by the life-giving Spirit of God.  They believe this is a settled matter and that there is nothing you or I or anyone could do to determine if we or anyone else is one of the chosen few or not (hard to follow, I know. In more ways than one!).  Let’s look at both passages; the one which is not from Scripture, and the one that is.

Do you see the difference? The first quotation puts phrases in the future tense, as if this is a determined fact which cannot be changed in God’s mind.  But notice that Paul doesn’t use the language that way! Notice that the phrases “who are perishing” and “who are being saved” are in the present tense, not the future.  What does this mean for our interpretation?  This means that those who are presently perishing do not receive the gospel, and likewise that those who are presently being saved and sanctified are those who do receive the gospel.  In a nutshell, it is simply a statement about the current condition of those people.  This does not mean that an individual could not choose to later accept the message, or later reject the message given enough time. Think of your situation.  Have you always accepted the message of the cross?  I think if we are all honest, we would say no.  At one point in my life, the message of the cross was foolishness to me, and I was a natural man who did not understand spiritual wisdom.  However, God later began to gradually open my understanding and sensitivities to His Spirit to later fully embrace the message of the cross (John 12:32), which brought me into “being saved” and experiencing the “power of God” (Rom. 1:16).  Conversely, there are those who once were “being saved” and experienced the “power of God” who later fell away and began to see the cross as foolishness once again (Heb. 6:4-6).  So, here, this passage is not teaching that the matter of who will be saved (future tense) and who will perish (future tense) is already determined, or that those who are in that present condition will inevitably continue in that disposition in the future.

The second most strongest point in defense of the Calvinist position is that 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that the natural man “can not know” the spiritual things that are to do with salvation, because those are spiritually discerned by those who have the Spirit.  This appears at first glance to teach that unless one is first regenerated by the Spirit of God, they therefore cannot accept the message of the gospel.  I contend this is also a false assumption based on two points.  First of all, the same argument I just defended would apply to this verse as well, since this verse is not saying the natural man will “never know” the things of God, but only that he currently cannot know it.  Secondly, the phrase “cannot know” may be a Greek idiom of hyperbole.  For instance, the apostle John uses the same word “cannot” to describe the Christian, and says that the Christian “cannot sin” (1 John 3:9).  This, I’m sure we would all agree, is hyperbole, a literary device of exaggeration not meant to be taken literally since we all sin and stumble in many things (James 3:2).  It’s as if I said, “The Christian cannot commit adultery”. There are two ways to interpret that statement.  Firstly, that the Christian is not allowed to cheat on their spouse; that they should not do it because it’s immoral.  The second way to interpret it is literally that a Christian cannot make the choice to cheat on their spouse.  We can all agree that we have heard of or have known Christians who have done that very thing, so the first interpretation is clearly superior.

In summation, the natural man “cannot know” the message of the cross, I contend, until he becomes more open-minded to the message in the future.  He may begin very hostile to the message, as the apostle Paul was, but later experience a softening of the heart or a prick to the heart that may bring about an open-mindedness to later choose to follow this King who hung on a cross.  This verse does not, as Calvinists insist, teach that the natural man can “never” know the message, but only that his current disposition is the rejection of it due to his worldly sensibilities.  And, to conclude, that is the overall context of this passage in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians.  Paul is not giving a detailed explanation of total depravity, irresistible grace and unconditional individual election, nor contrasting the state of the “reprobate” vs. the “saint”, but rather is making a distinction between human wisdom and divine revelation, a separate issue altogether.  One only needs to read both chapters without a Reformed set of interpretative glasses to see that.  After all, no one had those interpretative lenses before 400 AD if you read the Christian commentaries of the first three centuries!

Read it Closer #33

“I will put a real mark branded on your hand or your forehead.” (‭Exodus‬ ‭13‬:‭16‬)

Is that what the Bible says? When God speaks of marks on the hand or the forehead (as in the mark of the beast), is He referring to literal marks or implants or is it symbolic of something else? Let’s read it closer.

