The Biblical Perspective

"We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom...," so that, "we won't be tossed and blown about by every wind of teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth....Exhort by healthy teaching, and convince the one's contradicting....Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers" (Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:14; Tit. 1:9; 1Tim. 4:16)

Tuesday, January 2, 2007

Statement of Faith

Importance of Purity of Doctrine

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2Tim. 3:16-17)….“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2Tim. 4:3)….“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer” (1Tim. 1:3)….“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Tit. 1:9)…“You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1)….“pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth” (Tit. 1:14).…“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14).

Concerning:

Bibliology
Theology
Christology
Angelology
Anthropology
Soteriology
Pneumatology
Ecclesiology
Eschatology

Bibliology:

The Scriptures are the inspired, God-breathed words of God, without error in their original writings. This is true not only of the OT (Jesus thought so: Lke. 24:27, 44; 1Pet. 1:10-13; 2Tim. 3:15-16; Heb. 1:1), but also of the NT (2Pet. 3:15-16; 1Cor. 14:37-38; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 1:1-3). The Scriptures rely upon for their authority no church, council, creeds, or traditions, but are authoritative in and of themselves simply because they alone are God’s words, they alone are “God-breathed”. We are only to compare Scripture with Scripture for a proper biblical understanding of what God would have us to know. They are not to be compared against a creed or confession. In other words, creeds or confessions do not hold any weight above the authority of the Scriptures. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries has been noted as saying, “He who does not recognize his traditions, is the slave of his own traditions”. This could not be more true of all those churches who hold to their confessions on equal authority with that of the Word of God.

Recommended reading: Any good reformed systematic theology such as that of: Charles Hodge, Dabney or Shedd.

Theology:

God is Triune:

Gen. 1:26; Jhn. 17:21b; Mat. 28:19. The second person of this Triune God–Jesus, declares through the prophet Isaiah, “And now the Sovereign Lord has sent Me, with His Spirit” (48:16). Three distinct persons make up the Godhead, they are: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, God is not one being with three personalities. The Scriptures declare that the Father is God (Jhn. 6:27), that Jesus is God (Isa. 9:6; Jhn. 1:1, 18 NAS; 10:33; 14:7-9; 20:28; Rom. 9:5 NIV; Tit. 2:13; cp. Rev. 1:8; 21:6 w/ Isa. 44:6; 48:12), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3b w/ 4c; also cp. Isa. 6:9-10 w/ Acts 28:25-26; cp. Heb. 10:15, "the Holy Spirit says" w/ Jer. 31:31, "declares the Lord").

Recommended reading: Any systematic theology such as that of: Charles Hodge, Dabney or Shedd. Also The Trinity by Gordon Clark; Why You Should Believe in the Trinity by Bowman; Understanding the Trinity by Alister McGrath.

God is Sovereign:

God exerts His sovereignty over all creation. His plans and decrees are determined by none of His creatures (Dan. 4:35). What He says in that past, He fulfills in the future. He doesn’t just know the future, He is the future. His, is the future. All of history unfolds from His master plans and designs.

God says through Isaiah the prophet,

“Remember this, fix it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isa. 46:8-10).

And Job reaffirms,

“But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases. He carries out his decree against me, and many such plans he still has in store”
(23:13-14).

Everything in life is controlled, determined, ordained, and chosen by God to come to pass (Rom. 9:10-21; Acts 4:27-28; Rev. 17:17; Isa. 10:5-16). No one can stay His hand or say to Him, “What doest thou?” (Dan. 4:35). And contrary to popular opinion and Satan’s own claims that he can give the authority and splendor of the kingdoms to whomsoever he pleases in saying: “I can give it to anyone I want to” (Lke. 4:6), is just another lie. God’s Word says, “I give it to anyone I please” (Jer. 27:5). So who are we going to believe, God or Satan? Some ignoble Christians choose to believe Satan. And this is what is being taught in many churches today. It is not a true biblical perspective. Satan has no power unless it is given to Him from above (see also 1Ki. 22:19-23; Job 1:11-12; 2:5-6), otherwise this would be the heretical doctrine of dualism.

As said before, everything that comes to pass does so by the decree of God and for His glory. Even the sinful acts of wicked men come to pass by the good pleasure of God’s foreordained plans and will (Gen. 49:20; 2Sam. 24:1, 15; 1Chr. 21:1; Jdg. 14:4; 1Ki. 22:19-23; 1Chr. 10:4, 14; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; Rev. 17:17), though they themselves are held accountable for their own actions and acknowledge it as such (2Sam. 24:1, 11, 17, 25; Rom. 3:5-8; 9:17-23; Mat. 27:3-5). This in no way infers that sin pleases God either, for He hates sin. And Scripture even affirms that He takes “no pleasure” in the death of the wicked (Ezk. 18:32; 33:11), i.e. He is no sadist. But He is “pleased” in these sinful actions of others in the sense that His will or desire is being carried out by the sinful acts of others, and thus “it pleased the Lord to bruise” His Son (Isa. 53:10), by the sinful acts of the Jews, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the people who “did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (Acts 4:27-28). Again, “What His soul desires, even that He does” (Job. 23:13), or “Our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him” (Psm. 115:3), and also, “The Lord does whatever pleases Him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. He makes clouds…He sends lightening…brings out the wind…struck down the firstborn of Egypt…of men and animals….He struck down many nations and killed many kings…all the kings of Canaan…He gave their land as an inheritance…” (Psm. 135:5-12). And lastly, “So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please” (Isa. 55:11).

And while God has ordained that the sinful actions of others (that of Joseph’s brothers, the schemes of Potiphar’s wife, the decisions of the Jews to kill Christ, and even Judas’ betrayal ) all work together for His good and for His glory, this makes Him neither the author of their sin, responsible for their sin, or the one who tempts them to sin (Ja. 1:12-16).

The Temptation to Sin:

Now in discussing James statements above it needs to be understood that James is not talking about the outward temptations (also known as “tests” and “trials”) that come in life and are ordained of God for our good, but he is talking about the inward temptation, desire, and volition to sin. James is saying that this inward desire is “not from God” or “not from above”, but comes from our own desires, will, and emotions to serve the lusts of our flesh. To be sure, Jesus was led into the wilderness “to be tempted of the Devil” (Mat. 4:1); and Jesus said Satan had asked permission to sift Peter as wheat (Lke. 22:31); in Rev. 2:10, Jesus says, “the devil will put some of you in prison to test you”, i.e. to tempt them to become unfaithful to God. But Jesus exhorts them to “be faithful, even unto death”. In 2Sam. 24:1 it says that “the anger of the Lord burned against Israel” and so He incited David to number the children of Israel (through medium of Satan, 1Chr. 21:1), so that the Lord could have an occasion to slay 70,000 of them (v. 15). David even understood such actions by God when he says to Saul, “If the Lord has incited you against me, then may He accept an offering. If however, it is just men who have done it, may they be cursed before the Lord” (1Sam. 26:19). Either way, David knew that such things come from the Lord, but if it wasn’t God’s will that his life be taken by another man, then he was just saying may their own thoughts be turned against them as a curse upon themselves. This verse in no way implies that it is just the actions of men that do such things. David understood God’s sovereignty and knew better than that, and the Scriptures resound everywhere otherwise. In fact, it was David who even said of the cursings of Shimei towards him “If he is cursing because the Lord said to him, ‘Curse David’, who can ask, ‘Why do you do this?’” (2Sam. 16:10).

In 1Ki. 22:19-23 we also see with regards to outward temptations that are sent by the Lord where the Lord asks the angels standing all around Him, “Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?” (v. 20). Verse 21 then says, “One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ the Lord asked. ‘I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets’, he said. ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’” Need we say anymore? Let God’s own words have the last word on all this. He sent “lying”, tempting spirits to “entice” Ahab to believe a lie and not the truth of the prophet Micah. And if that isn’t enough, I have a couple more: In Judges 4:7, God says, “I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishbon River and give him into your hands”. What was going on behind the scenes here is exactly the same thing that has been always going on in heaven, as is pictured for us above in 1Ki. 22. This is even seen in the first two chapters of the book of Job.

Consider also the fact that God says of Gog in Ezk. 38:4, “I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army…” Again, this is a remarkable passage of Scripture. God says, “I will turn you”. First of all God says, “I will” do something. What is He going to do? He is going to “turn” this evil leaders heart just as Proverbs 21:1 instructs us that “the king’s heart is in the hands of the Lord, and as the rivers of water, He turns it withersoever He wills”. Now let us read what the Hebrew expositor’s Keil. and Del. have to say on this verse. It is quite remarkable. And we will see that it agrees with all of the testimony of Scripture that has been given up to this point so far concerning these marvelous ways of God:

“God will deal with Gog, to sanctify Himself upon him by means of judgment…He therefore misleads him to an attack upon the people of Israel…Here [the Hebrew word] means to lead or bring away from his previous attitude, i.e. to mislead or seduce, in the sense of enticing to a dangerous enterprise….The passage in Rev. 20:8, ‘to deceive the nations’…corresponds to these words so far as the material sense is concerned, with this exception, that Satan is mentioned as the seducer of the nations in the Apocalypse, whereas Ezekiel gives prominence to the leading of God, which controls the manifestations even of evil, so that these two passages stand in the same relation to one another as 2Sam. 24:1 and 1Chr. 21:1” (Ezekiel, pp. 161-162).

Notice also how in 2Ths. 2:11 it says that “God sends them a strong delusion so that they might believe a lie”. Is this to be considered any differently than what was portrayed for us in 1Ki. 22? Of course not. According to Paul, God is sovereignly controlling everything here, just as He has done in all these other instances mentioned above.

Consider also Rev. 17:17, which says, “For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled.” Oh the wonders of our marvelous Sovereign Lord! Who can stay His hand, or say to Him, “What does thou?” All things are truly by Him, through Him, and for Him. Truly “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever…” (Deut. 29:29).

God restrains (or allows) the evil that goes on in the world, and all for the praise of His glory. Psm. 76:10 declares, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath wilt thou restrain” (WBT). Pr. 16:4, “the Lord works out everything for His own ends—even the wicked for a day of disaster”. Isa. 45:7 says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (KJV). Amos 3:6 says, “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” (KJV). Lam. 3:37-38, “Who is he that said, and it comes to pass, when the Lord commands it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceeds not evil and good?” Job concurred, “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (2:10). Even Job had a better understanding of God’s sovereignty than most of us do today. Someone might attempt to twist some of these verses to say otherwise, but they cannot refute the entire testimony of Scripture which states that God does indeed do all these things. Read also Rom. 9:17 and Jhn. 9:3b and see also how all these things are said to redound unto God’s “glory”.

To Choose, or Not to Choose, That is the Question:

What God wills in heaven, man freely chooses here on earth, without any violation of their free choice to choose and to perform the decisions that God desires of them to make. Consider for a moment Isa. 10:5-7, which says, “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. But this is not what he intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations.” (see also 2Sam. 17:14; Psm. 33:10; Neh. 4:15). In consideration of all this, I Chr. 10:4 and 14 likewise state, “So Saul took his own sword and fell on it….So [it was] the Lord who put him to death”. One might think, “But I thought it was Saul who did this? Well, yes and no. As said earlier, what God wills in heaven, man wills to freely choose and do in time, and God allows or disallows the strongest motivating influences to come upon us to fulfill such desires. Such are the sovereign ways of God that are past finding out.

Consider also this word from Ezekiel:

“The word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him…I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords….This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil scheme. You will say, ‘I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people….You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, O Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I show myself holy through you before their eyes….I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand “ (38:1-2, 4, 10-11, 16; 39:2-3).

Now the Scriptures contain predictions of many events, both great and small, which were perfectly fulfilled through the actions of absolutely free agents. Usually these agents (as Gog above and the king of Assyria in Isa. 10:5-7 above) were not even conscious that they were fulfilling divine prophecy. They acted freely, yet exactly as God said they would, not by prescience, but by foreordination. This is also clearly seen in Jhn. 12:16, where it says, “At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him”. Judas’ betrayal of Jesus is just another example of this.

Unless sin occurs according to the Divine purpose and permission of God, it occurs by chance. Evil then becomes an independent and uncontrollable principle and the pagan ideal and heresy of dualism, or even deism, is introduced into the scheme of things. But, as stated earlier, Satan, nor man is independent of God’s overarching control of everything. Even for one to admit that God created everything, but doesn’t have complete control over it all is teaching the heretical doctrine of Deism.

Now the fall of Adam, and in him even the fall of the entire human race, was not by “chance” or accident, but was completely ordained in the secret counsels of God before the world began. For we are told in 1Pet. 1:19-20 that Christ as “a lamb unblemished and spotless” was “foreknown [Gk. proegnosmenoo, lit., “having been foreknown”) before the foundation of the world” (NAS). Surely such “foreknowing” is not to be understood, as some would have us believe, that God just saw all this happening down the road sometime in the future, for the Son was already there with the Father when He planned it all. No, God “foreknows” everything because He has fore-planned it all. And what He “fore-plans” He “fore” or “pre” determines to come to pass in the future. In Rev. 13:8 Christ is said to be “the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world”, and in Eph. 1:4 we too are said to be “chosen in Him before the foundation of the world”.

So God didn’t just only “know” or “see” out into the future Christ making a decision to sacrifice Himself on the cross. Such a teaching is false and ludicrous. God, along with the Son, planned right then and there before all creation began, not only the crucifixion, but also all those who were to be “chosen” and redeemed “in Christ”. It was no “after-thought” based upon someone’s “foreseen” faith. It was not an “after-the-fact” work of God. It was all predetermined before the facts were to ever happen and be played out in life. These are His eternal, unchanging decrees. Did God’s decrees presuppose the fall of Adam? You bet they did! Adam’s fall was not by chance or happenstance. It all happened in exactly the order in which God decreed it. The supralapsarian understanding of the order of God’s decrees is the biblical viewpoint.

God’s word even affirms to us that our very names were written in the Lamb’s book of life right then and there, not based upon seeing some future foreseen belief or faith. And just as God planned in advance even the births of Josiah, a godly king (1Ki. 13:1-3) and Cyrus, an ungodly king (Isa. 45:1-13), even calling them by the names that would be given to them, so too He had planned that all of us from out of the sinful, fallen condition “in Adam”, would all one day be redeemed to the praise of His glorious grace, love and mercy. David said it this way, “Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psm. 139:16). No, God didn’t just “see” such things out in the future. They were pre-ordained by Him before the world began. Even as these kings mentioned above, Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction, even as Judas’ betrayal of Christ was based upon a predetermined decree, not just a foreseen event (Rom. 9:16-21; Jhn. 13:18 [Psm. 41:9]; 17:12).

