WHAT NEXT; FOR COUNTRY AND CHURCH?

Well, here it is, one day before the social-marxist democrat Biden gets sworn into the office of what was once the most powerful free nation on the face of the earth.

People are still telling me that there is no hard evidence for voter fraud, because they are brainwashed by the marxist news media under the thumb of outspoken communist Ted Turner and his affiliates. Repeatedly, I had to turn off the news because all they were putting out there were lies after lies, even when we found all those Biden vote-forming computers linked to a mainframe in Germany that was programmed to switch every other Trump vote to Biden.

Six electorate voters from six different states publically claimed that the democratic governors of those states lied and reported Biden votes in place of Trump votes, all the while the communist news outlets in this country not only didn’t cover those claims (so that the general population of the States never heard about it), but they vehemently denied any kind of voter fraud at all. Then, when those electoral votes were physically counted on the 6th, the Left marxists had people dressed up like Trump supporters and stormed the White House.

You say how do I know that…fair question. Unfortunately, my computer can’t record videos off of Youtube, and those videos of people who were actually there were taken down almost as quickly as they went up. When we follow the time line, those dressed as Trump supporters were assaulting the White House before Trump was half way through his speech, and his speech lasted over an hour. It didn’t end until exactly 1:11 pm, well after the assault on the White House began.

So, like they have done in China, Cuba, and many post Russian countries in the Eastern Block, the communists have taken America under the guise of socialism (in case you are unaware, socialism is a form of communism, and usually leads right into marxism). So, even though it doesn’t look or feel like it yet…because it hasn’t taken full hold yet…America has fallen to communism, and it will only be a matter of time now that Biden steps down, Kamala Harris (an outspoken marxist) steps into the office, and socialist policies will begin to tear down this nation just like it did with Venezuela.

NOW where are all those thousands of people fleeing Venezuela to America over the last few years that the democrats and Soros were trying to get here, going to go for refuge? They left one country where they were being murdered in the streets by the Venezuelan army, and starving to death because of Venezuelan socialist policies…right to America where we have just fallen to the same nightmare. I will not predict what will take place here now, because anyone with half a brain can research what happened in the other countries before that fell to communism. For your research, here is a partial list to look up: China, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Congo, Kenya, Yugoslavia, to name just a few. In most of these countries, the people eventually took their countries back, except for those which are still currently communist.

Sadly, communism is walked into by the young brainwashed of a nation, and then must be fought with blood in order to get out of, if the people can ever become strong enough to do so. I do see another Civil War coming to America…and isn’t it ironic that both the first, and second civil wars in America, will have been started by the democrats. They went to war the first time because they wanted to keep blacks as their slaves, and now they will be declaring war because they want to enslave the whole country through a social-marxist regime and they “will be coming for your guns” among other things.

WHAT ABOUT THE CHURCH? What are we to do now that things have drastically changed and people in this country have never known persecution like what will be coming to us? You might say, “What are you talking about?”

Go and do your research, and while you are at it, go back and read my two previous articles on what takes place in countries that just become communist. One of the first things that takes place, is Christianity is denounced as an enemy of the State, and outlawed. Millions of Christians were systematically murdered in these countries after they fell to communism…it will not be any different here. So, what are we to do? What Christians have always done when finding themselves now living under a totalitarian government system that declares war upon them…

I have preached it all my life – if you are not walking hand in hand with God today, then you will NOT make it tomorrow.

What do you mean by walking “hand in hand” with God? I mean that you stop puddling around wasting time watching hours of TV…playing hours of video games…spending hours on your hobbies or just sitting around drinking. Contrary to what many are preaching today, the Rapture will NOT take place before the next world-wide war upon Christianity comes upon us. Repeatedly, I hear even today over the radio, pastors teaching that Jesus could come any time…He could come right now and we will be out of here. That is a deceptive lie that many believe and tell because they don’t want to believe that America will ever suffer like that.

They completely ignore II Thessalonians 2:1-3…

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

As I said, I consistently hear people completely ignoring what Paul says here, he says very plainly that concerning “our being gathered together to Him,” when addressing “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The word in the Greek translated here as “being gathered” is episunagoge, which means not just gathered or gathering together, it means specifically the ACT of being gathered together…that is what the Rapture of the church is. So, what is Paul telling the Thessalonian church? He is telling them that the rapture of the church, or the act of being gathered together to Jesus when He comes, WILL NOT PROCEED before the man who will become the anti-christ is revealed to the word.

Now, that does not mean that he will be the antichrist when he is revealed, because the man who will be the antichrist will be assassinated (shot in the head) and three days later, satan will enter his body and fake his resurrection – because satan just loves to try to imitate what God has done, he will even have his own satanic trinity during the Great Tribulation period.

So, what does this mean to me? It means that persecution is coming that you will NOT escape…unless you go live in a hole somewhere in the plains of Montana. “Do you have any other evidence?” I am glad that you asked…

Revelation 6:9-11 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Revelation 7:9-14 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen.” 13 Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, “Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?” 14 I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Revelation 6 comes before chapter 7 (just in case you didn’t know that!). The first group of people that we see in chapter 6 are those who will be martyred BEFORE the Rapture takes place. How do we know this? Because it takes place during the opening of the 7 seals, which has only just begun (the 1st seal was opened in 2016 when Trump became president of the United States [for more detailed information on that point, read my other two articles]), and the second seal will be opened any day now since the social-marxists have taken America by fraud and deception.