“This ceremony will be like a mark branded on your hand or your forehead. It is a reminder that the power of the LORD’s mighty hand brought us out of Egypt.” (‭Exodus‬ ‭13‬:‭16‬ NLT)

This ceremony in Exodus was meant to symbolize something. Allow me to prove that when the Bible speaks of marks on heads or hands, it is speaking of a symbolic thing, not a literal thing.

“A Mark (seal, sign, token, frontlet) is placed upon the forehead or hands, either as a sign of a curse or as a sign of redemption.”

Genesis 4:15: God places a mark on the covenant breaking Cain, so nobody would kill him.

Exodus 28:36-38: Priests of God wore a gold plate upon their forehead, symbolizing the redeemed man.

Exodus 13:9,16, Deuteronomy 6:6,8; 11:18: A mark upon the forehead and hand was a symbol of total obedience to God’s Law.

Solomon 8:6: A seal upon the heart and arm is symbolic of a love for someone.

Isaiah 49:16: God has graven His people on the palms of His hands as a sign that he would not forget them.

Ezekiel 9:4: A mark upon the forehead was indicative of their allegiance to the Lord in the midst of abomination.” (Excerpt from ecclesia.org)

All of these instances are speaking of symbolic representations of spiritual realities. Why should we assume, that in the most symbolic book of the Bible, it would be any different? My point is that when the Bible speaks of the ‘Mark of the beast’ (Rev. 13:16), it is speaking of a symbolic representation of the mind and actions of those who disobey God. It is not speaking of a computer chip that will be put in your hand in order to buy groceries during the apocalypse. Do you see how silly that sounds? When we start to take Revelation literally, we start to sound very strange (and the world scoffs at God, and it’s our fault). In Revelation, Jesus is described as a Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns (Rev. 5:6), the world is said to worship an animal (Rev. 13:8), etc. Etc. These are all symbols that were sent to John by an angel. They are not speaking of literal events. To signify something through visions means to give symbolic imagery to represent spiritual truth. That is what the angel presented to John (Rev. 1:1b, NKJV).

The people of God in the book of Revelation are said to have the name of God written on their foreheads (Rev. 14:1). Do we really think that Christians will have the word JESUS tattooed on their foreheads? No, that is preposterous. Christians represent God in this world, and their minds are fixed on God. That’s what that symbol can mean. When you take symbolic language in the Bible literally, you rob it of its intended meaning. These symbols were meant to represent spiritual reality, not give us a play by play into the future where dragons and beasts roam and destroy the earth. Next time you read Revelation, ask God to give you spiritual insight into what the symbols can represent; don’t read it as if it’s a Hollywood suspense thriller. It’s sad that so many Christians see it that way! God will not send people to hell because they got a microchip so they could buy groceries for their children (Rev. 13:16-17). He will judge people on whether they had genuine faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Don’t be blinded by a new invention of interpreting Revelation, that blows to and fro with the wind of culture. Stand with the saints of old who understood the symbolic element of the book.

I highly suggest the book “Revelation: Four Views a parallel commentary” by Steve Gregg. It will give you a more balanced look at the book of Revelation, and you can hear perspectives you may not have heard before.

Read it Closer #32

“Human beings are immortal”. (1 Tim. 6:16a)

Is that what the Bible says? Does it teach that human beings were created in such a way that they have no choice but to live forever? Or does the Bible teach something different? Let’s read it closer.

“(God) alone is immortal”. (1 Tim 6:16a, NKJV)

In this passage, the apostle Paul makes a statement in passing about God. He says that God alone, and he only, possesses immortality. This implies that humans are not inherently immortal, but are subject to die, if left to themselves. There are a number of Scriptures that confirm this fact.