What God sovereignly plans in the past, He chooses to play out in history: Election for those whom He chooses to save, reprobation (or the passing by) of those whom He doesn’t choose to save; even (like Jacob and Esau) before having done any thing good or bad, that God’s choice according to election and grace might stand. Thus proving that reprobation and election are not with respect to sins committed or not committed, but based entirely upon God’s (the Potter’s) sovereign choice and determination alone. God chooses to elect some to display His grace, while some He chooses to leave to themselves. And His choice to damn these whom He left to themselves is not based upon His sovereign will to leave them as reprobates, but based upon the fact that they are sinful creatures deserving of judgment through the fall of Adam and undeserving of any grace just as much as we are. In His electing of some He chose to display His mercy and grace, while in the non-electing of others He chose to display His wrath. As to this understanding of the causes of each, John Bunyan said it this way,

“Sovereignty is according to His will, but justice is according to the sin of man….He appoints no man to the pains of everlasting fire, merely from sovereignty, but by the rule of [His] justice: God damns not the man because he is a man, but [because he is] a sinner….Reprobation makes no man personally a sinner, neither does election make any man personally righteous. It is the consenting to sin that makes a man a sinner; and the imputation of grace and righteousness that makes [man]…just and holy.” (Reprobation Asserted, ch.6).

And it is exactly in this state or condition of the sinner’s sinning that God works out everything—even directing sinners hearts to choose the things they do by the strongest motivating influence upon the heart (i.e. by secondary causes), in order that God’s purposes might stand. Satan does not exert such control over men’s lives, but only as God allows him to do so in order to accomplish all that He says He will accomplish (the first two chapters of Job forcefully illustrate this). So, again, what God sovereignly chooses in the past, sinful men freely choose to respond to, or not respond to, and that based upon the strongest motivating influence that comes to bear upon their hearts and minds. For Judas, it was money. For Pharaoh, it was his own self determination to see things done his way. For all of God’s saints, it is the resurrection and regenerating power of the Holy Spirit that affects the new birth outside of ones own faculties to procure.

That the reprobation of some is asserted before such people even come into the world or have done good or evil, is evidenced by what Paul says in Rom. 9:10: “For the children [note, not just Jacob] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, it was said unto Rebecca, ‘The elder shall serve the younger.’” Here we find the two in their mother’s womb, and both receiving their destiny, not only before they had done good or evil, but before they were in any capacity to do so. They being yet unborn, their destiny was for the one unto, the other not unto, the blessing of eternal life. The one was chosen, the other refused; the one loved, the other hated; the one elected, the other left a reprobate. The same also might be said of Ishmael and his brother Isaac, both which did also receive their destiny before they came into the world. For the promise that Isaac should be the heir was also before Ishmael was born, though he was older by fourteen years or more so than his brother (Gen. 15:4-5; 16:4, 5, 16; 17:25; 21:5).

If the births and actions of these people were not determined beforehand, then one will have to say that these people and the things that they did were only “foreseen” by God. As noted earlier, God has said, “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please”. Let's let His be the last word on all of this.

The plan to permit Adam to disobey God’s command and fall into sin, from which he, and all those who were to be “in Christ” would be redeemed, must extend all the way back before the world began. The plan for the course of the entire world’s events, including the fall, the redemption, and all the other events in history, was before God in its completed form before it even came to pass:

“I foretold the former things long ago, My mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass….Therefore I have told you these things long ago; before they happened…so that you could not say, ‘My idols did them; my wooden image and my metal god ordained them” (Isa. 48:3).

“But I the LORD will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay. For in your days, you rebellious house, I will fulfill whatever I say, declares the Sovereign LORD” (Ezk. 12:25).

Now after all that has been said on this subject, just think about this: The fulfillment of any one prophecy requires the absolute and complete control of the entire universe, lest something prevent its occurrence. As Lorraine Boettner has so aptly stated:

“God so governs the inward feelings, external environment, habits, desires, motives, etc., of men that they freely do what He purposes. This operation is inscrutable, but none the less real; and the mere fact that in our present state of knowledge we are not able fully to explain how this influence is exerted without destroying the free agency of man, certainly does not prove that it cannot be so exerted. We do have enough knowledge, however, to know that God's sovereignty and man's freedom are realities, and that they work together in perfect harmony….The comprehensive decree provides that each man shall be a free agent, possessing a certain character, surrounded by a certain environment, subject to certain external influences, internally moved by certain affections, desires, habits, etc., and that in view of all these he shall freely and rationally make a choice. That the choice will be one thing and not another, is certain; and God, who knows and controls the exact causes of each influence, knows what that choice will be, and in a real sense determines it….he [i.e. man] acts, from the first to the last moment of his life, in absolute subserviency (though, perhaps he does not know it, nor design it) to the purposes and decrees of God concerning him; notwithstanding which, he is sensible of no compulsion, but acts freely and voluntarily, as if he were subject to no control, and absolutely lord of himself” (Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, ch. 16, sect. 5).

And Arthur Pink concurs:

“To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be Sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both Sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not Sovereign, and if the will is not Sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves—to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect….

That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined then there must be a determiner. What is it that determines the will? We reply, The strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit [Ezk. 36:27; Ex. 35:30-35; Jhn. 6:44, 65; Php. 1:6; 2:13, et al]; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God) which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition” (The Sovereignty of God, ch. 7, pp. 95-96)

The question therefore is, “Does the Bible teach the freedom of will?” By freedom of will is meant what most tend to believe: the absence of any controlling power, even of God and His grace, and therefore the equal ability in any situation to choose either of two incompatible courses of action. Freedom of will, almost universally, means that God does not determine the choices that a man makes. For them God does not turn the hearts of men, as the rivers of water, withersoever He wills. It means that the will is uncaused and not predetermined to be disposed to act according to one inclination, or another. But this is plainly to ascribe divinity to “free-will”. To some this sounds like an extreme statement. But the appeal must be “to the law and to the testimony”, and the Scriptures say that the heart of man is deceitful above measure. It will use all possible excuses to avoid acknowledging that it is a “worm”, a “lump of clay”, a “created being”, and not an independent, autonomous being. But wasn’t it Paul who said, “Has not the Potter [God] rightful power [Gk. exousiav, lit. “authority” ] over the clay?” (Rom. 9:21; Wey. trans.). What is “authority”, if it is not the right or power of the one who has it to do as he wishes with those who are completely under his control? Clay has no control over the situation whatsoever. And if left to ourselves on the Potter’s wheel, we would spin out of control. The entire world would “spin out of control” if it were not for God’s managerial guidance.

Usually Arminians naively base their theory on many biblical statements that say this man and that man “willed” to do this or that. Well, of course, the Bible clearly asserts that men “will” to choose this or that. But the question is not whether they will to do something, or have a will at all, but whether God determines their will. The question is not whether a man chooses; but whether his will had a choice or reason behind its decision. The one who truly has a biblical understanding of Divine sovereignty as laid out in this summary does not deny will or volition; he denies that the will, like the rest of God’s creation, is independent of God.

It is amazing that anyone who calls himself a Christian and has read even a little part of the Bible can deny that God controls the mental operations of His creatures. Pro. 21:1 says that the heart of man is in the hand of the Lord and that the Lord “turns” it in any direction that the Lord pleases. The idea that man’s will is free and independent of God, and able to turn itself in one of a dozen incompatible directions against the sovereign purposes and plans of God, is absolutely and unequivocally unbiblical. Such a believer just might as well be an ungodly, un-regenerated unbeliever who would gladly agree and join hands with him, taking him along his side, and be completely oblivious to the fact that he is fellowshipping with darkness. But, after all, isn’t that what being deceived is all about? Broad is this path that leads to confusion and destruction. As a clear denial of Omnipotence, such a view dethrones the God of all power and authority, and elevates man to the place of deity. Their mantra is: “God votes for me, the Devil votes against me (dualism), and I cast the deciding vote (deism)”.

How God can fulfill prophecy and direct the course of history without determining the will of the people is something the opponents of foreordination cannot explain. But a true biblical perspective of the Bible will never leave one with such a dilemma. As we have seen abundantly, it identifies many acts of the will as that which has been predetermined by God. II Chronicles 10:15 gives us another excellent example.

Rehoboam had just succeeded his father Solomon to the throne. The people of Israel petitioned him to reduce their taxes. So Solomon’s advisors urged Rehoboam to grant the people’s request, but Rehoboam’s young friends persuaded him to reject the petition and to threaten that he would chastise them with scorpions. “So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from God, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.” This refers to an event described for us in 1Ki. 11:29ff. The prophet Ahijah met Jeroboam and gave him God’s message that “I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee.”

This promise was kept, the prophecy was fulfilled, and Jeroboam got the ten tribes of Israel. How he got them is set forth in our passage here in Chronicles. It all occurred by God causing the people to decide to petition the king, and by God causing the king to accept the bad advice of the young men, and by God causing the people to decide to rebel under the leadership of Jeroboam. All these overt actions could not have occurred without all the individual acts of the wills of all of these people. Their decisions are an essential and indispensable part of this history and prophecy in the making. Had these people truly been free from divine foreordination, and had not God determined them, then God himself could not have been sure that the prophecy would have been fulfilled. The KJV says “the cause was of God”; the ASV translates it, “it was brought about of God, that Jehovah might establish His word.” And whatever the translation used, the idea is that God not only could, but actually did control all the factors and events, and even the decisions of the people as essential to the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Recommended reading: Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorraine Boettner; The Sovereignty of God by Arthur Pink; Predestination by Gordon Clark.

The Attributes of God:

A lot has already been said concerning God’s decrees, knowledge of things, foreknowledge, sovereignty, power, mercy, grace and wrath; which was just a tip of the iceberg; not to mention of His love, omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, holiness, faithfulness, goodness, and patience. But space does not allow for it here.

Recommended reading: The Attributes of God by Arthur Pink; The Existence and Attributes of God by Stephen Charnock.

Christology:

Christ is God Incarnate (Mat. 1:23; Jhn. 1:14; Php. 2:6-9). He is both fully God (Jhn. 1:1, 18 NAS) and fully man (Lke. 2:40, 52; Acts 2:22 “a man”). Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross for the sins of His people, and no others (Isa. 53:10-12; Mat. 1:21; Jhn. 6:37-40, 44, 65; 10:14-16; 11:51-52; Eph. 5:25). Furthermore, He arose bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven to be seated on the throne of David at the right hand of the Father. He now reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords. His kingdom is never to be on this earth, or an “earthly” kingdom. He will continue this reign right up until His physical second coming when the just and the unjust shall be judged and the last enemy to be destroyed then will be “death”. But this does not mean that His reign ends. It just means that this one aspect of His rule will come to a close. The Lord will always be King of kings and Lord of lords.

Recommended reading: Christ Before the Manger by Ron Rhodes; any good reformed systematic theology such as that of: Charles Hodge, Dabney or Shedd

Angelology:

Angels, both good and evil, were created by God (Psm. 148, esp. v. 5; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11; 10:6). Some fell into sin. Others did not. Regardless, they all serve Him (Heb. 1:14; Job 1:11-12; 2:5-6; Psm. 103:20-21; 1Ki. 22:19-23; 1Sam. 16:14; Jdg. 9:23; Mk. 5:10-13; Lke. 22:31 NIV; 2Cor. 12:7; Rev. 20:2).

Recommended reading: Any good reformed systematic theology such as that of: Charles Hodge, Dabney or Shedd.

Anthropology:

Originally man, unlike the rest of God’s creatures on the earth—beside the angels—was created in God’s image. At the fall, man lost the purity of God’s image due to sin, and so all men are now created in Adam’s image (Gen. 5:3), though still immortal spiritual beings (Mat. 25:46a). In Adam, as the federal head and representative of all mankind (as is clearly the case by the fact that death reigns through that one act of sin) from the creation of the world, his forensic sin has been imputed to all by no meritorious work of their own, and so all have been constituted sinners and therefore are dead, both spiritually and eventually physically (Rom. 5:12, 15a, 16b, 17a, 18a, 19a; 1Cor. 15:22a; Heb. 9:27). Whereas in Christ, the federal head and representative of all that belong to Him from before the foundation of the world, His forensic righteousness is likewise imputed to them by no meritorious work of their own, and as such, these individuals are made spiritually alive and resurrected together with Him.

Paul uses the terms “all” and “many” in a two-fold sense here throughout these passages. The “all” and “many” in Adam are not the same “all” and “many” in Christ, for not “all” in Adam who received the imputation of Adam’s sin receive the imputation of Christ’s righteousness; but “all” for whom Christ died (His sheep, Jhn. 10:15), do indeed receive it. Not one of His sheep goes missing, and everyone of them will be raised up on the last day (Jhn. 6:37-39, 44, 65). This analogy fits perfectly in accordance with what Paul described of Adam as being a “pattern” or “type” of the One to come when he says, “death reigned…even over those who did not sin by breaking a command” (Rom. 5:14). Thus Adam is the “type”, Christ is the Antitype. The similarities are striking: 1) In both cases Adam and Christ are federal heads or representatives of a certain progeny; 2) In both cases each one does something respectively for “many” as the other does, and; 3) In both cases no one has any choice in the matter.

Now if this likeness in “type” is not the case, and not followed through to this logical conclusion, then there would be no true comparison; there would be no type vs. antitype, but only contrasts. “Types” in Scripture are indicative of similarities, not dissimilarities. So if we did nothing in ourselves to get in Adam (which v. 14 states), then it stands to reason that in order for Adam to be a “type” we do nothing in ourselves to get in Christ. If this is so with Adam, then how much more so with Christ! Thus the saying of Paul, “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (1Cor. 4:7). And again, “it is not of works lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8). And again, “Do not boast against the branches; and if thou dost boast, thou dost not bear the root, but the root thee!” (Rom. 11:18 YLT), for “no flesh shall glory in His presence” (1Cor. 1:29).

Now we know that this is the only comparison that is to be understood between Adam and Christ as noted above in Rom. 5:14, because in the very next verse Paul starts to list contrasts by stating, “But the gift is not like…”, and again, in v.16, “Again, the gift of God is not like…” Christ was “like” Adam in the sense that “the one man” (vv. 15, 19) became a federal head and representative for all those that the Father gives to Him, imputing His righteousness to them by no meritorious work of their own, and as Adam is said to have “made” people sinners, Christ is said to have “made” people righteous. While on the other hand, He “is not like” Adam, in that, instead trespassing God’s law and bringing death to many, He was obedient to God’s law and brought eternal life (the “gift”) by grace to many (v. 15); instead of condemnation, He wrought justification (v. 16, 18); instead of death reigning, life reigns (v. 17); instead of making many sinners, He makes many righteous” (v. 19).

It is also of interest to note something about this last verse above where it says “many were made sinners” and “many will be made righteous”. Now no one will argue that we were all “made” or constituted sinners in Adam. Every child of Adam reflects this “image” of his. It’s a done deal. No one had any say so in the matter. By no work on our part are we thus “made” sinners in Adam. Adam did it all. It was the sole work and act of the one man Adam. So then why is it that we have a problem with Christ in the same way making many righteous from start to finish? I see no one complaining about what Adam did and crying, “Not fair!”, so why then about what Christ has done for some? If not for this good deed of His we would all be left in our miserable state of sin, condemned to hell forevermore. Instead of grumbling, we should be rejoicing. Instead of complaining of how it somehow violates our free-will or unfairly condemns sinners to hell, we should be happy that He has made us willing in the day of His favor and power toward us. Instead of saying that it isn’t fair, we should be rejoicing in the fact that He was gracious and merciful to save even some of us. His justice just as well could have been to condemn Adam and Eve to hell and never allow the human race to be born, and you and I would not be here today. It is not ours to question the Master Potter, but to be thankful that He has not made us vessels of wrath (Rom. 9:16-21).