Read the rest of the seals and what happens after they are opened…killing, civil unrest world wide, famine and starvation, more killing and more famine and starvation and pestiliences (recall that part of the U.N. new world order is to curb the human population down to only a few hundred thousand, in order to save mother earth Giai) such as the COVID virus’ that have been unleased upon the earth by a communist regime, with the UN’s approval. Basically, what John outlines from Rev. 6:3-8 is exactly what has always taken place in a country that has fallen to communism – only this time, it is taking place over all those countries part of the New World Order (1/4th of the world). When you do the math, all of Europe and the United States can easily be that 1/4th of the earth.

It will not cover China, North Korea, or any other communist countries…because the communist block thus far – while in league with the UN’s plans to destroy America so that they can control both it and the European Trade Market – strict communism and what is still considered “free” are dire enemies.

In any case, the Rapture hasn’t taken place yet in Rev. 6 because if it had, there would be no martyrs…and these in this group are clearly labeled as martyrs. Then in Rev. 7 we see that this group, which is clearly larger than that group in Rev. 6, IS labeled clearly as the martyrs that come out of “the Great Tribulation.” The Rapture has to take place, by shear logic, between the time separating the first and second groups make their appearance – even chronologically from chapter 6 and chapter 7.

So, what am I saying in all this? Simply that it is high time that people who call themselves Christians stop with all the stupidity that they do…sleeping around, lying to people, watching porn, gossiping, wasting their time doing stupid things like watching hours of TV and spending hours playing video games, ect…and start behaving like people who claim to love God. For loving God, most of you spend most of your time in worldly nonsense stupidity…and have been for years. Christians in China and other places where the underground church dwells, have been in danger of torture and death every day of their lives, and many suffer greatly, particularly in muslim countries where they have their heads sawn off…after being tortured.

We here in America have not shed blood…yet…through persecution like our brothers and sisters have all around the world, and in the past. Ever think about how the Christians that Nero tied to stakes and had burned to death felt about persecution? Pretty soon, you won’t have to wonder, because the day is coming where you will most likely find out…or will you? This is what I mean by walking hand in hand with God – spending the majority of your time in prayer and personal quality time with God, and in worship…because if you are not a STRONG Christian, then you will not make it. You will either cave in and renounce Him, sentencing yourself to eternity in the Lake of Fire, or you will be strong enough to face torture and persecution even unto death.

Think if you miss the Rapture…the ONLY way to make it to heaven then is definite torture to take the mark of the Beast, and eventually having your head cut off. My question to you is this: will YOU be able to stand under that kind of pain, torture, and stare death in the face, or will you cave in and condemn yourself to eternal torment?

IF you are not walking with God, hand in hand, spending time with Him every day in prayer and times of worship, which strengthens us…then you will NOT make it. So, stop fooling around with what doesn’t matter, lay aside all those stupid things we do that are in the world and are distractions from being with the Lord Jesus, and make Him the focus of everything that you do from this day forward.

Or, you can ignore me all together, tell yourself that “This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about,” and just continue on your merry way…

Those who are walking with God are in covenant relationship with God. In that covenant relationship, He promises to meet our every need, which includes strength for making it to heaven. It includes providing us with the necessities of life in days when there will not be food, water, clothes, blankets, shelter, etc. He will provide what we need if we are walking hand in hand with Him, so we who are in covenant relationship with God in Christ do not have to worry about starving while all those around us have no food to eat…”a thousand may fall at my right hand, but it shall not touch you” (Psalm 91). Here are others that address what I am telling you…

Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Luke 21:36 But be watchful at all times, praying so that you can have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, so you can stand before the Son of Man.

We received strength and spiritual power when we pray. The more we spend time in prayer with God, the stronger we become spiritually, and only the spiritually strong will be able to stand up against what is coming to the church in this country…and coming soon.

Blessings!

Posted in The End Times | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Detailed Examination of Tithing and the Spiritual Principle of the Firstfruit

By Dr. Dave A Schoch, Th.D., NT focus

I want to begin with the Spiritual Principle of the Firstfruits, because it is a spiritual principle. There are nine spiritual principles in Scripture: Sowing and Reaping; that human beings are conceived and born in righteousness (made in the Likeness of God); Rest; Spiritual Life and Spiritual Death; Two shall be One; Firstfruits; Sacrifice (worship); If you do good then you will be accepted; Sin is ever-present, waiting to destroy your life.

A spiritual principle is a principle that supersedes all other things, all laws, covenants, etc. They are either spiritual laws that cannot be broken (like the physical law of death), or they are decrees by God that if they are able to be broken, result in serious catastrophe to those who break them. It is not the aim of this study to fully examine every spiritual principle, that may be the subject of a later study down the road.

 

What does Scripture tell us about Firstfruits?

 

Exodus 23:19     The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God.

Leviticus 23:10     Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest,’

 

These verses tell us that the firstfruits consists of the produce from one’s farming work, and that it was to be taken to the priests.

 

Leviticus 23:17     You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour, and they shall be baked with leaven, as firstfruits to the LORD.

 

This verse tells us that the firstfruits didn’t always have to be from the harvest of your produce from farming. Here God tells the people to make two loaves of bread and to give them to the priests as “firstfruits to the Lord.”

 

Deuteronomy 18:4     The firstfruits of your grain, of your wine and of your oil, and the first fleece of your sheep, you shall give him.

 

Here, the firstfruits are listed as the first of your grain, your wine, your oil; and the first sheerings of your sheep, all to be given to the priests. This almost sounds like a tithe, but as we shall see in a moment, the tithe and the firstfruits are two different things altogether. They both have to do with giving, but they are still two different things altogether.

 

Deuteronomy 21:17     but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.

Psalms 105:36     He struck down all the firstborn in their land, the firstfruits of all their strength.

 

The first-born male child is also considered the firstfruit unto God, the firstfruit of the strength of a man’s descendants. Descendants were a big deal in Israel, and also to God, for He says that all of the first born of both man and beast belongs to Him (Ex. 13:2).