Take for instance the earliest clue in the beginning of the Bible. When Adam and Eve were created, they were placed in a garden (Gen. 2:15). In that garden was the tree of life (Gen. 2:9). We can assume that Adam and Eve frequently ate of that tree since they had permission to eat of it. Out of all the permissible trees with which they could eat, it is the only one that is particularly given a name. Its fruit, we can assume, must have given “life”, since it is called the tree of life (not a bizarre assumption). The other tree that is named was not permissible (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-Gen. 2:9). The fruit of that tree, as we know, brought knowledge to Adam and Eve that caused them to think they could determine what good and evil was (make themselves God). Therefore, the fruit of both trees had a distinct effect upon those who ate it.  My point here is that the fruit off the tree of life had to be continually eaten of in order for Adam and Eve to live. Their immortality was conditional upon them eating of that tree of life. One might contest me on this fact, but allow me to give a verse that will prove my point. After our initial ancestors sinned (Gen. 3:6), God put an angel to guard the tree of life so they could not get back to it and eat of its fruit (Gen. 3:24). Now, why would God do that? He tells us the reason why: It is because if they did eat of that tree again, they would live forever (Gen. 3:22)! So, here, we learn that Adam and Eve had to eat of the tree of life in order to live forever, otherwise they would die (Gen. 3:22-24). This was the punishment God inflicted upon the human race, that we would no longer have access to that life-giving tree which bore fruit of everlasting life (Gen. 2:17). So, here is my point: If God had created Adam and Eve as immortal beings, then why did they have to eat of the tree of life at all? Wouldn’t they have already been immortal? Also, if the tree of life didn’t have the power to make them live forever, why did God block their access to it? Therefore, immortality was conditional upon them eating of the tree of life.

The New Testament also testifies that immortality is conditional upon having faith in Christ. The tree of life, in the New Testament, is the tree upon which Christ died (1 Pet. 2:24). Those who have faith in Jesus’ death, and who eat His flesh and drink His blood, have true life indeed (John 6:51, 53). That is the new eternal source that God has provided for His people to experience never-ending life. But that life is also conditional! We must be continually eating of Jesus in order to never hunger, and we must be drinking of Jesus continually in order to never thirst (John 6:35).

In addition, Paul said that immortality is something to be sought for, not something that is inherently given to us. We must persevere in faith and good works in order to have that hope of immortality: “God will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;”(Rom. 2:6-7).  Do you see? We must seek for immortality!  Just as if we do not seek God we will not find Him, if we do not seek for immortality we will not receive it. Only those with faith in Christ and who feast on Him live forever.  Paul also mentioned that immortality was only introduced by Christ: “(His purpose)…has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10). If something is “brought to light”, it is introduced.   Immortality was not something humans were created with, but something that Christ brought to light through the good news.  Paul contrasted life and death when he said, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).  Immortality and life is the gift God gives to those who have faith in Christ.  Those who follow sin only experience death, which is the opposite of immortality.  Look up the word immortality in the dictionary.  It means to “live forever”.  Those who die do not “live forever”.  Quite simple, actually.  Paul was making that point.

I have presented numerous scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments that undoubtedly prove that immortality is conditional, and only upon faith in Christ.  Those who do not have faith in Christ do not live forever, and will experience death (Rom. 6:23; Rev. 21:8).  The extent of that death is debatable and would depend on numerous scriptural considerations.  The fact is, however, that no one is or becomes immortal who does not believe in Christ.  One day, God will be all in all, and His enemies will be destroyed insomuch that only God and His people remain (2 Thess. 1:9; 1 Cor. 15:25-28).

Read it Closer #31

“And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the future nation of Israel”. (‭Galatians‬ ‭6‬:‭16‬)

Is that what the Bible says? Does the New Testament ever give a hint about the importance of a reinstated nation of Israel? How did the New Testament authors understand Israel and its nature? Let’s read it closer.

“And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” (‭Galatians‬ ‭6‬:‭16‬ NKJV)

The apostle Paul made it his mission to reveal to the Church a mystery that God revealed to him. The mystery was that God had now taken all of the relevant promises made to the Jews and offered them also to the Gentiles and merged both groups together into a new people of God (Eph. 3:3-6). This new people of God, Paul called “The Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16, above). This is why nearly all Christians from the earliest days have interpreted that the true Israel, in the New Testament sense, is the Church under the headship of King Jesus. It wasn’t until the advent of dispensationalism in 1830, that Christians began to believe that the physical nation of Israel was still the people of God or was part of His future eschatological plan. Before then, all Christians understood the biblical teaching that Christ inaugurated a new Israel, the kingdom of God which was comprised of His disciples, irrespective of their nationality. Allow me to string a number of Bible verses and passages together to give you a glimpse into what this historical teaching of the Church is (known as ‘fulfillment’ or ‘covenant’ theology, or ‘supercessionism’). It is often described as Replacement Theology, but only by those who do not understand the doctrine or at best are opposed to it (The Church doesn’t replace Israel, it is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel). I encourage you to read the following paragraph slowly, and to look up the corresponding scriptures.