Now the English word “made” occurs 24 times in this epistle in the KJV, and interestingly enough, it translates 15 different Greek verbs, but the Greek word used here, kathistemi, although found twenty times elsewhere in the New Testament, is found in Romans only here concerning what Adam and Christ have done in their respective works. In Mat. 24:44-47, it is used twice of the Lord when He says, “whom His Lord has made ruler” and “He shall make him ruler over all”. It is found in Mat. 25:21, 23, where it twice says, “I will make you ruler over many things”. In Acts 7:10 it is said of Joseph, “he [Pharoah] made him governor over Egypt and all his house”, and also of Moses in vv. 27 and 35, it is twice said, “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?” In Tit. 1:5 it is used of “ordaining” or appointing or making elders in every city. In Heb. 5:1; 7:28 and 8:3 it is used of “ordaining” or “making” priests. And in Heb. 2:7 it is used of man being “made a little lower than the angels”. Now the point being in all this is that we are all (using an Italian saying) “made” people one way or another. It is not a “possibility”, it is a probability based on fact. In other words, it is an impossibility that cannot be otherwise. As from the beginning of the world and the creation of man we are all fallen in Adam; similarly from before the foundation of the world, all those chosen and elected by God unto salvation, are risen in Christ. That is the truth that is being taught here. As was with the one (Adam), so it is with the other (Christ). Allelujah for this great mercy wherein He has loved us.

So in summary: What is typical of the one, can only be what is similar of the other. And it cannot be only an absolute fact for the one that many are made sinners, while only a “possibility” for the other that many are made righteous (as some erroneously teach in the Church). And so, all the human race in Adam cannot be the same entire human race in Christ, for then this would teach universalism. Therefore, “the many” who die in Adam are not, and cannot be, the same “many” who are made alive in Christ. Similarly, if all are made sinners in Adam by no act on their part, then also are all those in Christ made righteous by no act on their part. Thus when the Bible says we are “chosen” in Christ before the foundation of the world, this is what it is referring to. Like Adam, Christ has become the federal head (not possibly), in actuality with all those whom He has determined beforehand that it should be done for. Those two works, of Adam and of Christ, are done completely outside of ourselves. And in neither case is the decision to be in either one based upon our own free choice. We chose not to be in Adam, we choose not to be in Christ. We only choose Christ because He first chose us to believe on His name, and “no one can come” to Christ unless the Father has “enabled” them to do so (Jhn. 6:65; 5:21; 15:16; Php. 1:29; 2Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8; 2Pet. 1:1).

Recommended reading on the subject of the “all” or “many” in Adam verses the “all” or “many” in Christ: John Stott, Romans; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary on Romans; Charles Hodge, Romans; John Murray’s The Epistle to the Romans and his book Redemption: Accomplished and Applied; John MacArthur, The MacArthur’s NT Commentary, Rom. 1-8; Matthew Henry’s Commentaries; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, A Commentary: Critical, Experimental and Practical

Soteriology:

God saves sinners. Man plays no part in this (see also comments above under "Anthropology" on Rom. 5:12-19). Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It is not contingent upon our own works either before or after we are saved. Even the faith to believe is a gift from God and not a “work” of our own (Eph. 2:8; Php. 1:29; 2Pet. 1:1b). It is all the work of God in order that He alone receives all the glory. He will not allow this glory to go to another. It is not “our own faith” that saves us, it is His faith imparted to us in order to believe. Otherwise, we are just having faith in our own faith, giving us something to boast about.

Left to ourselves, Paul says, we would have all remained “as Sodom, and would have been like Gomorrah” (Rom. 9:29). God further says, “Can the Ethiopian change the color of his skin, or the leopard his spots?” If they can, then God says, “so can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil” (Jer. 13:23). According to this analogy used by God, no one can do good in and of themselves. Such creatures cannot change what they are, except by a supernatural act of God. This is the testimony of God: “As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:10-12). God emphatically says that “no one” does good, and to do so we would have to have the inert ability to seek after God and change who we are, similar to a leopard changing his spots or the Ethiopian the color of his skin, if such a thing could occur. God is graphically telling us that we can’t! It is an impossibility. So why are there Christians insisting and teaching that we can, that it is our own wills that have sought Him out and have chosen to do good and receive Christ as our Savior? Paul said elsewhere that we were dead in our sins and trespasses, and God is now telling us that we are as leopards that cannot change their own spots, and as an Ethiopian that cannot change the color of his skin.

Now it is also sometimes objected that unless man’s will is completely free to choose for himself, then God commands him to do what he cannot do. In numerous places in Scripture, however, men are “commanded” to do things which in their own strength they are absolutely unable to do. The man with the withered hand was “commanded” to stretch it forth, but he couldn’t do it unless God had enabled him to do so. The paralytic was “commanded” to arise and walk, but he likewise could not do it unless God had enabled him to do so. The sick man was “commanded” to arise, take up his bed and walk, but he could not do so unless God had enabled him to do so. Lazarus, who was dead, was “commanded” to come forth, but was unable to do so without the supernatural act of God upon his body and soul. Similarly, when men are “commanded” to believe in Christ they are unable to do so unless God imparts the regenerating power of His Holy Spirit for them to respond in faith. For faith, faith to do anything, is the gift of God.

Jesus told the Jews who had believed in Him, but didn’t really, “Why is My language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear…you belong to your father the devil….He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God” (Jhn. 8:43-44, 47). Earlier He had also said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me….No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him….no one can to Me unless the Father has enabled him” (Jhn. 6:37, 44, 65). And finally in chapter ten He says, “You do not believe because you are not My sheep. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow me…” (10:26-27). No one can respond in faith until God awakens their ears to hear as Isaiah affirms, “He wakens me morning by morning, wakens my ear to listen like one being taught, the Sovereign Lord has opened my ears” (50:4-5). Just the opposite is true of those who do not belong to the Father and are not Christ’s sheep as John writes,

“Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn-and I would heal them” (12:37-40).

This idea of being given the ability to respond to a command is again beautifully illustrated for us in 2Chr. 30:6-12. Hezekiah orders letters to be sent by couriers throughout the land to command the people to “not be stiff-necked”, to “submit to the Lord”, to “come to the sanctuary”, to “serve the Lord”, and to “return to the Lord” (vv. 8-9). So “the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun; but they laughed them to scorn, and mocked them. Only a few men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also upon Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD” (vv. 10-11 ASV). The ones who only submitted themselves were those whom “the hand of God was upon” to do so. All others rebelled, doing only what their own hearts without the help of God could only do, and nothing more.

Nothing could be more true of all this than in the words of St. Augustine when he petitioned God: “Command what you will, but grant what you command”. And such was the case in Acts when it says that the Gentiles obeyed the message of the gospel: “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (11:18; cf. 2Tim. 2:25). For unless God gives us Divine ability “there is no one who does righteousness, there is no one who understands, and there is no one who seeks God. For all have turned away and have all together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. All there throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips…there is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:10-18).

Scriptures have already been given above with regards to saving faith, but consider all these other verses for any operation of faith operating in our lives: Rom. 12:3-8; 1Cor. 12:6-11, 28. No one has any bragging rights with God. Everything is by Him, through Him, to Him, and for His glory. And He will not give His glory to another.

Salvation, the new life in Christ, is also called in Scripture a “resurrection” from the dead. Paul said, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,….But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up in Christ…” (Eph. 2:1, 4-6). Jesus likewise affirmed, “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it….I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live” (Jhn. 5:21; 24-25).

In conclusion, works are the fruit of a true saving faith (1Jhn. 2:29; Ja. 2:14-26). In Mat. 7:16-20, Jesus said “a good tree brings forth good fruit”. A true Christian is one who has made Christ not only his Savior, but also his Lord. He is a true disciple, or “follower” of Christ. There is no such thing as a pseudo believer. Christ said that we are to be able to tell a good tree by the fruit that it bears. No fruit year after year reveals a bad tree, and is no good for anything but to be cursed and thrown into the fire. Jesus illustrated this point when He cursed the fig tree which year three years bore no fruit.

Recommended reading: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen; The Atonement by A. A. Hodge; The Satisfaction of Christ by Arthur Pink; Chosen by God and Faith Alone by R. C. Sproul; Redemption: Accomplished and Applied by John Murray; By His Grace and For His Glory by Thomas Nettles; The Grace of God/The Bondage of the Will (2 vols.) by Schreiner/Ware. (Click here to see my link on An Analysis of “All”, “World”, and “Many” verses).

Pneumatology:

The Holy Spirit effects the work of regeneration upon the hearts of all those who are effectually chosen by God (Tit. 3:5-6). It is only they who in turn respond in faith and cry out as new-born babies, “Abba-Father”. As man has no control over his life and breath in natural birth, so too he has no control over affecting his spiritual new birth. Even the creation of Adam and Eve by God reveals to us in “type” this wonderful act of God alone. John says the new birth is a work of God that is entirely “from above” (Jhn. 3:5, 8; lit., translation), and outside of the control of the recipient who receives God’s saving grace (see more on all of this under Soteriology). The Holy Spirit continues this redemptive work in us right up until the day we go home to be with the Lord (Eph. 1:13-14; Rom. 8:29-30; Php. 1:6; 2:13).

In addition, the Holy Spirit empowers us with gifts and fruits for works of service (Acts 1:8; Rom. 12:4-8; 1Cor. 12-14; Eph. 4:11-15; Gal. 5:22-25). All the gifts and ministries are for today, for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12; 1Cor. 12:28). The phrase “when that which is perfect is come” in 1Cor. 13:10 has nothing to do with having received a completed canon of Scripture. If anyone can truly say that they no longer “know in part” now that the completed canon of Scripture is here, then let them raise their hand.

“Tongues”, though equally a gift, it is not the initial evidence of being filled with the Spirit. Neither is it something that “all” are to necessarily receive as a gift. While there are times when God may give “all” who are present in a given locale the same gift (cp. Num. 11:25), this is not the norm. Why is it when anyone receives something from God, whether healing, prosperity, or whatever, that they want to assert that it is for everyone else? This is how a lot of false doctrines have originated.

Recommended Reading: For a complete understanding of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit at conversion, I would highly recommend reading Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, and chapter 39: Baptism In and Filling With the Holy Spirit. It is just outstanding.

Ecclesiology:

Elders and Deacons:

Elders and deacons are male. Paul told Timothy they are to be “the husbands of one wife” (1Tim. 3:2, 12; cf. Acts 6:3 “choose…men” ). Elders are the governing teaching-shepherds (Acts 20:28; 1Tim. 3:2; 5:17). Deacons, primarily, are to care for the natural needs of the church (Acts 6:1-6).

Ordinances in the Church:

The sacraments of the Church are water baptism and communion. Neither are efficacious in nature, though the Lord is intimately involved and in close participation when these ordinances are observed (see esp. 1Cor. 11:27-30).

Giving in the Church:

Giving in the Church should be both free and spontaneous. The Bible teaches that we are not only to meet the needs of our own household, but also those outside of our homes in the Church. This includes: the poor, the widow, the fatherless, and all the ruling Elders.

Tithing is not a biblical mandate upon the Church. Abraham and Jacob gave freely of their own volition and not by a command. If they were giving by command, then the way in which they tithed would have been “a command” carried over into the law of Moses, as was with the burnt offerings and circumcision. It was not. Under the law, the tithe was solely agrarian, and it was not commanded of those who had other means of income, such as blacksmiths, carpenters, jewelers, etc. No one under the law was commanded to tithe of the spoils of war. In fact, God’s law required that the “spoils of war” were to go strictly to the people except when it was commanded to destroy it all (Deut. 20). None of the spoils ever went to the Lord, except in one particular instance in the plundering of the Midianites, in Num. 31:25-54, where God had commanded that the soldiers give of the sheep, cattle, donkeys, and people, two-tenths of one percent (1 out of 500), and that the children of Israel give two percent (1 out of 50). God commanded none of the other plunder, such as that of gold, silver, etc., to be given unto Him. But we are told of the “commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds” who didn’t lose a soldier in the war, that they gave a free-will offering unto the Lord of the “gold articles each of us acquired—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces—to make atonement for ourselves before the Lord” (vv. 48-54).

Similarly, with Jacob’s tithe, if there was a commandment from the Lord to tithe, then God would not have allowed him to vow what had already belonged to God. Again, the law of Moses in Lev. 27 states that the people could not vow any of those things that were already devoted to the Lord. Along with “the firstborn” which is said to “already belong to the Lord” (v. 26 NIV) and those things already devoted (v. 28), “the Lord’s tithe” was one of them (vv. 30-34).

So where did Abraham get the idea to tithe from? It is a known historical fact that those who fought in wars back then that they gave sometimes 10 percent (sometimes more, sometimes less) to their deities as a thank-offering for preserving them in their battles. This practice is understood to go as far back as the days of Abraham in the Babylonian region of the Ur of the Chaldees. Abraham most likely thought that if they did such things for their heathen kings and gods, how much more so for the true God and the righteous king Melchisedek. This is about all that we can gather from this. As I said, if Abraham was doing something that was “commanded” of God, then we would have surely seen it carried over into the law of Moses, as was the burnt offering and circumcision. The same goes for Jacob.

Furthermore, we never see Abraham tithing from his own possessions, not even in this instance when he gave the spoils of war. As far as we know, this was a one time event. So, is it Scriptural to tithe? The short answer is: Yes. Is it something we are “commanded” to do week in and week out? No. Are we to provide for those teachers God has put over us? Yes (Mat. 10:10-14; 1Cor. 9:1-14; 1Tim. 5:18; Gal. 6;6-10). But Paul himself made no use of such means, even though he said he had that right.

For Pastors and Teachers to quote the law of Moses (such as Mal. 3:8-12) in support of the tithe is unbiblical in the Church. We are no longer under those laws. As goes the one, so go all the others. Or better yet, as go all the others, so goes the one. Such laws and practices are abolished under or New Covenant with Christ. The “tithe”, like the “firstborn” and “firstfruits” are all “shadows” of days gone by. The reality of “Christ the Firstfruits, and they afterwards at His coming” is upon us. The people of God are the Lord’s inheritance, His agrarian tithe (Isa. 6:13; Psm. 28:9; Ezk. 34:31 cp. w/ Lev. 27:32; also Psm. 33:12; 78:71; 106:5; Neh. 11:1), firstborn (Heb. 12:23) and firstfruits (Ja. 1:18). When Christ told His disciples in Mat. 23:3 concerning “the teachers of the law and the Pharisees who sit in Moses seat” that they were to “obey them and do everything they tell you”, this can only mean while they were all still under the law. Surely no one believes that they kept all these laws that these teachers or the Pharisees taught once the new covenant was put into place. And if you do, then you cannot just pick and choose which ones people are to keep because it somehow makes you feel good or benefits you.