 

Nehemiah 10:35-37     We obligate ourselves to bring the firstfruits of our ground and the firstfruits of all fruit of every tree, year by year, to the house of the LORD; also to bring to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God, the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, as it is written in the Law, and the firstborn of our herds and of our flocks; and to bring the first of our dough, and our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the wine and the oil, to the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God; and to bring to the Levites the tithes from our ground, for it is the Levites who collect the tithes in all our towns where we labor.

Nehemiah 12:44     On that day men were appointed over the storerooms, the contributions, the firstfruits, and the tithes, to gather into them the portions required by the Law for the priests and for the Levites according to the fields of the towns, for Judah rejoiced over the priests and the Levites who ministered.

Proverbs 3:9-10     Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.

 

In these three passages, we see the dividing marker between tithes and the firstfruits. In all three passages, tithes and firstfruits are addressed as being two separate things – they both have to do with giving, but they are still addressed as two different kinds of giving. Only in Neh. 10:37 is the tithe addressed as a “tithe from our ground,” which seems to indicate a tithe not of money, but of produce. Usually when the tithe is spoken of, it is a tithe of one’s income. When it is addressed as a tithe of produce, commentators tell us that the produce tithe is a separate percentage of the produce after the firstfruits were already subtracted from that person’s produce.

One of the main differences between the tithe and the firstfruits, is that the tithe is a percentage of something (10%), whereas the firstfruits was not a percentage of something – it was the whole amount of the first of your crops, sheerings, wine, etc. You will never read that your money/income was to be given as a firstfruit, only the produce of your farming ventures.

 

Jeremiah 2:3     Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of his harvest. All who ate of it incurred guilt; disaster came upon them, declares the LORD.

 

Here we see that Israel was the firstfruits to God “of His harvest,” meaning the fruit of the earth (mankind), and that the nation was holy to God. This is one designation of a firstfruit, it was holy to God, meaning that it was set apart by God for a specific purpose. Whatever is a firstfruit, was God’s, and man was not to pilfer from what God had set aside for Himself as a firstfruit. Whenever man took what God had set aside as holy to Himself, that person reaped death in one way or another.

Two key places where this is observed, is in Genesis chapter 3; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was set aside by God as His firstfruits of all the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve could eat from any other tree or bush or whatever grew in the garden, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was set aside by God as holy to Himself, they were not to touch it. When they did, they reaped spiritual death.

The other place is in Joshua chapters 6-7, where Joshua tells the people that everything in Jericho was consecrated to the Lord (every living person except Rahab and her family was to be consecrated to God in death, and all that was made of silver, gold, bronze and iron was to be taken as holy to God and placed in the treasury of the Lord), anyone who stole from God by taking any of the spoils of the city, would bring a curse upon the entire nation. This is a firstfruit.

God was going to give to Israel all of the city-states and nations of Canaan, and all of the spoils of those conquests would also be their – but the firstfruits of this conquest belonged to God, and Jericho was that firstfruit. Achan paid with his life and the lives of all his family for his sin, for taking what was the holy firstfruit of the land of Canaan to himself – basically stealing from God what He had dedicated and consecrated to Himself as holy for His purposes.

You cannot violate the spiritual principle of the firstfruits without bringing a curse upon yourself and those around you – even down to your descendants forever.

 

 

Firstfruits mentioned in the NT.

 

Romans 8:23     And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

 

In this text, Paul uses the term ‘firstfruits’ in referencing the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit within the believer who is walking with God. Here, the firstfruit is the ‘down payment’ or deposit, which he uses the word ‘guarantee’ for in other passages – the ‘earnest money’ or ‘pledge.’

 

Romans 11:16     If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

 

Here Paul speaks concerning Israel and then the Church, that Israel was the firstfruit of God, holy, just as in the last passage we looked at in the OT. Then the Church is the “whole lump,” Israel is the root, and the Church is “the branches.” In other words, Israel was the firstfruits of God’s field of the earth, and the Church is the rest of His produce that will come out of the earth.

 

I Corinthians 15:20     But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

I Corinthians 15:23     But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

 

Here Paul uses the term firstfruits in regard to the resurrection; Jesus was the first to be resurrected from the dead (with a glorified physical body) and the believers who die in Christ will be resurrected with the same kind of glorified physical body in the future.

 

II Thessalonians 2:13     But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

 

In this text, Paul uses the term ‘firstfruits’ in regards to the Thessalonians being the first believers out of his missionary work in the region of Macedonia. When interpreting Scripture, we must always keep in mind the fact of semantics; in other words, sometimes (for example) “curb” is used by an author in an unconventionally defined way…it may not mean the road curb or to curb your hunger. The author is the one who gives words their meanings – NOT the reader, and those meanings come clear if we spend the required amount of time in study and research, applying a complete Biblical hermeneutic (principles of study).

 

James 1:18     Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

 

This verse is hard to answer, but it appears that James is saying that saved believers are the holy, consecrated firstfruits out of all of God’s creation. We are holy and special to Him, above all else that He has created. Once again, the main reason for this examination of Scripture, is to show that there is a difference between the tithe and the firstfruit – with the main difference being that the tithe is a percentage of whatever is being given, while the firstfruits is not a percentage, it is the whole of whatever comes first.

First crop of carrots, celery, oranges, apples…first sheerings of your sheep and goats…first of your newly fermented wine…the first oil pressed from the first batch of olives…your firstborn animals, and even the firstborn that “opens the womb” of His people. These all belong to God as holy, consecrated to Himself – the firstfruits, and then all the other children and animals born to you from that parent belongs to you. You cannot tithe your firstborn.