The overarching premise of this idea is that Christ and His body is the fulfillment of all the promises made to Israel, in so that there are none remaining to be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). John the Baptist said it didn’t matter if the people of Israel had Abraham as their ancestor, because only true repentance mattered to God, not their ethnic identity (Luke 3:8-9). Since Israel did not repent but rejected Christ, Jesus said the kingdom of God would be taken away from Israel and be given to a new nation that would bear the necessary fruit (Matt. 21:43). However, God would make a covenant with the small remnant of Israel who did accept Jesus as Messiah (Jer. 31:31-33; Rom. 9:6, 9:27, 11:5). This remnant was the earliest group of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and its surrounding regions (Acts 1-9). Then, God revealed His mystery that Gentiles would join the remnant of Israel and be recipients of the same promises (Acts 10:45-47, Eph. 3:3-6). This new “holy nation” would be comprised of the remnant of Jews and future Gentiles who follow Christ; they are described as the new people of God, i.e. Israel (1 Pet. 2:9-10, Matt. 21:43). In addition, Paul said that true Jews were those who had circumcised hearts, i.e. Christians (Rom. 2:28-29, Phil. 3:3). The Old Testament described Israel as a vine and an olive tree (Isa. 5:1-7, Jer. 11:16). In the New Testament, Jesus said he was the true vine (John 15:1, thereby making him the true Israel); and Paul described those who follow and believe in Christ as olive branches in the olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17). Jesus said his disciples were branches in Him as the vine (John 15:5), thereby making them connected to the true new Israel, which was the original intention for Israel all along (to follow their Messiah). The promises made to Abraham were actually made to Christ, not to all of Abraham’s physical descendants (Gal. 3:16). The promises made to Abraham were later fulfilled in Christ, and only those who have faith in Christ can lay claim to the promises made to Abraham (Gal. 3:7-9, 4:28, 31). Paul couldn’t have been more clear that the church was the new Israel when he wrote, “And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you” (‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭29‬ NLT). Therefore, descendants of Abraham who reject Christ are cut off from Israel the olive tree (Rom. 11:17, 19-21), and no longer receive the blessings of being part of the true Israel. Not all of Israel’s physical descendants are true believers in God (Rom. 9:6), because they reject His true Messiah. Only those who receive Jesus as Messiah, King, and risen Lord, and continue to believe in Him participate in the blessings of being part of God’s people (Israel) (Rom. 11:21-22).

This brings into question the idea of why Israel came back to their land. Did God promise to bring them back? Yes, He did, before Christ! And He did bring them back from Babylon and from where they were all scattered. All the passages referring to Israel returning to the land were fulfilled hundreds of years before Christ (the amount of verses in the major prophets is astounding). All those prophecies were fulfilled. Not one of them says they will occur again after the Messiah is risen. Moreover, there is not one verse in the New Testament that says that Israel will come back to their land in the last days. The New Testament only predicts that Israel and Jerusalem will be destroyed (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), because God ended His old covenant of law and began His new covenant with the new Israel of God, who are all those who follow Christ (Heb. 8:7-13). Jesus predicted that, since the Jews rejected Him, Israel would be destroyed within the generation that heard him speak (Matt. 24:1-3, 34). He wept over the city of Jerusalem and that it would be destroyed (Luke 19:41-44), and gave no hint that it would later be restored or significant if so. When the temple was destroyed, Judaism would end. With no more sacrifices to offer, Judaism is now a dead religion. Even if they rebuilt the temple in modern times, the sacrifices wouldn’t be accepted by God, and the temple of God in the New Testament is never referred to as a physical temple, but is the very people of God who follow Christ (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). This is the new, true Israel of God (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 9:6).

The natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who reject Jesus are antichrist, and are therefore against God’s plan, not part of it (1 John 2:22). Judaism as it is practiced today is just as antichrist as Islam, because they both reject Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. How could we call modern day Israel the ‘people of God’ when they do not accept Jesus? Most of modern day Israel (over 80%) is secular and atheist. Only about 15-18% practice Judaism. Israel, as a nation, is apostate and opposed to Jesus. This is not even taking into consideration the fact that there remains no pure Jewish race since they have intermarried with so many Gentiles over the centuries. It’s possible we all have a little Jewish blood (I know I do from my Polish grandfather)!

If we could only take off our interpretive lenses and see that the Bible teaches that Judaism is a dead religion and that the Old Testament land promises to Israel have been fulfilled in the past! Why import into the Bible a system of interpretation that no one has ever believed until recent years?

For more information and a thorough critique of dispensationalism and its unbiblical nature I suggest the following article: “Is Dispensationalism indispensable?” By Steve Gregg.

May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God. (‭Galatians‬ ‭6‬:‭16‬ NLT)

Read it Closer #30

“So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love everyone. Just as I have loved you, you should love everyone else. Your love for the world will prove that you are my disciples.” (‭John‬ ‭13‬:‭34-35‬)

Is that what Jesus said? Who, primarily, did He command us to love? Let’s read it closer.

“So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.” (‭John‬ ‭13‬:‭34-35‬ NLT)

Did you notice the difference? Jesus specifically commanded His disciples to love each other, and by doing so, that love would prove to the world that we are Christ followers. He was only speaking to Christians at this time. He didn’t tell us, as it is often supposed, that our love for everyone in the world would prove that we are Christians. Now don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with loving everyone in the world; in fact, we should do that. But Jesus is saying that there should be a special kind of love between Christians. There should be a sacrificial affection and choice based love for each other that is otherworldly. Our love for other Christians proves that we truly belong to God.

The apostle John also wrote, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has become a child of God. And everyone who loves the Father loves his children, too (‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭1‬ NLT). One cannot be a Christian without loving other Christians.

However, if we look throughout the church today, we will see that Christians aren’t loving each other. Rather, they separate into various local assemblies denoted by denominational affiliation which stifle love and unity and instead promote division and competition. Oftentimes, there are multiple churches in the same town (perhaps even on the same street!) fighting for members to join their church or go to their services over the other. The familial kind of love the early church had, where Christians met in homes and shared their lives together (Rom. 16:3-5, Col. 4:15, 1 Cor. 16:19) has been replaced by rigid tradition expressed through church programs and liturgies. The church that shared their possessions with the needy and lived life communally (Acts 2:44-46) has now been conformed to worldly cultural individualism and the American Dream. Churches, instead of primarily helping needy believers (Gal. 6:9-10, 2 Cor. 8:14-15), often use their money to pay off building expenses and fund other projects while often overlooking the poor Christians in their communities (especially if they don’t go to “their” church; do they even know them?)

When Jesus commanded us to love each other as Christians, he taught us by example. In that time period, washing someone’s feet was a slave’s duty. Jesus took a basin of water and washed his disciples’ feet. He said, “And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other’s feet. I have given you an example to follow. Do as I have done to you. (‭John‬ ‭13‬:‭14-15‬ NLT) Christians do not serve each other in this way anymore. We need to go back to the way of Christ expressed in the early church. The sad thing is that most Christians today don’t know what that kind of Christianity is, because it is drastically contrary to the Christianity we practice in the 21st century.

I exhort you to love all Christians. Instead of hating on the Catholics, love them. Buy them a coffee. Talk about things you actually agree on. I once went to a Calvinist church for a whole year, just to be friends with people who have a completely different understanding of God’s character than me. I chose to associate with them despite my disagreements with them. If you do disagree with a fellow Christian, humbly address those issues and maintain as much unity as possible. Unity among Christians is the proof of our love for each other, and we sure could use some more of that!