1Cor. 16:1-2 is often used as a proof text for tithing, but this is not about tithing. It is about giving though. And it is not even an offering for the ministry. And it is reiterated again by Paul in 2Cor. 8-9. And when one follows this gift of giving they will come to understand that it was a free-will offering for the poor saints in the Church at Jerusalem (1Cor. 16:3; Acts 11:29-30; 24:17; Rom. 15:25-28; Gal. 2:10). The people were asked to set aside a portion week by week in accordance to the proportion in which God had prospered them. This same idea is seen in Deut. 16:10 where the people of the Lord gather to celebrate the Feast of Firstfruits in Jerusalem and are exhorted to give “a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings of the Lord your God has given you.” This in no sense of the terminology being used here meant that they were to count off ten percent, or any percent. It didn’t mean that here, and it doesn’t mean that in 1Cor. 16:1-2. They were asked to bless others in accordance as to how they felt God had blessed them, and they were “free” to give from their hearts. Freely they had received, and so freely they were to give. That is all that we can gather from all of this. We see this principle exemplified in Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-36. The “tithe” is no where in the picture here in Deuteronomy or in Acts, and it is no where to be sought after in 1Cor. 16:1-2. As in this case in Deuteronomy, some of the Corinthians could give more, and some could give less. But all were asked to help. They said they would, and later in 2Cor. 8-9 Paul is exhorting them to do what they had promised to do out of the integrity of their heart. It was also something they were exhorted to do based upon what they “had” and not upon what they didn’t have (2Cor. 8:11-12), and not “under compulsion” (2Cor. 9:7). The Greek word for “compulsion” is avagkns, and means “out of necessity or constraint”. It holds out the same idea as if someone were to tell you that “you must pay your tithes to God! Otherwise, you are cursed with a curse”. This is what “constraining” someone to do something means. It has the idea of one forcing you to do something that you are really under no obligation to do. In the same verse (v. 7a) Paul qualifies the only type of giving that one is under obligation to do, it is “each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give” and then adds, “not reluctantly or under compulsion.” When someone is telling you, “you have to give, or else”, don’t receive them. Such people are not really seeking your benefit, but how that they might be benefited from what you are doing for them. Some may be sincere in what they are telling you, but they are sincerely wrong. Do not feel “compelled” to give. And when we all give from the heart, we all feel better for doing it anyway. Laws compelling people to give just lay heavy yokes upon people that neither they, nor the ones they are telling to give, are really willing to bear. The teachings and practices of the NT Church was “freely you have received, freely give.” In such a spirit of giving there is no telling what can happen. We have seen this spirit of giving come over OT believers many times over to the point that even Moses had to tell the people to stop giving because they were giving so much. Similarly, in the NT, “no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had….There was no needy person among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostle’s feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need” (Acts 4:32-35; cf. 2:45). Praise God for this wonderful grace of giving. May we all with open hands embrace what God has freely given to us, being ready to help in time of need. For what do we have that we did not freely receive?

Also notice in 1Cor. 16 and elsewhere indicated above how the early church helped only the poor “saints” in Jerusalem, not unbelievers. We have no indication in the Scriptures of humanitarian efforts for the poor, widows, and fatherless of the unbelieving world. Even Israel in the OT, a pattern for the Church didn’t go out of their way to help the needy outside of their community of believers. They were instructed to help all who came within their borders, within their community of faith, but never are they instructed to reach out to the ungodly nations around them. Even Jesus feeding thousands on occasions was only with regards to those who were His followers and who came to hear Him teach and preach, even though some in those crowds might very well have not followed Him afterwards. And even then, those acts of kindness were only object lessons to increase the faith of His disciples (Mat. 16:5-12; Mk. 8:14-21), for most likely the crowds did not know what was truly being done. And either before or after these incidents is He never seen to do this again.

James has told us that “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress” (1:27). Now which orphans and widows did James have in mind? Well, Paul lays out for us in 1Tim. 5:3-16 what “widows” are to be taken care of by the Church. And they are sure not unbelievers, but believers. And even amongst these widows Paul qualifies which of these “believing” widows are to come under the care of the Church. In Acts 6:1, James and the rest of the apostles appoint deacons to care for the believing widows of the Grecian converts. So if the “poor” and the “widows” are the believers in the Church, then who are we to suppose are the “orphans” that are to be taken care of? In the context of all that is demonstrated for us, we would say that they would have to be believers. No where in the history of Israel or the early Church do we see the unbelieving poor, widows, or orphans being taken care of. It was just not practiced by either Israel or the Church. Now Gal. 6:19 says, “as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” Again, in the context of the greater testimony of Scripture, this does not mean we are to go out of our way to provide for the needs of unbelievers on some mass humanitarian level. The Scriptures just do not teach such and thing. But when people other than believers come in amongst us (or we run into someone on the street) who want to listen and to learn from us, and they seem to have a need that we can provide for, then I believe we should especially reach out and help them and, of course, even more so our very own brethren. Why we even have Christian churches and organizations today that are sending millions of dollars over to Israel to help Jews return to their homeland and put together all that is necessary to rebuild their temple. Can you believe that? It’s the truth. Now do you really think Jesus and His apostles would give their blessing on such endeavors? If you do, then you too are really deceived to think that it is God’s will to rebuild the “shadows” that Christ has Himself destroyed! That is not God’s will!

Now oftentimes Mat. 25 is quoted for going out of our way to meet the needs of the unbelieving poor of the world and to visit all the ungodly in prison, but this is not what Jesus is talking about in this chapter. Jesus is differentiating between who are His sheep vs. who are goats among us. And the way to tell one from the other is in their reception, or rejection of all who are Christ’s disciples. By receiving us, such people are, according to Jesus’ own words, being receptive of Him.

Matthew 25 gives the disciples exhortations about remaining faithful under all the duress that is about to befall their land, and the persecutions that would come from their own countrymen. But he that endures to the very end under all these hardships will be rewarded, not only in this life, but in the life to come will be given eternal life (these timeless truths being taught here are true for all Christians of all ages). Mat. 25:31-36 is all about “whoever receives you, receives me” (see also Mat. 10:11-15, 40-42; Mk. 6:11; 9:40-41; Gen. 12:3 is this original promise made to Abraham and his posterity, namely, all the elect Jews and Gentiles). In essence, Christ was saying he who doesn’t receive you by not wanting to feed you, clothe you, visit you in prison, or even give you a cup of water in my name, gives evidence to the fact that they are none of His, and will also not be received of God, but will ultimately go away to eternal punishment. These exhortations to faithfulness were specifically addressed to Christ’s disciples, but they also set the stage for how we are to conduct ourselves and to be aware of who the “goats” are—all the ones that do not give us a welcome reception. Instead of water, they give us vinegar; instead of comforting us in prison, they want to throw us in prison; instead of clothing us, they want to take them away and cast lots for them; and instead of feeding us in their homes and showing hospitality, they will have nothing to do with us. We have become the offscouring and scourge of the earth! In response, we are to shake the dust off our feet when we leave that home or town (Mat. 10:14). This ongoing process of Christ presently distinguishing between His sheep from the goats in this life is all a prelude to the final and ultimate separation to be revealed on the final Judgment Day (see a similar idea in Ezk. 8-9 of a separation that was taking place at that time).

Are there times when we might reach out to the unbelieving poor or visit those in prison with the gospel? Of course. But are we to join the world in worldwide humanitarian relief efforts? I just do not see the Bible teaching the Christians to do such things. In fact, in one place Jesus even said, “Let the dead bury the dead”, i.e. let them take care of their own, but you follow Me. We just do not see this principle of Christians feeding “the dead”, or taking care of “dead” widows and orphans, but we do see abundantly in the Scriptures the Church taking care of their own.

Recommended reading: The Role Relationship of Men and Women by George Knight III; Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Piper/Grudem; Man and Woman in Christ by Stephen Clark; Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch; The Emerging Role of Deacons by Charles Deweese; Now That You’re a Deacon by Howard Foshee; Should the Church Teach Tithing? by Russell Earl Kelly.

Eschatology:

There are three views to the millennial reign of Christ: Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism. The first view pretty much interprets everything in Revelation 20 as literally occurring on the earth in future. The second view sees a lot of symbolism in Revelation 20 and therefore does not interpret everything literally as occurring in the future, but sees Christ's rule and reign as occurring right now and continuing until His Second Coming, which will be the Last Day and Judgment of both the living and the dead. The last view, like Amillennialism, sees Christ's rule and reign as occurring now but also sees a millennial golden age of the Church just prior to Christ's Second Coming. As such, things don't get worse but only better.

There are basically four viewpoints when it comes to the book of Revelation: (1) the Historicist, (2) the Idealist, (3) the Futurist, and (3) the Preterist. First of all, the Historicist sees specific events in history being played-out over time. Secondly, the Idealist does not see specific events played-out over time, but sees the symbolisms in Revelation as applying to any place and at any time in history. Thirdly, the Futurist is divided into to two camps: Historic Premillennialists and Dispensational Premillennialists. Except for the millennium, the former sees the symbolisms in Revelation similar to how most Amillennialists see them---in a non-literal manner and about Christ and His Church; the latter dispensationalists see things less figuratively and in more of a literal manner. And this latter group believes that the book of Revelation has more to do with natural Jews in the future, than with the Church. Anything said about the Church is only secondary and inconsequential to God's future plan which is mainly centered around the Jews in rebuilt man-made temples, the return of the Levitical priesthood, literal atoning animal sacrifices, the maintaining of literal circumcision and all that goes along with that system of worship as pretty much laid out in the law of Moses and in the last eight chapters of Ezekiel's vision. Fourthly, the Preterist, is also divided into two camps: The Partial Preterist and the Full Preterist. The former believes that some things are still yet to be fulfilled, such as the resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ; the latter sees all of this as already fullfilled, thus the name "full" preterist. They also believe the millennium is past, having already taken place. Both groups pretty much see the symbolism's in Revelation applying to the Church (or spiritual Israel), apostate Israel (the false prophet and harlot riding on the beast), and the Roman empire (the beast with the ten horns that is also mentioned in Daniel's vision of that empire or nation that was to follow upon the heals of the Grecian empire). Of course, believing in this latter view also presupposes that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Nero and not during the reign of Domitian. And a good book to read for establishing a pre-70 AD date is Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry. Another classic is a commentary written by Foy Wallace on the book of Revelation, called: The Book of Revelation. These books are hard to come by nowadays. But they are well-worth reading if you can get your hands on them. The former can be read though in PDF format here; the latter here.

Like most, I use to be a Dispensational Premillennialist. I am now a Partial Preterist, as well as Amillennial, meaning that I do not believe in a future earthly thousand year reign of Christ. We are now in that rule and reign of Christ which the Lord through Daniel says began "in the days of those kings" (which were in the days of the Romans), when "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed," and "shall break in pieces all those kingdoms and bring them to an end" (Dan. 2:44). This is-the-just of what is finally told us as well in Rev. 19, where Christ as the conquering King of kings overthrows the false prophet (apostate Israel) and the Beast (Rome) in order to establish His kingdom, rule, and reign as described for us in Revelation 20. The only thing future remaining to be fulfilled in Revelation is at the end of chapter 20, verses 7-15. All else has either been fulfilled, or is being fulfilled as we speak. Even the city of New Jerusalem, which describes Christ's bride, the Church (Rev. 21:2, 9-10), is said to be now "coming down" out of heaven, using present-tense and not future tense verbs. What does this mean? It means that our origin, or our birthing, is from above. We are born, literally, "from above" in John. 3:3 and 7, as most margins and a few translations read. And this city of God is now on the earth as a light to all the world. Of course, anyone seeing any of this in a literal manner will not even begin to comprehend any of this in the manner in which it has just been described above.

Christ's Millennial Rule and Reign With His Saints

So, with that being said, Christ now rules and reigns over all the heavens and the earth, taking the throne-ship of David on into the heavens. And He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet, as even Paul said, “Christ has indeed been raised from the dead…so in Christ all will be made alive…Christ the firstfruits, then when He comes [the 2nd time], those who belong to Him. Then the end will come…” (1Cor. 15:20-28). There is no more “comings” after this brethren; no future earthly millennial reign. This is it! At the end of this present rule and reign of Christ “then the end will come.” It will be “the last day,” the “last trump” of God. Revelation 20 is not depicting a future reign on earth. We are in Christ’s Messianic rule and reign right now!

The usage of the term “1,000 years” as spoken by God, everywhere in Scripture, is never ever to be understood literally. The phrase “1,000” is a term always used by God in a non-literal manner. I am not speaking about when Peter uses the term in a literal fashion in 2Pet. 3:8, but when God himself uses the term. No one doubts that “a thousand years are like a day” with the Lord, but is that how God is using the term here in Revelation? The “key,” the “Abyss (or bottomless pit),” the “great chain,” the “lock,” “seal,” and even the “dragon” are all figurative descriptions, not to be taken literally, so why not the term “1,000 years”? Where else in Scripture is it ever held out to us that Christ will rule on earth someday in a literal, political fashion or manner? Even Christ himself bucked against any ideals of such a type of kingdom rule; and even told Pilate that His kingdom was “of another world” (Jhn. 18:36). Christ didn’t teach such idealisms. So why would we want to believe that He would teach something any different now? Why is it that many in the Church are believing such things? Why do we continue to disbelieve Christ in the face of all that He has told us about the nature of His kingdom, rule, and reign? I’ll tell you why. It is because people today are still understanding the things of Christ’s kingdom in a literal, natural, carnal, earthly way, just as the Jews, the Mormons and the Jehovah‘s witnesses do today; and they are not “hearing what the Spirit is saying” to the churches. Having “ears,” people still do not “hear”; and having “eyes” they still do not “see.” Jesus even said of His own disciples, “Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?" (Mk. 8:17). And Mk. 6:52 says that “they had not understood about the loaves” because “their hearts were hardened.” When Christ told Nicodemus that one cannot even begin to “see” the kingdom of God until they are born-again, what did He have in mind in all of that? It was to “see” a kingdom that was beyond anything “earthly,” but was entirely “heavenly” and "spiritual" in nature. Many Christians today are still not a kingdom people of “another world,” but are still a people that long for a kingdom that is “of this world.” Many are all still “carnal” in their understanding about Christ and His kingdom and still just do not get it or SEE it! As back then, many today are still misreading what Christ has been telling us all along in Scriptures. We need to put on Jesus’ eyeglasses, or we will never really “see” Him for all that He really is. His kingdom is not about here on earth, it’s about there in heaven and in our hearts.

Let’s listen for one minute (just one minute) on how God always uses the term “1,000” in the Scriptures that He wrote. Are they “God-breathed,” or not? Listen to what God himself has to say on this matter: In Deut. 5:10, God says, “…but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.” If this was to be understood literally, and if a generation is 40 years, then God would be showing His love in the future on earth to 40,000 generations! In Psm. 50:10, God himself says, “For every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.” So I guess if we are going to understand this literally, then we would have to say that God is saying He only owns the cattle on 1,000 hills, and no more! In Deut. 1:11, Moses says, “May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!” We too often say, "I told you a thousand times not to do that!" But does anyone really believer we literally did that? We no more tell someone "a thousand times" to do something, than the Lord will bless us a thousand times, and no more and no less! All we can gather from the Lord's statement is that we will be blessed a lot! Surely if we can expect people to talk like this to us, then why not God?