The spiritual principle of the firstfruits transcends everything, it is not conducive to the Old or New Covenants, or even time. It is as permanent as the Cosmological Constants that make our universe able to exist. Whatever God tells us is to be consecrated as holy to Himself, that we are not to touch, that is a firstfruit unto God.

In a way, we can say that the Tithe is based upon the principle of firstfruits, and is itself a form of a firstfruit, because both are considered holy to God for His purposes.

 

The Tithe.

 

Genesis 14:19-20     And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

 

In this passage, we see the first mention of a tenth (tithe) in Scripture. Abram goes off to war to save Lot and his family after they were taken captives by raiding bands. After saving them, he collects all of the spoils that those raiders had taken from the cities and peoples that they raided. Afterwards, he is camped and Melchizedek comes out to meet him and blesses him – Melchizedek is the priest of the Most High God (and this is before the Levitical priesthood was established, about 500 years beforehand). There is no record of a tithe ever being established by God in the Adamic Covenant, so either Abram just gave Melchizedek this tithe because he wanted to (because he had just blessed him), or there was some other custom in that day that we are unaware of. The main point here is that God did not institute this tithe that Abram gave to His priest. Neither is there any evidence anywhere in Scripture before the Old Covenant, that God instituted a tithe.

 

Genesis 28:20-22     Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house. And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.”

 

In this passage, we again see that Jacob promised God that if He would do things for him, then he would give God a “full tenth” of all that he had. This appears to be something personal between Jacob and God, and there is no evidence anywhere that suggests that God had implemented a tithe upon Jacob for anything or any reason.

 

Leviticus 27:30     Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the LORD’s; it is holy to the LORD.

Leviticus 27:32     And every tithe of herds and flocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman’s staff, shall be holy to the LORD.

 

First, this is the first mention of the tithe under the Old Covenant, and it is directly linked to, and in fact originates from, the Old Covenant. Secondly, like the firstfruits, the tithe is the Lord’s, and it is stated that it is holy to the Lord. In other words, the tithe is a dedicated thing, it is consecrated and set apart unto God for His purposes, whatever they may be. Since different things are said to be tithed (as we shall see), their purposes for being consecrated to God is also different depending upon what they are.

 

Numbers 18:20-21     And the LORD said to Aaron, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel. To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting,”

Numbers 18:24     For the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as a contribution to the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance. Therefore I have said of them that they shall have no inheritance among the people of Israel.”

 

In these two passages, God clearly states that whatever was tithed was given to the Levites as their sustenance. The Levites did not receive any inheritance among the Israelites because the privilege of ministering to God was their inheritance. Since that was all that they did, and did not do any other secular work for support of themselves and their families, God gave them the tithe as their life’s support.

This is, of course, the place of the tithe when God gave Moses the law and established the Mosaic Covenant with Israel. This is important to remember, because this tithe originates directly from the Old Covenant – it is not a spiritual principle like the Firstfruits are.

 

Numbers 18:26     “Moreover, you shall speak and say to the Levites, ‘When you take from the people of Israel the tithe that I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall present a contribution from it to the LORD, a tithe of the tithe.

 

Here God tells Moses to have the Levites give a tithe of the tithes that they receive from the people of Israel.

 

II Chronicles 31:5     As soon as the command was spread abroad, the people of Israel gave in abundance the firstfruits of grain, wine, oil, honey, and of all the produce of the field. And they brought in abundantly the tithe of everything.

II Chronicles 31:6     And the people of Israel and Judah who lived in the cities of Judah also brought in the tithe of cattle and sheep, and the tithe of the dedicated things that had been dedicated to the LORD their God, and laid them in heaps.

Nehemiah 13:12     Then all Judah brought the tithe of the grain, wine, and oil into the storehouses.

 

These passages are miscellaneous verses that have to do with tithing. They all have to do with those tithings of things that God commanded the Israelites to do in order to give the Levites their life’s sustenances.

 

Malachi 3:8-11     Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me. But you say, “How have we robbed You?” In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house. And thereby put Me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the LORD of hosts.

 

This is the last passage in the OT that addresses tithing. God tells the Israelites that they are cursed because they are stealing from Him, they were holding back from giving the tithes that He commanded for the sustenances of the Levites.

It is important to understand that since the Levitical tithe originated from the Old Covenant, and was instituted by God for the provision of the Levites since they were forbidden to hold secular jobs (because they were consecrated to God for ministry), that this tithe was done away with when the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ and then abrogated by Christ.

The only resurgence of tithing under the New Covenant would have to be if it has been re-established for some purpose other than as priestly provision, such as for pastors and other ministers. But unless it is re-established in the NT Scriptures, then following a Biblical Hermeneutical study, we must declare a cessation of the practice since the covenant from whence it originated has been abolished, taking with it everything that originated from that covenant – the Old Covenant. Remember, tithing is not a spiritual principle; that means it does not supersede covenants, but since the Levitical tithe originated from the Old Covenant, it ‘died’ when the Old Covenant was fulfilled, abrogated, and replaced by the New Covenant of God in Christ.

 

Tithing under the New Covenant –

 

Matthew 23:23     Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Luke 11:42     But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

 

These two verses are the only two in all of the NT that even uses of the word “tithe,” neither are there any passages that address a tithe using different vocabulary. In short, there is no teaching in the NT Scriptures, under the New Covenant, having to do with tithing. There are passages that teach on giving monetarily, but none of them refer to a tithe of any kind.

Some of those passages are used by preachers and teachers as texts addressing tithing, but when they do, they are taking these passages out of context. Some of those passages are the following:

 

I Timothy 5:17-18     Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

 

This passage refers to pastors (lead elders) of the church who are in the ministry, especially those “who labor in preaching and teaching.” Here, Paul addresses honoring those who minister to the church, through giving them wages so that they can continue in full time ministry without having to hold a secular career at the same time, dividing their attention and efforts. But neither the word, nor the concept of tithing is found anywhere in the text.

 

Acts 11:29     So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea.

 

This text does not refer to tithing, but it does address the ministry of churches from one area helping churches in other areas monetarily when they were in financial distress. The address to give “every one according to his ability” is a principle of giving taught in the NT Scriptures.

 

II Corinthians 8:12     For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.

 

In context, Paul addresses the Corinthian church about their promise and desire to meet the needs of the church in Jerusalem by giving to them financially as they could. Paul here is telling them not to burden themselves by feeling like they had to give, but to give “according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.” In other words, we should be giving as God increases our ability to do so, we should not be giving what we need to care for our own family with.

He goes on in the next verse to say, “I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened” with what you are giving. Again, for our point here, tithing is not being addressed in this text or in its context.

 

II Corinthians 9:6-7     The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

 

Here Paul again teaches on giving, but not giving in a tithe. He is still addressing financial giving to the saints who where suffering financially in Jerusalem. Although he is not addressing tithes, this passage does address how we should be giving to the church when we do.

 

II Corinthians 9:10-11     He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God.

 

Again, Paul is not addressing tithes here, he is addressing our attitudes and faith in giving financially to where it is needed. God will increase us so that we can give financially to others in their time of need. We do need to support our local church financially (because the money to pay the bills has to come from somewhere), especially to be able to pay the pastor enough money so that he does not have to go out and get a secular job, so that he can spend his full time in the work of the ministry – especially ministry of the Word, but no where in the NT Scriptures are we bound to be paying a tithe to the church.

We are to give, and to give freely and generously, and God will bless us for that faith and trust in action. But paying a tithe as such as was under the OT, is paying out of compulsion, and no where taught in the NT Scriptures.

 

One final note: I am not telling people that they don’t have to give to God for the purposes of ministry. Some pastors may not like what I have brought out to you in this study because they either want your money, or they need financial support so that they understandably don’t have to split their time working a secular job – which does hurt the church to one extent or another. What I am saying, is that God expects those who are truly walking with Him in faith and obedience, to give liberally when they have the finances to do so, to the church, so that the church can have the ability to carry out the mandate to the world that God has given the church to do.

In other words, straight from where the rubber meets the road…while the NT does not command a tithe like the old covenant did, I would not want to be standing in the shoes of the person who could give, but for whatever reasoning in their mind, chose not to. God always blesses the giver, especially when they give out of their want and/or need in order to help someone less fortunate.

Blessings!

 

Posted in About the Scriptures, Bible Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Delineation of Current Terminology: Confusion of the Mutation Issue

Delineation of Current Terminology:

Confusion of the Mutation Issue

D. A. Schoch (2011)

ABSTRACT

WITHIN the last few decades, awareness has developed in the world of genetics having to do with the nature of genetic change. According to classical thought, DNA damaging events and mutations occur randomly throughout the genome of organisms purely by accident. However, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that some genetic change occurs in non-replication, non-random events. The literature gives evidence of two distinct categories of genetic change addressed by the single term “mutation.” These two categories consist of (1) replication-dependent, random chance genetic changes, and (2) non-random chance genetic adaptive change that originate as non-replication dependent changes. Logically, failure to distinguish between these two processes by separate terminology may have caused problems in understanding genetic systems. This paper aims to examine and make delineation between these two phenomena, so further research can proceed with improved knowledge and understanding of genomic processes, which require clear differentiation. Reasonable misunderstanding of many issues concerning heritability, variation, adaptation, and especially mutation, appear as potentially misleading factors without such demarcation. This has the potential of directly affecting cancer research, as well as other pertinent medical fields dealing with genetic diseases.

Keywords: mutation, genetic changes, VGC’s, adaptation, biotic entropy.

INTRODUCTION

      WHY do we observe some mutations arriving on the scene exactly when needed for the survival of organisms? If mutations do indeed exist as random, undirected events, why do some demonstrate initiation by genetic mechanisms of the organism? How can mutations exist as both random and non-random genetic events at the same time? Have we discovered a paradox in the nature of genetic change, or are we observing two different phenomena at work? This paper addresses the subject of genetic change. Current belief concerning the nature of mutations has them occurring as random genetic changes with respect to timing and placement within the genome (Elson et al. 2001; Clancy 2008; Hall 1990). In other words, they can hit the genome of an organism whenever and wherever chance might take opportunity. The many causes of mutation, while important depending upon the nature of the topic, are not discussed in this paper. However, it is acknowledged that mutagens can change nucleotides either before, or during, the copying of a gene and if correction enzymes do not catch and rectify these mistakes, the mutation can potentially effect the gene product, which can prospectively effect the health of the organism.

The term “mutation,” as currently used, denotes the accidental, random chance (ARC) copy error events that take place (or solidified by the failure of correction mechanisms) either before or after genetic replication, and has become plastic to the point of including any and all genetic change. Today, most scientists in the disparate fields of biology hold to this definition. However, the latest data demonstrates this view to be in error and in need of revision. For the purpose of clarity, this paper holds the definition of the word “mutation” as strictly ARC replication-dependent errors.

From review of the literature, it is a well attested to fact that some genetic change occurring in organisms are not due to ARC replication-dependent copy errors or DNA damaging events. In the papers on the subject, these genetic changes have been called “adaptive” mutations and “Cairnsian” mutations (in any event, they are still called “mutations”). For the purpose of clarity, it is suggested that these “adaptive” changes be called Variational Genetic Changes (VGC’s), which this paper will adopt throughout the remainder of the discussion. This acronym is suggested because, unlike ARC replication-dependent genetic changes, adaptational and variational genetic changes exist as non-ARC changes that originate from allelic material already defined within the organism’s genome. In short, these variation-dependent genetic changes, rather than replication-dependent genetic changes, are mediated by the organism’s genomic mechanisms.