Christ said His kingdom would not come with “observation,” and that it was not of this world, but “of another world” (Jhn. 18:36). Therefore the only viable view to hold for His rule and His reign is the Amillennial or Postmillennial view. An earthly kingdom is not in the forefront of Christ’s mind. It never was, nor ever will be. Any understanding otherwise is a misunderstanding of Christ's purpose and His mission. Scriptures do not teach first the natural, then the spiritual, then back to the natural again. David’s natural, earthly, kingdom rule and reign was a “type” of Christ’s heavenly spiritual rule and reign. And Christ's kingdom, rule and reign is more real than just the physical world---and it's eternal at that! It is an eternal kingdom that takes us beyond anything that is literal or worldly. His throne is not only over all the physical world right now, but includes a rule and reign that is over the spiritual world as well, far above all principalities, mights and dominions. Let’s not limit Christ's rule just to the earth. His rule goes beyond all that which is earthly. He is to remain seated on His throne in the heavens, not just over the earth, but over the heavens and the earth. Would we want it to be any less? And, besides, the bible says the earth is His "footstool," not His throne (cp. Isa. 66:1; Mat. 5:35). The earth will never be God's/Christ's throne.

It is made clear by the preaching of Peter in Acts 2:25-36 that upon God raising up Jesus that He vested Him with all governmental authority to occupy (as promised to David) the throne above and not below; for David “did not ascend,” says Peter, and then mentions how that David had said, “the Lord said unto my Lord [or to Jesus], sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet” (vv. 34-35). This agrees with Paul’s statements in 1Cor. 15:20-28 that Christ was “raised” and that “He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet,” and that this would be the time when indeed “the end will come.” Concerning this throne of David, Peter adds that David was a prophet and "knew that God had promised him an oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ" (vv. 30, 31), and that, "God raised this Jesus...exalted to the right hand of God" (vv. 32, 33). This throne promised to Christ, he is now said to be seated upon holding "the key of David" in Rev. 3:7 (something that was even said of one of David's descendants in the past, Eliakim, who was only a palace administrator in Isa. 22:22). And to all of us who overcome in this life Christ has also said He will give "the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with the Father on His throne" (Rev. 3:21). Could it be any more clearer for us than this? Christ is NOW seated on His throne. Christ took David's rule and reign to a whole new level, far above all principalities and powers; and far beyond just the natural borders of Palestine. The entire world is His oyster, not just the regions of Palestine. And His knowledge is now covering the earth as the waters cover the sea. Not later in some earthly millennial reign, but now. If His rule and reign was to only be on the earth, then it could not be said to be "above" all principalities and powers. His rule would be sub-par or below theirs. But on the contrary, Christ's kingdom is a rule and reign that extends all the way into the heavens, not just over the earth. And this was true even before the cross (cf. Psm. 29:10; 47:2, 3, 7-9; 103:19; Dan. 4:17, 25, 32, 34b-35). But Christ had to come down to the earth and defeat Satan in his domain, in order to release everyone who is subject to death and decay. Christ had to die "as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant" (Heb. 9:15).

When Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” it was understood that His kingdom was to be a kingdom of heaven. Christ in parable form spoke of Himself coming to earth to be made a king with a kingdom, and that upon establishing and receiving it, return to be coronated on His throne in heaven with the Father (Lke. 19:12-15). There will be no coronation in a future earthly kingdom. Christ is now coronated as King.

Jesus said it this way, “The time is coming when you will long to see [physically] one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not [physically] see it” (Lke. 17:22). This agrees with verse 11 of the parable cited above which reads, “the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear [physically] at once.” Even today, as then, many are still expecting a physical rule and reign here on earth. But Christ has already told us that it is “not to come with observation,” and even reiterated this with Pilate when He said it was of “another world.” I mean, really, how often must someone say to us that their kingdom is of "another world," and not "of this world," before we finally get it! Are we going to believe Jesus’ own words on the matter? Or, are we going to continue to imagine a kingdom of our own making, of our own “thoughts” as those described above, of what Christ's kingdom is to really be like? He has told us! And yet for all this many still don't "understand" or "see."

When Jesus was talking about people longing to “see” one of the days of the Son of Man and yet not really being able to "see" it, He was not referring to His Second Coming; for everyone will see that one particular Day of the Son of Man. The “days of the Son of Man” are His present Messianic rule and reign from heaven, from His first advent to His second advent. And because His kingdom is of “another world,” they would never physically see it as they had expected to see it. Jesus said what He meant, and meant what He said. When are we going to stop “adding to His words” things that He has not said to us? This kingdom of His is now the “everlasting” kingdom that was promised to David, unlike any physical kingdoms of this world that can be shaken or moved; for all such kingdoms that can be physically "shaken" or "moved" cannot be “everlasting.” It is not merely a literal, earthly millennial duration for Jewish, as well as Christian, aggrandizements (which are exaggerations or embellishments to make something appear or sound greater than what it really is). One author puts it well: “Truly it may often appear that the Church has lost her vision and resorts to warfare with carnal weapons.” This could not be more true of so many in the Church today who envision a kingdom some day that is "of this world."

But for others, they have set their affections and sights on much loftier ideals. They have set their minds on things above (Col. 3:1-4), and not below. And for all those of us who say and believe in such things, they “make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them” (Heb. 11:14-16 NAS). According to John, we are that city whose architect and builder is God. It comes “down from above” and is “born from above.” And one of the seven angels says to John, “‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel…” (Rev. 21:9-11). Earlier John had said, “I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am making everything new!' Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true’” (21:2-5). Truly, only the Jerusalem that is “from above” is “free” (Gal. 4:26-31), while the one here below is “in bondage with her children” (Gal. 4:25) and will always remain so.

All premillennialists (dispensational or otherwise) believe that the first resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ (coming for and with the saints, whether pre, mid, or post-trib) will be before the millennial reign of Christ. Now during this so-called "earthly" millennium, it is said by those above that the Jewish and Gentile overcomers will rule and reign over unbelievers (the unregenerate children of these “overcomers”). However, when Satan is released, many of these unbelievers who never believe in the Lord will overpower all this ruling class of glorified and non-glorified saints and surround the natural capital city of the world, Jerusalem (though some believe the glorified saints will be in heaven in a city suspended over natural Israel and Jerusalem). And if not for God’s intervention, the world would be overtaken by the Devil and his followers (Gog and Magog) at the end of this thousand year reign—and all after Christ’s Second Coming which has already occurred! Now if during this earthly millennium glorified saints are ruling over the nations, as most (but not all) premillennialists believe, then these passages at best teach us that God’s glorified saints are failures at ruling and reigning. And if the mind is allowed to imagine how spiritual, incorruptible saints in glorified bodies can be overthrown and rendered helpless by unregenerate men, then the picture only gets worse. And to even imagine how Christ could be ruling and reigning on the earth in His glorified body with others in their non-glorified bodies, and then be overrun by these natural earthly men, is incomprehensible. As said before, it is an absolute "aggrandizement" or "embellishment" concerning Christ and His kingdom.

Amillennialists, on the other hand, teach that 1Ths. 4:13-5:3 teaches a last and final day of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. In 1Ths. 4:16-17, Paul describes the resurrection of the believers, both dead and alive. Then in 1Ths. 5:1-3, Paul records the fate of the unbeliever at this time, which is sudden destruction. As one can very well see, these events take place at the same time that the events surrounding the saints are to occur in 1Ths. 4:15. Here the believers are raised at “the coming of the Lord,” while in 1Ths. 5:2 the unbelievers are destroyed at the Day of the Lord; not three and a half years later, not seven years later, nor a thousand years later---but at “the Day of the Lord,” “the Last Day,” “the Judgment Day,” “the Second Coming,” “the Last Trump.” In 2Thes. 1:6-10, Paul again reassures the Thessalonians that when “the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His powerful angels…He will punish those who do not know God…with everlasting destruction…ON THE DAY He comes to be glorified in His holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.” Like the examples of Noah and Lot, the Lord comes to take believers out and away from the impending day of simultaneous judgment that comes upon all those who are unbelievers. These "unbelievers" are the ones in the last days, just prior to Christ’s last and Second Coming at the end of this current millennial reign, who are said to “march across the breadth of the earth and surround the camp of God’s people (wherever they might be in the world), the City He (God) loves” (Rev. 20:9). But God intervenes on our behalf. Before the world and its ways can stamp out the Church, God comes to our rescue after having let the world fill up their sins to the fullest, in order that He may Judge them to the fullest. Any other ideas about all of this conjured up by natural thinking and reasoning men of the glorified Christ ruling and reigning on earth with His saints (whether in glorified bodies or not), is a crass absurdity and an education into the carnal and unredeemed mind.

Now in getting back to this present rule and reign of Christ, the Scriptural teaching with regards to this current millennial reign of His is both clear and plain. All during the church age as saints die physically, they are “taken up” to the throne to rest and reign with Christ as priests and kings until the final and last “Judgment Day.” This going home to be with the Lord is what is known as “the first resurrection.” The second resurrection is the final judgment day and physical resurrection of all the just and the unjust. At Christ's Second Coming, those who reject Christ will suffer His wrath and physically die; and they, along with the rest of the ungodly dead who have already died will stand before Christ in the end in both body and soul to be judged. On the other hand, every saint at the Second Coming who is still alive is caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and they, along with the souls currently reigning in heaven receive their glorified bodies and rewards. This is the biblical doctrine of the resurrection and the last days. It is simply in the words of Christ’s angels, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). One first Coming, and one second Coming (cp. Heb. 9:28). That's it! Anything else is simply “not of faith”; it is presumption.

Now I will briefly touch on a couple of texts in Revelation 20 that have confused not a few Christians in making them think that the millennium is an earthly rule and reign, as opposed to a heavenly rule and reign. And everything else in this chapter becomes self-adjusting, once these other truths are fully understood, in addition to what has already been previously stated.

The first verse in question is regards to a section in verse 4, which reads, “And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand…” (NASB).

The question here is: Are these “souls” disembodied souls who are now in heaven, or are they souls with their physical bodies living and reigning here on the earth in the future? The Greek word for “souls” here (psueke) occurs about 105 times in the New Testament, but there are only about five occurrences in which it can possibly have a reference to the physical body, and even in some of these instances it is questionable. Regardless, the fact of the matter remains that everywhere this Greek word is found in the book of Revelation, it is always referring to the disembodied souls of believers in heaven. And a striking parallel to this verse here in question in Rev. 20:4, is that which is also found in Rev. 6:9, which reads: “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.” If we conclude that these passages read: “I saw the people of those who had been beheaded” in Rev. 20:4 and “the people of those who had been slain” in Rev. 6:9 as physical bodies here on earth, then such a reading into these texts would hardly do justice to their construction. Why the emphasis on their physical bodies being "slain" or "beheaded," if not to point out that they had all physically died for the cause of Christ and had gone on home to be with the Lord? Rev. 6:9 is really the death-knell to any thinking otherwise. There is no altar here on earth, nor will there ever be one in the future. Clearly, this is figuratively talking about an altar in heaven, for which the earthly one was only a copy or type. If this were an earthly altar, then how can it be said that all the souls of those who had been slain are seen underneath it? That would be a physical impossibility! No, these are all disembodied souls, as the entire testimony of Revelation substantiates. The second group of departed souls to be with the Lord in verse 4 are said to be, “and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand." All who die in the Lord immediately go home to be with Lord. They are all the “souls” who live and reign with Christ right now in heaven.

And what about these “thrones” mentioned in the earlier part of the verse? Are these “thrones” in heaven, or on earth? The immediate text doesn’t say, but understanding these “souls” as being disembodied souls begins to tell the story. And we do know that Christ is right now seated on His throne in heaven at the right hand of the Father; and we also know that the Bible says that all those who died in Christ spiritually to their old man in Rom. 6:6, are now also indeed spiritually raised and seated together with Him as a new man in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). Even in Rev. 2:26-27, Christ says that all those who overcome in this life and go to heaven will be given “authority over the nations,” not sometime later, but immediately upon dying, and that they “will rule them with an iron scepter” and “dash them to pieces like pottery just as I have received authority from My Father.” In the phrase “as I have received,” the word “received” is the Greek word “eilehpha” which is a perfect active indicative, which denotes an action that was completed in the past but also has continuing results in the present. Hallelujah! If this isn’t denoting a present rule and reign going on right now with Christ and His saints, then I don’t know what does! Furthermore, Christ also said in Rev. 3:21, “to him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with Me ON MY THRONE, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Christ sat down upon His throne immediately upon His death, and He likewise says that we will sit enthroned with Him immediately upon our deaths; and so the clause in Rev. 20:4 where it says that the ruling and reigning souls in heaven sit in judgment seems to be in agreement with all of this. This isn’t in the future, but now, final and immediate (as these Greek aorist tense verbs of "I saw," "were seated," and "given judgment" denote), and all before the time when death and the Devil will be swallowed up in victory in 1Cor. 15:24-26 and Rev. 20:10. Even in verse one where John says in some translations, "I saw an angel coming down," the words "coming down" make it sound like it is something that is still yet to take place in the future. But it too is not a future tense verb in the Greek, but a present active participle. So John is essentially saying that this was all actually occurring as he was seeing this vision unfold before his eyes. In some way, manner, or form it was being fleshed-out right before John's eyes.

When Christ said in Mat. 28:18, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto Me,” He meant what He said, and said what He meant: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…” The Devil has been bound with the great chain of Christ’s work on the cross so that the nations are no longer held under the power and sway of Satan, as in times past, “when God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). The strong man has been bound, and the Church is now taking all the spoils of her warfare, which are many people from Satan’s house, the children of God that are all scattered abroad (Jhn. 11:52). At the end of this reign and the gathering together of all God's elect, Christ cuts the chain to free the serpent once again to roam all the gardens of this world, with “God sending them a strong delusion so that they should believe a lie” (2Ths. 2:11) in order to fill up the their iniquities and to pour upon them the cup of the wine of God’s wrath. “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (v. 10).

According to the entire book of Revelation, the throne of Christ and of His saints is in heaven: Rev. 1:4; 3:21; 4:2-6, 9-10; 5:6, 7, 11, 13, ; 6:16; 7:9-11, 15, 17; 8:3; 12:5; 14:3, 5; 16:17; 19:4-5; 20:4, 11; 21:5; 22:1, 3 (see esp. Rev. 3:21 and Mat. 19:28). How much more Scriptural proof does one need to believe this? This testimony is not based upon an eisegesis of just one particular passage of Scripture or an isolated word, but is based upon an exegesis from the entire book of Revelation and all the epistles.

Another text that comes into question among many brethren is:

“They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:4-5).