This paper argues that differential classification and terminology between these two phenomena needs adopting, particularly regarding the observation in the literature that both types of genetic changes have differing mechanisms of origin. This paper demonstrates that two entirely different phenomena exists and argues that the traditionally held view of the definition of mutation subsists in opposition to the evidence in the literature. Because the findings of the data, in which the literature reveals two discrete phenomena rather than only one, go against traditionally held views of the biological community, they have become the seeds of controversy.

DISCUSSION

      Mutations (replication-dependent, ARC genetic changes), as noted earlier, have a variety of causes, both extra-cellular (such environmental agents as radiation, X-rays, gamma rays, and chemical mutagens) as well as intra-cellular (such as normal metabolic processes, methylation, replication errors, and free radical agents). These DNA damaging events fall into several categories, such as oxidation, thermal disruption, methylation, mismatched bases, deamination, depyrimidination, and depurination. These can all cause various types of accidental random changes, such as substitutions, insertions, deletions, inversions, duplications, translocations, frameshifts, transitions, transversions, CPD’s and PPS’s. All of these can lead to serious defects within the organism incurring them, if they are not arrested by the various repair mechanisms found within cells. Such repair mechanisms as nucleotide excision repair (NER), photoreactivation, base excision repair (BER), nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), homologous recombination repair (HRR), proofreading enzymes, mismatch repair (MMR), microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ), translesion synthesis, DNA damage checkpoints, SOS response, and if necessary, apoptosis.

An organism’s DNA remains in constant exposure to a variety of mutagens that threaten to damage it, therefore, mutations are a part of life. Once the damage occurs, if not repaired, it can lead to mutation. Mutations can lead to hundreds of genetic illnesses and diseases (such as SCA, cancers, and tumors) that seriously hamper the health and well-being of the organism affected, to the point of suffering a painful and early death. Damage to DNA can come from many different sources, both before or during, cellular replication. If correcting mechanisms do not rectify the damage before replication occurs, or immediately afterwards by cellular proofreading enzymes, then from that point forward, the damage will become a replication-dependent mutation. Once the mutation becomes established in the cell (if missed by these correction mechanisms), the cell will no longer recognize it as an error, it will now be considered “fixed” within the DNA.

The term “mutation” has become extremely plastic in definition, and has the potential to produce major concern. The nature of mutations (ARC genetic change) is degenerative and has entropic effects (the inevitable and steady deterioration of physical systems) upon the genome, which I call “biotic entropy” (BE). The concept of entropy (as it has to do with different fields of biology) has been discussed several times in the literature in different contexts and applications (Barton and de Vladar 2009; Iwasa 1988; Xia et al. 2002). BE is accurately compared to the entropy (measurement of “noise” or degradation) in a system of information (Gray 2009), and DNA is indeed a system of information within the organism. Mutation (ARC, replication-dependent genetic change) introduces random “static” or “noise” in the information contained within the genome that, if not arrested by correction mechanisms, can result in catastrophic illnesses and diseases. However, BE is held at bay, normally, by the cellular repair mechanisms working for the survival of the cell, and ultimately, for the survival of the organism.

Since the advent of genetics, we have discovered many things about the genome, even more so now that the Human Genome Project has been initiated and completed. We have learned that DNA is divided up into chromosomes, and further divided into genes. We have learned much concerning the genomic processes that take place through the ancient art of animal husbandry, where skillful hands of animal breeders can bring out and sculpt beautiful variations of animals and birds. We have learned about variations of genes (alleles) and even greater – we are learning about how the genome stores these variant alleles, unexpressed, for future need.

Genes in storage waiting for expression

      Research is uncovering the mechanisms of adaptation and gene storage previously hidden. For example, what previously had been thought of as “junk” DNA has been discovered to code for certain RNA sequences, as well as other gene products (Crosio et al. 1996; Huang et al. 2005) in a very highly regulated mechanism of information storage. Most of these sections of DNA that were previously thought of as non-coding regions are introns. Preventing accidental expression of genes when they are not needed is one possible reason genes are broken up by introns, while introns themselves have been discovered to be coding sections in their own right. These are not cases of mutation because they are not DNA injuries or damages, nor are they sought out by repair mechanisms for correction, nor are they replication-dependent changes. On the contrary, they are mediated by genomic mechanisms and carried out with extreme precision and accuracy. It appears that introns themselves are a part of the genomic storage mechanisms that keep unexpressed alleles for future use as the organism may require.

Genes, having formerly been viewed as linear strings of nucleotide bases found in only one place within the genome, have now been demonstrated to sometimes be scattered in pieces (in trans) throughout the chromosomes like data sets on a computer hard drive. The discovery that genes act like computer data sets that can be reunited with each other and activated for expression is giving scientists in genomic studies an entirely different feel for how the genome works from what has been previously believed. Such trans-mediated gene products have been identified in the Drosophila genes mdg4 (Labrador 2001; Dorn et al. 2001) and lola (Horiuchi et al. 2003), and in the C. elegans genes eri-6 and eri-7 (Fischer et al. 2008). It is reported that genes eri-6 and eri-7 produce separate pre-messenger RNA’s that are trans-spliced together to generate a functional mRNA, eri-6/7. One question brought out by this discovery is: will there be proteins found such as eri-6 and eri-7 that are functional in and of themselves, that are also functional when trans-spliced together into a third functional product? It seems this could be a very real possibility. The main concern for this paper, however, is that trans-spliced genes are being labeled as replication-dependent ARC mutations when they are put back together for expression. The question remains, why are they being called mutations when they are obviously directed by the organism’s genomic mechanisms.

What’s more, it has been reported by Chung et al. (2007) that there are reading frames in mammalian genomes that are dual-coding. The authors go on to describe three examples of how human genes (GNAS1, XBP1, and INK4a) are dual-coded, so that there are actually two products coded for within one reading frame, or that reading frames overlap one another, producing two different products. Exactly how much of the human genome has dual-coding within reading frames of genes are unknown at this point in time, however these authors have identified forty so far. How many more mechanisms of allelic storage might be found by future research?

Some of these storage mechanisms have been demonstrated to be mediated by recombination and genomic rearrangements (Foster 2000, 1998; Harris et al. 1996) after being broken apart, presumably to keep them safely inexpressible until needed. Such trans-mediated genes are then spliced together again for expression via recombination or rearrangement mechanisms. Bull et al. (2000) records that recombination-dependent stationary-phase genetic changes take place at multiple sites within the genome. Hall (1998) lists several mechanisms and pathways for these adaptational genetic changes, including base substitutions, frameshifts, excision of mobile elements, and insertion of mobile elements – all mediated by the organism’s genomic mechanisms. Schneider and Lenski (2004) identify insertion sequence (IS) elements mediated by genomic mechanisms that both inactivate genes as well reactivate them when IS elements are excised by those same mechanisms. Schneider et al. (2004) goes on to say that “IS elements are also recognized by the recombination machinery of the cell, leading to complex rearrangements.” IS elements have been demonstrated to be a factor contributing significantly to genetic variability.

McKenzie et al. (2000) have identified such adaptive changes that are controlled by the SOS response system, as well as adaptive changes that require specific recombination proteins. These events are not ARC mutational changes, they are being specifically managed by specific genomic mechanisms under the control of genetic processes. These authors conclude their paper by stating that, “Understanding the regulation of all of the different adaptive or stationary-phase mutation mechanisms will illuminate when, how, and whether cells adjust their mutation rates and mechanisms, thereby inducing heritable changes, and presumably increasing their options for survival.” Since this paper was published, the answer to the mutation rate has been answered, and will be addressed shortly.

Beneficial “Mutations”

The literature is enamored with labeling adaptive genetic changes as “beneficial mutations,” but are they really mutations? VGC’s are beneficial to the organisms in which they occur for survival, but they are not due to replication-dependent ARC mutations. VGC’s have been researched and examined in rich detail (Foster and Cairns 1992; Williams and Foster 1994; Cairns 1998; Sletcha et al. 2002; to name a few).

The data shows three main differences between DNA damage/mutations and VGC’s, first of which is that VGC’s are specific and exact in time and place, while mutations are random chance DNA damaging events. All VGC’s are specific to the exact need of the organism at a specific time. Loewe (2008) reports “The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time.” This statement was made viewing ARC mutations and VGC’s as one phenomena, yet making the basic random / non-random distinction between the two (as dealing with both time and placement of such genetic changes). Hall (1997) states that “The aspect of adaptive mutagenesis that remains the most contentious is the specificity of adaptive mutations,” while demonstrating that adaptive changes are specific to the “selective challenge[s]” bombarding organisms. In other words, the organism encounters an environmental challenge to survival and its genomic mechanisms meet that challenge by expressing previously stored variational alleles. Hall (1990) demonstrated that such VGC’s only occurred when they were needed by the cell incurring the change. In later experiments, Hall (1998) demonstrated again the difference between replication-dependent changes (mutations) and variation-dependent changes – which is again the specificity of time and place.

Riesenfeld et al. (1997) reports that “adaptive mutations seem to produce only those phenotypes which allow the cells to grow, whereas growth-dependent mutations occur randomly with respect to their effects on fitness” demonstrating that adaptive changes are indeed specific to the needs of the cell. Cairns and Foster (1991) have demonstrated that VGC’s are produced according to the needs of the cell, unlike the nature of the occurrences of ARC mutational changes. Harris (1996) demonstrated that stress responses are initiated to generate the appropriate genetic changes in order to arrest that stress, again showing that VGC’s are directed for the adaptational survival of the cell. Cairns et al. (1988) performing  experiments on E. coli, reported the bacteria must have some way of “producing” or “selectively retaining” specific genetic changes for the needs of the cell in order to survive, because the bacteria was producing the exact adaptive changes they needed in order to survive. These adaptive changes are possible because of the genetic variability stored within the chromosomes that can be signaled into expression by environmental stressor cues.

The specificity of time and place of VGC’s are one reason they were first called “directed” mutations, and later as “adaptive” mutations in the papers examining them. When VGC’s were first identified in the literature, it was thought they represented extremely high mutation rates that would have fostered the right mutation for that specific circumstance. However, this hypothesis is no longer used to explain such adaptive changes (Foster 2000). It has been demonstrated experimentally on E. coli that such adaptive changes are not dependent upon increased mutation rates and, in fact, that there were no replication-dependent mutations – a rate of zero, so “no replication means no replication-dependent rate” (Hall 1990). Colby and Williams (1995) also corroborate Hall’s findings.

Second, the fact has been observed that VGC’s are mediated by different genomic mechanisms from those that are replication-dependent ARC mutations. Hall (1998) makes the observation that there are multiple mechanisms and pathways of VGC expression, and none of them are replication-dependent mechanisms which induce ARC genetic changes. Some of these adaptational changes are mediated by specific insertion sequence (IS) elements, via insertion and perfect excision of such mobile elements that turn “on” or “off” specific genes for expression (Schneider and Lenski 2004; Arjan et al. 2004), with over 500 such elements discovered so far. IS elements inactivate genes by means of reading frame disruptions (inserting themselves exactly where they are needed to do so), or reactivate said genes by reversions or the excisions of insertion activities previously mentioned. If it were not for the precision of IS element placements, they would be reeking havoc within the genome by turning on and off genes at random. Hall (1988) identifies IS elements as also providing promoters for specific genes as well as activating “cryptic” genes by inserting themselves into upstream regions of the chromosome.