The controversy with these two verses is all around the words “life” and “until” in the phrases “they came to life” and “the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” It is commonly believed by many that whatever is to be understood of the “life” of the first group is to be understood of the “life” of the second group. So the question is: Does what happens to the first group similarly to happen to the second group? The Greek word for “life” in both cases is “ezehsan,” which is the stem of the Greek verb “zao” (“life”); while the Greek word for “until” is “achri” (heos in the Stephens Greek Text in which the KJV was translated from).

Now some have attempted to make the case that the Greek “ezehsan” doesn’t denote a disembodied resurrection, but only a physical one, since the “souls” mentioned above are understood by them to be souls with bodies. But as we have seen, that is not the case. And why wouldn’t the departing of our disembodied spirits to go home to be with the Lord not also be understood as a resurrection of sorts? The opposite would be a descension into the lower parts of the earth, not a resurrection. So what would an ascension be, if not a raising or resurrection on into heaven? Even Jesus had said, “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it…I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself” (Jhn. 5:21, 24-26). So even this new life in Christ seems to be understood as a resurrection of sorts. How else could it be said in Ephesians that we are “raised” and “seated together with Him in heavenly places” (2:5-6), if these words don’t imply that the new birth is a raising or resurrection from the dead of sorts? Clearly it is!

To be sure, Anthony Hoekema mentions a place in the Scriptures where a form of this Greek word “zao” is used by Jesus Himself to denote that this “came to life,” here in Revelation, indeed can be understood as a state of being of disembodied souls apart from a physical resurrection. It is in Luke chapter twenty. Hoekema writes:

To the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the body, Jesus quoted the words which God spoke to Moses at the burning bush, “I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob” (v. 37, quoting Ex. 3:6). Jesus then added these words, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive” (v. 38, NIV). Jesus thus proved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body from the Pentateuch, which the Sadducees accepted as authoritative. For our purpose, however, it is significant that, according to Josephus, the Sadducees denied not only the resurrection of the body but also the continued existence of the soul after death: “But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies…” [Ant., XVIII, 1, 4. See also Wars, II, 8, 14]. Note now that in his reply Jesus corrected not only the Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection, but also their denial of the existence of the soul after death. Jesus’ words, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” imply that in some sense the Patriarchs are living even now, after their death but before the [physical] resurrection. This point is made explicit by the last clause of verse 38, “for to Him all are alive” (pantes gar auto zosin). The tense of the phrase “are alive” (zosin, a form of zao) is not future (which might suggest that these dead will live only at the time of their [physical] resurrection), but present, telling us that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in some sense living now. Though to us they seem dead, to God they are “alive”….[So] here we do have an instance outside of the book of Revelation of the Greek word zao to describe the living on of the soul after the death of the body and before the [physical] resurrection (The Bible and the Future, pp. 233-234; words in brackets mine for clarity).

As I have said all along, I’ll repeat it again here: Let God (or Christ) have the last words on all of this, “for to Him all are alive” immediately after dying here on earth. So here is a clear example where the same Greek word for "life" is not a physical resurrection.

Now the word “until” in Rev. 20:5 has been debated on two fronts. For premillennialists it denotes that “the rest of the dead” (the unbelieving dead) are “physically” resurrected at the end of the millennium. For if the word “life” earlier of those who “came to life” supposedly refers to a physical resurrection, then it must also mean this here for the rest of the dead; whatever is true of the former, is true of the latter. And if these are to be understood as two separate “physical” resurrections separated by a thousand years, then the first one must be when the Lord comes for His saints (at the first interval of Christ’s Second Coming separated by 7 years), and the second one must be a future resurrection of the ungodly before a so-called “separate” White Throne Judgment Seat of Christ (not the Second Coming which already occurred) at the end of a literal one-thousand year reign. But do you see what has occurred now? This has created two future physical resurrections separated by a thousand years, when the Bible actually teaches only one simultaneous physical resurrection of the just and the unjust “on the Last Day.”

On this point William Cox writes,

If there were more than one physical resurrection, then many of our Scripture passages would not make sense in their present form. It would have been necessary for Paul to have said, "I believe in resurrections [plural] one for the just, and one for the unjust." Martha would have found it necessary to have specified which resurrection she had in mind when stating that her brother would rise in the last day…It would have sufficed to say of the Sadducees ‘They say there is no resurrection’ [sing.] (Mat. 22:23). If there were to be more than one bodily resurrection, then it would be said of the Sadducees, "they say there are no resurrections [plural]." (Biblical Studies in Final Things, p. 176).

Contrary to Premillennialists, Amillennialist’s like Cox above have proposed that the word “until” in Rev. 20:5 does not denote a time at the end of the thousand years for “the rest of the dead” to actually come to life at all, but just means that they will remain in this dead state right up until the Great White Throne Judgment Day (also known to Amillennialist's as Christ’s Second Coming) at the end of Christ’s current millennial reign. This is also the position of Anthony Hoekema, who again states:

The use of the word until does not imply that these unbelieving dead will live and reign with Christ after this period has ended. If this were the case, we would have expected a clear statement to this effect. Note that we find the expression “until the thousand years were ended” also in verse 3 of this chapter. There [in v. 3], however, the expression is followed by a clear statement indicating that something different will happen after the end of the thousand years: “After this he [the devil, whose binding has just been described] must be loosed for a little while.” In verse 5, however, the words “until the thousand years were ended” are not followed by another statement indicating that these dead will live or come to life after the thousand years are over (The Bible and the Future, p. 236).

One cannot pigeon-hole the meaning of “until” in verse 5 to mean the same thing that it means in verse 3. Verse 3 deals with Satan and what will happens up until he is eventually released from his prison, and then states what he will do thereafter. Verse 5 speaks of the ungodly dead not living throughout the millennium and does not tell us of what happens thereafter, other than to say that the believing dead disembodied souls who reign as priests with Christ are a part of the first resurrection upon whom the second death has no power over. Later, in verse 13ff, the remaining “dead” are clearly thrown into the Lake of Fire which is the Second Death. These “rest of the dead” experience no resurrection to life whatsoever, either spiritually or physically. They remain dead souls (or "do not come to life") right up until the end of the millennium, with their bodies thereafter following suit of remaining dead for all eternity. For the ungodly nothing changes. They don't go from death to life. They remain dead. The word “again” in the KJV is an unfortunate translation; it is not in the Greek. It is not that the “rest of the dead” are actually said to live “again,” but that they don’t live at all either before of after the millennium. This resurrection “life” that both God and Christ speak about is reserved only for believers. The dead never experience a resurrection to "life."

When one studies the usage of the word “until” in the New Testament (translated from the Greek “heos” or “achri”), they will come to find out that its meaning is determined solely by each individual context in which each usage of this word is found. It can denote something going on until a termination with nothing occurring thereafter or, it can denote something happening that may continue thereafter. The context determines for us that something can either be different or change after the word “until,” or that something does not become different or change afterward at all.

For example, in Php. 1:5, Paul talks of the Philippians partnership in the gospel “from the first day until (achri) now.” Did this mean that it would not continue afterward? Of course not. Yet in verse 6, Paul talks about God carrying on the good work began in us to completion “until (achri) the Day of Christ.” Here, this seems to plainly denote a completion that wasn’t to continue after the Day of Christ. Its terminus a quo is on the Day of Christ. So here, like in Rev. 20:4-5, we see in this immediate context where the word "until" is used in two different ways.

Similarly, in Mat. 27:8, the potter’s field “is called the Field of Blood until (heos) this day.” Does this mean it wasn’t called this after that day when Matthew wrote this gospel? Not at all. But in contradistinction to this inferred continuance in verse 8, in verse 64 we are told that guards were posted at Christ’s tomb “until (heos) the third day.” Clearly, no guards were posted after the third day. Again, the word "until" is used in two different ways in this same chapter.

Some more examples of things continuing as they were after the fact, in both the Old Testament and New Testament, are first noted in Job 27:5 where Job says: “until I die I will not remove my integrity from me.” Did this mean that after he died that this would change? Of course not! In Jhn. 5:17, where Jesus says, “My Father works until (heos) now.” Does He not work afterward? Of course He does! Things remained the same afterward, as before. In Rom. 8:22, Paul said he travailed “until (achri) now.” Did he not travel later? Yes, even later! In Acts 2:29, David’s sepulcher is said, “to be with us until (achri) this day.” Was it not with them after that day? Most assuredly, it was. In Acts 22:4, Paul said “I persecuted this way until (achri) death.” Not after their deaths? Yes, even after their deaths Paul (as Saul) persecuted that way. In Acts 28:23, Paul said he taught “from morning until (heos) evening.” Did this mean not the next day or never again? Not at all. He taught day after day, from sunup to sundown. In 1Tim. 4:13, Paul told Timothy, “until (heos) I come, given attendance to public reading of the Scriptures…” Was he to not give attendance to public reading after Paul came? In Rev. 2:10, Christ says to “be faithful unto (or until; achri) death.” Only until death? No, afterwards also. We are always to remain faithful.

Conversely, some other verses that depict things immediately terminating once they were accomplished can also be found in both the Old and New Testaments. First Samuel 15:35 says that “Samuel came to see Saul no more until his death.” Does this mean Samuel resumed his visits with Saul after his death? How absurd is that? It even states that there was a time when Samuel didn’t visit Saul prior to his death. And, clearly, nothing was to change for Saul upon dying. Matthew 11:13 says, “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until (heos) John.” Did any more persons from that era prophesy afterward? The Law and the Prophets concluded their prophecies at that time. No further prophecies were given through those mediums of that era. Luke 17:27 says, “People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up until (achri) the day Noah entered the ark.” Were they eating, drinking and marrying afterward? In fact, when Noah entered the ark this terminated those people altogether. Everything as they knew it had ended for them. Romans 5:13 says, “for until (achri) the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law” (ASV). Here is an example where sin did not actually terminate, but actually continued to exist after the Law. In other words, nothing changed. Sin remained sin. 1Cor. 16:8 says, “But I will stay on at Ephesus until (heos) Pentecost.” Did Paul stay after Pentecost? Gal. 3:17, 19 says, “…the law was introduced 430 years later…What then was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until (achris) the Seed…had come.” Is this word “until” here to infer that the Mosaic law was to continue after, or once the Seed came? Not at all, it was terminated at the cross.

Such are just some of the examples in Scripture where one is not to suppose that something different was to occur after an incident came to pass. And as one can readily see from all of the passages cited above, there are verses that denote a continuance of something afterward, and verses that denote no continuance of something afterward at all. Each usage of “until” stands alone in its own immediate context or verse in which it is mentioned. The “rest of the dead” remain spiritually dead in their graves (or "do not come to life" like we do) right up until the end of this current millennial reign and the final Judgment Seat of Christ. And it is at this time that anyone not found written in the book of life will be judged and experience the second death.

Rev. 20:5 says that “the rest of the dead did not come to life until (achri/heos [1]) the thousand years were ended.” After seeing all of the above examples, does this mean that they actually did come to life after the thousand years were ended? As said before, nothing changed for them other than the fact that they receive their bodies only to experience a second death. They never experience the zoe resurrection “life” of God at all.

Now with regards to there being no interval of time between the resurrection of the just and unjust in Dan. 12:2, Jhn. 5:29, and Acts 24:15, Daniel, Jesus and Paul speak of a singular simultaneous resurrection of both the unjust and the just; and both Jesus and Mary understood that this would all occur on “the last day,” while Paul likewise called it “the last trumpet” (Jhn. 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24; 1Cor. 15:52). Clearly this is not just to be a resurrection of "the just" on the last day, as some claim. For Jesus has said in Jhn. 12:48, “There is a judge for the one who rejects Me and does not accept My words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” Dan. 12:2 states, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” We have no authority to place an interval of one-thousand years between these two resurrections. Jhn. 5:29 also affirms, “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.” And Acts 24:15 likewise states, “there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Again, separated by a thousand year interval of time? Not at all; both are to occur on or at "the last day."

The fact that the first group mentioned earlier (premillennialists) is suggesting two separate and distinct physical resurrections to life separated by a long period of time, is completely untenable. The Bible just does not teach such a doctrine. In such a debate, the latter argument above of the Amillennialist's concerning the word “until” is clearly the only tenable position.

The First Resurrection: Now or later?

The fact that the Greek anastasis for “resurrection” is only used here in this one place in Revelation 20:5-6, for a spiritual and not a physical resurrection, is no reason to discount it as a resurrection of our souls upon leaving our bodies here on earth after death. The term “resurrection,” by its very definition, means: “a rising again.” And with regards to the believer, it is being raised to life after having been dead; while in Jhn. 5:29 unbelievers are raised only to be condemned. With that being said, Paul says we are spiritually “made alive” and raised together with Christ after being “dead” in sins and trespasses in Eph. 2:2-5; and we are physically made alive and raised to be with Christ after being dead physically. Both of these experiences by the very nature of the case are: resurrections! So, for our souls to be raised to life and seated together with Christ after physically dying is most assuredly a spiritual “resurrection” and not a physical one. It began when we received Christ, and it continues once we physically die; only to be repeated again for our bodies after they too become physically dead.

The reason why the spiritual resurrection is called “the first” resurrection is because it naturally precedes, in the order of things, the physical one (or, the second one) that is yet to come. We are raised spiritually first, physically second. If dying and going home to be with the Lord isn’t a resurrection, then what is it? Is it too not life from the dead? To argue otherwise is to avoid the obvious for an a priori theological bias that is not from above.

Additionally, it is also to be noted that it is the “first” resurrection of its kind because there never was one like this prior to the cross of Christ—there is a “first” time for everything in the bible. And by the way, a specific 1,000 year rule and reign of Christ is mentioned for the first time in Revelation 20, so should we discount that also as something not to be believed in just because this is the first time that it is mentioned? How absurd is that! And, ironically, it too is understood to mean something other than what Christ has affirmed to us of what His kingdom, rule, and reign is really all about---that it is "not of this world."

So the real question now is: Can the resurrection of the disembodied souls in heaven be considered as “the first resurrection” with the final bodily second resurrection being the one to follow that Jesus and Mary spoke of as occurring on “the last day”? Again, the answer is quite obvious and should really need no further debate.

In the premillennial understanding of “the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were finished”—that these so-called “dead” unbelievers actually come to life as believers come to life—one would naturally have to believe that the two resurrections spoken about here in Rev. 20:4-6 are physical resurrections, separated by 1,000 years. But as said before, this is contrary to what the Bible clearly says to us. The Scriptures do not teach multiple end-time physical resurrections! There was only one 1st Coming of Christ and there is to be only one 2nd Coming of Christ which is the end, just as Paul has taught us: “Christ the firstfruits; then when He comes, those who belong to Him. Then the end will come…” (1Cor. 15:23-24; literally this Greek adverb eita for “then” reads: “then is the end,” i.e. at His coming).[2] This adverb answers the question: When? It is “then,” at Christ's second coming, at “the last trumpet,” (v. 52), and not sometime afterward 1,000 years later as premillennialists erroneously contend. This is the end-time harvest that Christ spoke to us about called: “the end of the age” (Mat. 13:39, 49-51). Just as with Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood in Noah’s day, there will be no more second chances for people in the future which is so widely taught today in many churches. That is false teaching along with a false hope. Today is the day of salvation. When this now wide-open door of Christ's ark is shut, that is it! Then comes the judgment—then is the end!

So back to the question: Did Jesus himself teach about two distinct types of resurrections, one spiritual, and one physical? Is there anywhere in Scripture that clearly articulates that such “life” can be understood spiritually as a “first resurrection” followed by a second physical one? Yes, there is. The example given above by Hoekema on Lke. 20:37-38 at least proves that the Greek verb zao is used elsewhere of a spiritual afterlife of all disembodied spirits such as those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But what about understanding that as a “first resurrection”? Maybe not then, but surely it must be understood to be so now, for to be absent from the body is to now be immediately present with the Lord. At death our spirits are “raised” to be with Him until we receive our "raised" bodies at His Second Coming, which naturally is a “second” resurrection. Below are just a few more examples that show us how these Greek words for “life” are spoken in contexts that truly speak of a spirit resurrection prior to a physical one.

First of all, we have seen above where Jesus said,

Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it…I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

So the new birth is clearly a resurrection from our spiritually dead and sinful state, even as Paul affirms in Eph. 2:1-6, where he says we are “dead,” “made alive,” “raised up with Christ,” and “seated with Him in heavenly places.” That this would include our spirits being raised to be with Christ when we physically die, and as that which is to be understood as part and parcel with “the first resurrection,” must of necessity be the case. If not, then what kind of resurrection would we call it? Scripture already rules it out as being a physical one. And it is Paul who even said of the conversion of Jews to Christ that such a belief in Him is “life [Gk. zoe] from the dead” (Rom. 11:15); and this also agrees with Jesus’ words above that such a one has “crossed over from death to life (Gk. zoe).” And it is John who likewise affirmed, obviously upon hearing the words Jesus : “We know that we have passed from death to life (Gk. zoe), because we love our brothers” (1Jhn. 3:14); not physically, but clearly spiritually we have passed from death to life!

Additionally, the Greek word for us having been “made alive” in Eph. 2:5 after first being “dead” in verse one, is the same Greek word used in 1Pet. 3:18 of Christ being “made alive” in His spirit after succumbing to the pangs of spiritual death that had pressed upon His soul due to our sins, not His. This is why Paul could say in Rom. 6:6 that Christ crucified, or put to death, our old man (aka, the sinful nature). How could Christ have killed our old man or sinful nature if He did not somehow and in some way become like us, so that we could in essence become like Him? And this is exactly what the Scriptures say: “For our sake He made Him to be sin [or as a sinner] who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2Cor. 5:21, ESV; words in brackets mine). And again, “God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit” (Rom. 8:3, DBT). As such, Christ (or God) “was manifest in flesh and justified in spirit” (1Tim. 3:16; lit. trans.). And, “if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness” (Rom. 8:10, ERV). A lot more could be said on all of this, but suffice it to say, the idea that Christ was “made alive” in His spirit correlates with the idea of us also being “made alive” in our spirits as well. We were dead, and then spiritually “made alive,” because Christ too, after having become dead in His human spirit, was “made alive” spiritually in His human spirit. Just as “our old man was crucified” in the likeness of His death, so too are we “made alive” in the likeness of His life. He absolutely and unequivocally became like us in every respect, so that we might become like Him in every respect. As Calvin succinctly states: “certainly had not His soul shared in the punishment, He would have been a Redeemer of bodies only.”[3] And Francis Turretin similarly adds: “The necessity of our salvation required this. For as we had sinned in soul and body, so Christ, the surety, must suffer in both parts in order to pay a sufficient ransom price (lytron) to the divine justice and to redeem the soul and body.”[4] See also my article, Created in God’s Image, Not Adam’s!, part two, for more thoughts on all of this. The point being in all of this is that for us to be spiritually “made alive” after having been spiritually “dead,” is in fact a resurrection; for the Greek word for Christ being “made alive” as denoting a resurrection proves that the same word being used of us being “made alive” is in fact also a resurrection. As He was, and is, so are we.

Now let me just mention one final word from Kenneth Wuest with regards to Christ being “made alive” in 1Pet. 3:18, before move on:

The word “quickened”…does not mean to “energize,” but “to make alive.” To make something alive presupposes a condition of death. A living person may be energized, but only a dead person can be made alive. The opposite of death is life. We have therefore a contrast between two things, death and life.

The translation reads, “having in fact been put to death with respect to the flesh, but made alive with respect to the spirit.” That preserves the balance in which the apostle contrasts the physical death of our Lord with the fact that His human spirit was made alive. But how are we to understand this latter?

To make alive Christ’s human spirit presupposes the death of that human spirit. Our Lord on Calvary’s cross cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mat. 27:46). The Greek word translated “forsaken” means “to abandon, desert, leave in straits, leave helpless, leave destitute, leave in a lurch, let one down.” The cry was addressed to the two other members of the Triune Godhead. God the Father had abandoned and deserted Him....Our Lord's prayer was unanswered. This unanswered prayer was predicted in type in Lev. 5:11 where an offerer too poor to bring a blood offering could bring the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, just enough to bake one day's supply of bread; the giving up of the flour typifying the giving up of life, thus pointing to our Lord's death. But [the offerer] was forbidden to include frankincense with the flour. Frankincense is a type of answered prayer. Flour without frankincense speaks of our Lord's death and His unanswered prayer [for without it the prayers of the saints are not heard, see Rev. 5:8 and 8:3-4].

The question…was also addressed to God the Holy Spirit. The same necessity which caused God the Father to abandon God the Son caused the Holy Spirit to do the same....That human spirit during our Lord’s earthly existence was energized by [and in union with] the Holy Spirit….But now, in the hour of His direst need, the Holy Spirit left Him helpless and in the lurch. He abandoned the Son just as surely as did God the Father. This is [also] predicted in type in Lev. 5:11 where the offerer is forbidden to include oil in the flour. Oil is a type of the Holy Spirit. No oil [mingled] in the flour speaks of the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit’s sustaining presence while our Lord was suffering on the Cross. He ceased keeping alive in divine life the human spirit of our Lord. That human spirit, sinless though it was and continued to be, was dead in that the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit ceased to energize it….But when He [supposedly] prayed that He might be raised from the dead, the Holy Spirit…returned to make alive again His human spirit…Sin had been paid for. The atonement was looked upon as complete.[5]

I believe we can truly see these two spiritual and physical resurrections described by Christ in Jhn. 5:21-29, when we study the Greek text behind them. Again, verse 21 reads, “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it.” Here in both places where the word “life” occurs (Gk. zwopoiei, lit., “quickens”), we see where one is used for the physical raising of the dead by the Father, the other for the spiritual raising of the dead by Jesus; in other words, here we see two different types of resurrections right in the same context back to back of each other. Jesus is saying that the “life” that He gives is “just as,” or just what the Father does, but on a different plain or level.

As one begins to follow the Greek text for the word “life” in the rest of the verses that follow, one can readily see that the same idea that has just been presented above is repeated. Verses 24-25 read:

I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life [Gk. zoen, a form of zoe] and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life [Gk. zoen]. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live [Gk. zaysousin, a form of zao similar to Rev. 20:4, 5].

Here Jesus again is clearly speaking about a resurrection of “life” (zoe) from death that has to do with our spirits, or “souls,” as John called them; and in addition, Jesus even uses a form of the exact same word (zaysousin) that Rev. 20:4-5 derives its word for “lived” from (ezesan). This was also the case when He told Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life [zoe]. He who believes in Me will live [zesetay, a form of zao], even though he dies [like Lazarus]; and whoever lives [like Martha; Gk. here zown, a form of zao] and believes in Me will never die…” (Jhn. 11:25-26). In the context of all of these verses referenced above, Jesus is saying that all who believe in Him now, here on earth, “will live” spiritually. Life is the opposite of death (whether spiritually or physically), and when people are given “life” after being dead spiritually or physically it is a resurrection. The word “resurrection” does not have to necessarily be attached to the word “life,” as some try to claim, in order for it to be denoted as “a resurrection.” How absurd is that! It just goes to show you at what great lengths some people will go to in order to disprove that to be given spiritual life, after one is spiritually dead, is not to be considered as a resurrection at all. Quite frankly, I am shocked to even here of such an argument.

Now, to be absent from the body is to be immediately present with the Lord, and ultimately results in the future resurrection of our bodies. That resurrection life dwells in us now, and procures for us all these benefits when it is time for them to occur. In Jhn. 4:10, Jesus said to the woman at the well, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water.” Again, the Greek word here for “living” is zown, and as revealed above, it is a form of the Greek zao as discovered in Rev. 20:4-5. And, again, Jesus is clearly indicating to us that this “living” is the same “life” that He has repeatedly emphasized elsewhere that begins upon the conception of the new birth.

Verses 28-29 of John chapter five read:

Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live [Gk. zoes], and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

Here now Jesus is speaking about a resurrection from death that has to do with our physical bodies. This is the one that is to occur on “the last day,” at the end of Christ’s current Messianic rule and reign where Paul has said, “then the end will come” and “the last trumpet” in 1Cor. 15. So here we have seen in Jhn. 5:24-29 where the Greek word zoe (life), like the Greek zwopoiei (a quickening life) are used to denote two separate and distinct resurrections, one spiritual, one physical, right in the very same context. And we have seen that Jesus also repeatedly used a form of the Greek word zao, similar to the word used in Rev. 20:4-5, to depict this new life that we immediately encounter upon believing in Him.

Author and evangelist, John Bray, writes:

Does the first resurrection have to be the same kind of resurrection as the other resurrection mentioned in this chapter? Well, it is not the same kind of first and second death as mentioned here, so why should it have to be so with the resurrection?…One day it occurred to me that the “deaths” mentioned in the same passage were not identical; that is, in verse 12 and 13 it is surely understood that the “dead” are the physical dead, but it says that they go into the “second death.” So, you have a first death (physical) and second death (spiritual—or at least, different than just a physical death). In other words, if the first death could be physical and the second death spiritual, then conversely, the first resurrection could be a spiritual one while the second resurrection could be a physical one. If language can be used in this way in referring to death, it can also be used in the same way in referring to resurrections; and one can be spiritual and the other one can be physical (The Millennium, The Big Question, p. 26).

Actually, in opposition to Bray above, I believe the first death is spiritual death in juxtaposition to spiritual life that is given to us upon receiving Christ, and that “the second death” is physical death imposed upon the ungodly later in juxtaposition to physical life that is also given to us later after having first received Christ. Thus, there are two deaths and two resurrections; the first two are reserved for the ungodly, the latter two for the godly. The one spends eternal death united with their physical body in the lake of fire; the other spends eternal life united with their physical body to dwell with God in heaven. But, regardless, Bray’s point is to be well taken. And he even somewhat qualifies his statement by saying, “or at least different than just a physical death.” To be sure, it is a physical death of one's body at the second death, but it is “different” from the first physical death in the sense that their bodies go on living forever in a tormented state in the lake of fire.

So, does the term “first resurrection” demand in the context of Rev. 20:4 and verse 6 that it be understood as a physical one? Not at all! Because, first of all, there are not multiple successive physical resurrections separated by time taught in the Scriptures; so the concept of two physical resurrections understood by the Greek verbs ezesan in Revelation 20:4-5 as premillennialists are attempting to understand them is flawed, just for this reason alone. And even if “the rest of the dead” that came to life were a physical resurrection (which it isn’t), this doesn’t demand that the first one must also be so as well, as we have clearly seen from the analysis above in John’s gospel. All the above examples, and the entire testimony of Scripture, prove otherwise. At the most, it can only infer that the unbelieving dead don’t get to be a part of the most important resurrection of all, the first one, which is a spiritual one. The only one that they do get to be a part of is a physical one, which isn’t "to life" at all, but into the lake of fire, the second death, which believers do not partake of. Believers have a first resurrection, but the unbelievers do not. Unbelievers have a second death, whereas believers do not. And as was noted above from a plethora of verses, even the phrase “the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended” doesn’t have to imply or mean that at some point they did come “to life.” All that needs to be implied or understood in a comparison of this verse with other passages of Scripture cited above is that they remain “dead” right up until the end of this current millennial reign of Christ, and with nothing changing thereafter for them. They always remain “dead.” Death becomes them, while life becomes us.

So just as spiritual death (the first death) takes one to hell upon death, so too spiritual life (the first resurrection) takes one to heaven upon death. And just as the first death is followed by a second bodily death, so too the first resurrection to life is followed by a second bodily resurrection to life. Therefore, the first and second death are different stages of death; whereas the first and second resurrections are different stages of life. And as a second physical death follows one's first spiritual death, so too does physical life follow one's first spiritual resurrection unto life.

The fact that premillennialists would develop a doctrine of multiple resurrections based entirely around the meaning of “until” or “souls,” especially when they can be proven to mean otherwise, is just nothing short of amazing to me, to say the least. They have thrown out the baby (one simultaneous physical resurrection of the just and the unjust), for the bath water (a faulty understanding of the words “until” and “souls.” And secondly, Jesus has clearly articulated for us that the new birth is a raising or resurrection from death unto life and a “first resurrection,” with a second, or bodily resurrection, to follow. And this all fits in perfectly with what Paul tells us, that “to be absent from the body” is “to be present with the Lord” (2Cor. 5:8), while we continue to wait for the eventual “redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23). Jesus told the Church at Smyrna to “be faithful, even to the point of [physical] death, and I will give you the crown of life [Gk., zoe]….He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death” (Rev. 2:10, 11). This is the same group that was martyred or died as believers in the Lord in Rev. 20:4, and that are said to have “lived” after having been “beheaded,” or who had died having not worshipped the beast. After having become absent from their bodies they became immediately ushered into the presence of the Lord, to rule and reign with Christ from heaven seated on thrones, "just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne" (Rev. 3:21). May His truth keep marching on!

Recommended reading: Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation by John Wilmot; Amillennialism Today by William Cox; Days of Vengeance by David Chilton; Matthew 24 Fulfilled by John Bray; Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar; The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema.

Footnotes:

[1] In the Stephen’s Greek Text used for the KJV, the Greek “heos” is used in verse 4. In The Majority Text and NU Text used for the more current translations, the Greek “achri” is retained. They basically mean the same thing as was noted above in all the Scriptures cited using both words.

[2] It is argued that the three steps in redemptive history (Christ the firstfruits; after that those who are Christ’s at His coming; then comes the end), can be defended on strictly grammatical grounds that the adverbs “then…and then” express a sequence in which a “gap,” or period of time could intervene between the first “then” and the second “then.” But this requires an unnatural reading of the verse which can only “imagine” such a thing based upon one’s assumption that a thousand-year reign on earth by Christ will come upon the heels of His Second Coming, but before “comes the end.”

In all instances where these Greek adverbs are found, they normally express events that are tied together in a close successive connection, without any protracted period of time intervening between them. If a “time intervening” is to be understood, it will be noted in the immediate context, as in Gal. 1:18 and 2:1, where Paul says, “then after three years” or “then after fourteen years.” Similarly, in 1Cor. 15:23, the first occurrence of “then” is qualified as occurring at the Second Coming of Christ. The second occurrence of “then,” however, is when all these things have transpired (including those things in v. 24), “then is the end,” or “the end is come”.

In v. 23, “then” is followed by the verb “parousia,” whereas in v. 24, the “then” there is not qualified by any verb. As Lenski notes, “Paul writes simply: ‘then the end’, and omits the verb as not being necessary” (The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians, p. 672). Some translations mistakenly supply a future tense verb “will come” due to their bias of their being two future, separate and distinct resurrections; one for Christians before a future millennium, the other for the remaining just and unjust at the end of the millennium. On the other hand, other translations, correctly insert a present tense. The difficulty here is that Paul “sets down no verb tense; and a doctrine which is based on a verb or a tense that are inserted, rests on what does not exist” (ibid, p. 673). Again, as Lenski notes, it should just remain translated: “‘Then the end,’ with neither a verb or a tense…mean[ing]: then at the Parousia. No known rule of language allows us to supply a future tense, to say nothing about the long interval [of a thousand years]” (ibid). The Expositor's Greek Testament agrees: “Then (is) the end” (vol. 2, p. 927; italics and parenthesis theirs).

This idea of a “close successive connection” with these adverbs is clearly seen in Mk. 4:28: “All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head”; Jhn. 19:27 likewise reveals, “And He said to this disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from then on this disciple took her into his home” (NLT); Jhn. 20:27 says, “Then He said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.’” In the immediate context of our discussion of 1Cor. 15:23-26, we find the same adverbs again expressing a simple successive sequence of events in verse 5-7: “and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (ESV). There is no reason to assume that Christ was in “limbo” between appearances, but upon after visiting one He would visit another, then another, and then another one. And knowing Christ, it probably didn’t take Him very long to get from one place to another either—at least not a thousand years or so!

So from its context and ordinary usage, unless qualified otherwise, it is evident that this Greek adverb denotes an action of successive sequential events that were to transpire on the heels of one another.

Albert Barnes affirms what Lenski says:

Then is the end; or then "is" the consummation. It does not mean that the end, or consummation is to "follow" that event; but that this "will" be the ending, the winding up, the consummation of the affairs under the mediatorial reign of Christ (Barnes' Notes. 1Corinthians, p. 297).

The Darby Bible Translation correctly renders it: “Then the end, when he gives up the kingdom to Him who is God and Father; when He shall have annulled all rule and all authority and power.” Young's Literal Translation likewise affirms: “Then—the end…” This “end” comes “when” in the latter part of verse 24, Christ having Judged the just and the unjust, hands over the kingdom to God the Father, and “when” He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power all at His Second Coming, including “the last enemy…death” (v. 25); whereby death is “swallowed up in victory” (v. 54).

The phrase: “He gives up” (Gk. paradidw) is a present active subjunctive (not an optative as others have incorrectly claimed), indicating something done at that time, but with a continuing action. The phrase: “He shall have annulled” (Gk. katagehseh) is a aorist active subjunctive, indicating no particular time when the action is to occur. But according to Lenski:

The addition of kata lends the verb a perfective force, R. [A. T. Robertson, p.] 851: "shall have put down utterly." The aorist tense has similar force: ‘shall have completed’ this act. At the same time in this second clause this tense conveys the thought that the putting down of all opposition precedes the action of transferring the kingdom which was mentioned in the first clause and which is expressed by the present subjunctive: Christ shall transfer the kingdom when He shall have utterly abolished all opposition (ibid, pp. 675-676).

The International Standard Version understands this idea in their translation, which reads: “Then the end will come, when after He has done away with every ruler and every authority and power, the Messiah hands over the kingdom to God the Father.” Notice how they put the handing over the kingdom after all rule has been done away with.

Expositor’s Greek New Testament, in agreement with Lenski above, notes how the two verbs (paradidw and katagehseh) “denote distinct, but connected and complimentary acts” (ibid, p. 927). Similar to what was said above, “Parididw,” is also according to them a present subjunctive (not optative), “signifying a proceeding contingent in its date and manner of observance, but consequent with eita, which again rests upon [the]…parousia” (ibid). The aorist subjunctive katagehseh, “signifies an event lying behind the paradidw and by its nature antecedent thereto,—‘when He shall have done away, etc.’; every opposing force has been destroyed, then Christ lays at the Father’s feet His kingdom” (ibid). In simple English, the kingdom of God comes to an end at the Second Coming of Christ, and it will be the time when all rule, authority and power shall have been brought to an end also. There are no more comings after the Second Coming to do anything else. “…Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time [not a third or fourth time], not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb. 9:28).

The King James Version, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, and Webster’s Bible Translation all translate the last part of 1Cor. 15:24: “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,” because the idea that is to be drawn from the Greek text is what is all to occur at the end—at the Second Coming of Christ!

[3] Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), Book II, XVI, 12, p. 445. Emphasis mine.

[4] Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg: P&R Pub., 1994), vol. 2, p. 354. Emphasis mine.

[5] Word Studies in the Greek NT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942), vol. 2, pp. 95, 96, 97. Emphasis and words in brackets mine.

No comments:

the sword of the lord's judgment

"A sword, a sword, sharpened and polished---sharpened for the slaughter, polished TO FLASH LIKE LIGHTNING!...it is against My people; it is against all the princes of Israel...I have stationed the sword for slaughter at all their gates. Oh! It is made TO FLASH LIKE LIGHTNING,....I cut you in pieces with My prophets, I killed you with the words of My mouth; MY JUDGMENTS FLASHED LIKE LIGHTNING UPON YOU....For the Son of Man IN HIS DAY WILL BE LIKE LIGHTNING THAT FLASHES and lights up the sky....SO WILL BE THE COMING of the Son of Man....The Lord THUNDERS at THE HEAD of HIS ARMY!....The people of THE PRINCE, THE COMING ONE, will destroy the city and the sanctuary....THE KING sent HIS ARMY and destroyed those murderers and burned their city....HE WILL COME and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others....to a people producing its fruit....People will come from the EAST and WEST and NORTH and SOUTH, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God....BUT MANY ISRAELITES---those for whom the Kingdom was prepared---WILL BE THROWN INTO OUTER DARKNESS, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth....IF you belong to Christ, then YOU are Abraham's seed, and HEIRS according to the promise" ---Ezk. 21:9-10, 12, 15; Hos. 6:5; Lk. 17:24; Mt. 24:27; Joel 2:9; Dan. 9:26 (lit. trans.); Mt. 22:7; Lk. 20:16; Mt. 21:43; Lk. 13:29; Mat. 8:11-12 (NLT); Gal. 3:29.

He who has an ear...
let him hear what the Spirit says!

***********
"Christ died sufficiently for all; efficaciously ONLY for His elect."

Christ said, "...I lay down my life FOR the sheep" (Jhn. 10:15 NIV).

"...Christ loved the church and gave Himself up FOR HER....the church of God, which He bought with His own blood" (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28 NIV).

"What shall we say then? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy....and He hardens whom He wants to harden'" (Rom. 9:14-15, 18 NIV).

"It is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's seed" (Rom. 9:8 NIV).

"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise...And if you belong to Christ, then you too are Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise... Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God" (Gal. 4:28; 3:29; 6:16 NIV).

"...For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the dry ground: I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed, and My blessing upon thine offspring: and they shall spring up among the grass, as willows by the watercourses. One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel" (Isaiah 44:3-5 ERV).

"Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of promise, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away, have been brought near through the blood of Christ" (Eph. 2:12-13 NIV).

Our "citizenship" is now inclusive, or "in Israel," and we who are Abraham's seed have been "surnamed" indelibly with that honorable name of "Israel"! (for no natural born Israelite would need to do this).

"This mystery is, that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with [spiritual] Israel, members together of one body and sharers together in the promise.....And if we are all children, then we are all heirs---heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" (Eph. 3:6; Rom. 8:17).

So we, along with all the OT believers who exercise the same faith as our father Abraham, are with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob called: "the Israel of God." We are all now "princes with God," reigning as kings in this life. What an honor! What a privilege! What a blessing, that we should be called the children of God.

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.

Augustine does not disagree with this when he teaches that it is a faculty of the reason and the will to choose good with the assistance of grace; evil, when grace is absent.

God preordained, for His own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.

Is it faith to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church?

There is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice.

You must submit to supreme suffering in order to discover the completion of joy.

Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that He directs their malice to whatever end He pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute His Judgments. (Inst., I, XVIII, 1)

Job said, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it has been done”….God was the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments. Satan’s aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans cruelly and wickedly make a sudden incursion to rob another of his goods. Job acknowledges that he was deprived of all his property, and brought to poverty, because such was the pleasure of God. Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of His Judgments. (Inst., I, XVIII, 1)

The Lord permits Satan to afflict His servant [Job]; and the Chaldeans, who had been chosen as the ministers to execute the deed, He hands over to the impulses of Satan, who, pricking on the already depraved Chaldeans with his poisoned darts, instigates them to commit the crime. They rush furiously on to the unrighteous deed, and become its guilty perpetrators. Here Satan is properly said to act in the reprobate, over whom he exercises his sway, which is that of wickedness. God also is said to act in His own way; because even Satan when he is the instrument of divine wrath, is completely under the command of God, who turns him as He will in the execution of His just judgments….We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity. (Inst., II, IV, 2).

The resurrection of our Lord being the end and accomplishment of that true rest which the ancient Sabbath typified, this day, by which types were abolished serves to warn Christians against adhering to a shadowy ceremony….In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment, while the moral part remains—viz. the observance of one day in seven. But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism… (Inst., II, VIII, 34).

Superstition, idolatry, and hypocrisy have ample followers, but truth goes a-begging.

Faith is a living and unshakable confidence, a belief in the grace of God so assured that a man would die a thousand deaths for its sake.

All who call on God in true faith, earnestly from the heart, will certainly be heard, and will receive what they have asked and desired.

The law discovers the disease. The gospel gives the remedy.

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.

If you young fellows were wise, the devil couldn't do anything to you, but since you aren't wise, you need us who are old.

Our Lord has written the promise of resurrection, not in books alone, but in every leaf in springtime.

Peace if possible, truth at all costs.

Pray, and let God worry.

Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.

To gather with God's people in united adoration of the Father is as necessary to the Christian life as prayer.

The will is a beast of burden. If God mounts it, it wishes and goes as God wills; if Satan mounts it, it wishes and goes as Satan wills; nor can it choose its rider... the riders contend for its possession.

Human nature is blind, so that it does not know its own strength—or, rather, its sickness; moreover, being proud, it thinks it knows and can do everything.

What need is there of the Spirit, or Christ, or God if “free-will” can overcome the motions of the mind to evil?

There is left them no excuse on grounds of ignorance, but only the accusation of negligence and disobedience.

Faith is full of good works. It believes as if it did not work, and it works as if it did not believe.

Had not sin been permitted, God’s justice in punishing sin, and His mercy in pardoning sin, had not been so well known.

God has a hand in the action where sin is, but no hand in the sin of the action.

Your clothes cannot be fit for you as your crosses.

Do not murmur at things that are ordered by Divine wisdom.

Murmuring is the rising up of oneself against God. It sets oneself against God as if I am wiser than He.

The church is like that plant…it lives by dying, and grows by cutting.

Here we see but some dark pieces of God’s providence, and it is impossible to judge of His works by pieces.

What fools are they who, for a drop of pleasure, drink a sea of wrath.

To serve God…is the sweetest freedom in the world.

It is a sign the oil of grace hath been poured into the heart “when the oil of gladness” shines on the countenance.

He that chooses God, devotes himself to God as the vessels of the sanctuary were consecrated and set apart from common to holy uses, so he that has chosen God to be his God, has dedicated himself to God, and will no more be devoted to profane uses.

The right manner of growth is to grow less in one’s own eyes.

Keep your heart as you would a prisoner.

Idleness tempts the devil to tempt.

A Christian without patience is like a soldier without arms.

Wicked men seem to bear great reverence to the saints departed; they canonize dead saints, but persecute living.

When he [Satan] sees persons unemployed, he will find work for them to do.

Read the Scripture, not only as a history, but as a love-letter sent to you from God.

The devil would have Christ prove Himself to be God, by turning stones into bread; but the Holy Ghost shows His Godhead by turning stones into flesh (Ezk 36:26).

There are no sins God's people are more subject to than unbelief and impatience. They are ready either to faint through unbelief, or to fret through impatience.

Favorite Commentaries

Matthew Poole's Comm. on the Holy Bible
Commentary on the OT by Keil/Del.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Matthew Henry's Commentary
A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Barnes Notes Commentaries by Albert Barnes
Calvin's Commentaries
Gleanings In Genesis by Pink
Gleanings In Exodus by Pink
Leviticus by Andrew Bonar
Studies in Leviticus by S. H. Kellogg
Be Patient (Job) by Wiersbe
The Treasury of David by Charles Spurgeon
Proverbs by Charles Bridges
The Book of Isaiah by Edward Young
Ezekiel by William Greenhill
Ezekiel by Patrick Fairbairn
Barnes Notes on Daniel
Daniel by Edward Young
The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (Daniel) by Philip Mauro
The New Testament Commentary by William Hendriksen and Simon Kistemaker
Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels by J. C. Ryle
Exposition of the Gospel of John by Pink
The Gospel According to John by Leon Morris
The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson
The Book of Acts by F. F. Bruce
The Acts of the Apostles by Gloag
Romans by Martyn Lloyd Jones
God's Eternal Good Pleasure (Rom. 9-11) by Herman Hoeksema
The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 by John Piper
I and II Corinthians by R. C. H. Lenski
I and II Corinthians by Charles Hodge
I Corinthians by John MacArthur
Studies in Corinthians by Don Pickerell
The Freedom of God's Sons (Galatians) by Kent
The Epistles to the Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine
The Pastoral Epistles by Kent
The Epistle to the Hebrews by F. F. Bruce
The Epistle to the Hebrews by Kent
Lectures on the Epistle of James by Johnstone
A Commentary on the Second Epistle General of St. Peter by Thomas Adams
The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation by David Chilton
The Bible and the Future (Rev. 20) by Anthony Hoekema

Favorite Greek and Hebrew Helps

The Expositor's Greek Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicoll
Word Pictures in the NT by A. T. Robertson
Word Studies in the Greek NT by Kenneth Wuest
Word Pictures in the NT by M. R. Vincent
Kittel's Theological Dict. of the NT
Theological Wordbook of the OT by Harris, Archer, and Waltke
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek NT by E. W. Bullinger
Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary
A Grammar of the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research by A. T. Robertson
A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich
A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT by Dana and Mantey
A New Short Grammar of the Greek NT by A. T. Robertson and W. H. Davis
Baptizo (4 vols.) by James W. Dale
Hatch and Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint by Hatch and Redpath
The New International Version Interlinear Greek-English NT by Marshall
New Testament Greek For Beginners by Arthur Machen
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Greek and Hebrew Dict. by James Strong
The Englishmen's Greek Concordance of the NT by Wigram
The Septuagint with Apocrypha by Brenton
Vine's Expository Dict. of Bible Words by Vine