There is also evidence that some VGC’s are mediated by specific recombination events, making them recombination-dependent genetic changes, and further identifies specific enzymes implicated in initiating such recombination events by nicking (Foster 1998, 2000; Rosenberg et al. 1998). Foster states that recombination events rearrange “existing alleles” and can “create new ones.” Loewe (2008) further elucidates on this phenomena by stating these genetic processes can “lead to the production of new genes by pasting material from different genes together.” I submit that what’s being identified here, is previously inactivated genes through rearrangement processes, stored in-trans, being brought back together again for expression through recombination. Harris et al. (1996) further identify specific enzymes responsible for reading frame disruptions, which initiate recombination-dependent VGC’s. More enzyme-mediated VGC’s have been identified, such as Rpos-dependent events for specific gene expression (Lombardo et al. 2003). McKenzie et al. (2000) ratify that VGC’s are “tightly regulated” responses by genomic mechanisms, not replication-dependent ARC mutational events.

Third, it has been observed that VGC’s are variation-dependent, non-ARC genetic changes, while mutations are the exact opposite (Riesenfeld et al. 1997). Cairns et al. (1988) also identify VGC’s as being a property of cells in stationary phase, rather than being growth-dependent, which Hall (1997, 1998) confirms. VGC’s have been demonstrated to occur when chromosomes are not being actively replicated in E. coli during nutrition starvation (Williams and Foster 2007). VGC’s are not replication-dependent changes, but have been demonstrated to be stress induced, usually by environmental stressor elements.

Another key difference between these two phenomena is that the cell has a variety of damage repair mechanisms in place to deal with the different kinds of damage that it suffers. In comparison, there are no known attempts by the cell to search out or repair VGC’s – indicating that cells do not recognize them as “damages.” In fact, they are not DNA damage, nor mutations. On the contrary, they are part of normal genomic processes for the continued survival of the organism via adaptation. These discoveries explain the phenomena observed in such cases as E. coli adaptation (Cairns et al. 1988) where the authors make the statement, “bacteria apparently have an extensive armoury of such ‘cryptic’ genes that can be called upon for the metabolism of unusual substrates.” Genes do indeed seem not only to be encrypted, but also broken up and dispersed throughout the genome to be called upon when needed. In every case, the needs of the organism appear to be environmentally induced.

Response to environmental cues

VGC’s in gene expression are induced specifically by the organism’s genome in response to environmental cues for the benefit of the organism. While ARC mutations can also be induced by environmental mutagens, they have the opposite affect. These environmentally cued genetic mechanisms give the organism access to varying phenotypes for survival and adaptability. How genetic mechanisms of adaptation and fitness relate to variation, working in connection with environmental cues, is a long standing question due to the lack of empirical studies documenting the causal relationships between the environment and the molecular underpinnings of fitness related variation (Storz 2007). Storz et al. goes on to identify the “difficulty of integrating molecular data with evidence for causal effects on organismal fitness” and examines specific mechanisms that enable organisms to adapt to their specific environments.

These environmental cueing factors can be altitude (high or low), light cycles or light sensitivity (such as in deep sea dwelling organisms), temperature, diet (such as differing sizes and hardness of seeds impacting the thickness of bird beaks), humidity, hardness of soil, oxygen levels…any number of environmental dynamics (Ralson and Shaw 2008). All of these factors have an effect upon the organism’s phenotype, demonstrating a rich and complex interaction between genes and the environment (Lobo 2008; Lobo and Shaw 2008). These environmentally induced changes in gene expression are called “gene-environment interchangeability” and help the organism to adapt its phenotype to the specific “selective circumstances” they may find themselves in (Leimar 2009). The expression of the needed allele appears to be stress induced, caused by changes in the organism’s environment, which is why such changes are specific to the needs of the organism for its survival.

These traits have been demonstrated by thousands of years of domestic breeding in hundreds of different species, such as bovine, dog, pigeon, etc. The only difference between domestic breeds and wild types is man’s hand culling and bringing out the traits he desires in each specific breed. We create more colorful birds, more milk producing cows, different dog breeds for work or for show, through careful breeding tactics. While, in the wild, these different allelic traits are only expressed in time of stress induced by the animal’s environment – but the genetic mechanisms are the same that operate in both cases. In some cases there are multiple environmental cues that signal genomic changes, such as both photoperiod and ambient temperature affecting the thermogenesis of the Djungarian hamsters (Heldmaier et al. 1982). In their study on domesticated cattle in Europe and Africa, Gautier et al. (2007) concluded from their research and observations that the genetic changes responsible for the variation between each population were not consistent with models considering replication-dependent ARC changes. To use a famous example, in “Darwin’s finches,” what are the environmental cues for the differences in beak size and thickness for each variation of bird on each different island? Presumably, the only cue seems to be the hardness of the seeds on which each island variety has to deal with. If this is true, is the exact environmental cue (for example) how many times a bird has to peck at the outer shell of the seed? Are the vibrations upon the beak from being hit against the hard shell some kind of trigger for beak thickness (in the same way that shivering thermogenesis is activated by the shivering of the body)?

The speed of which these changes occurred in the finches is simply too fast to be considered strictly replication-dependent ARC mutations, they are more likely VGC changes activated into expression by the individual environmental cues the finches’ genome’s received after being first introduced to the islands. VGC’s are the exact opposite in nature as to their effects when compared with those of ARC mutations. Variational changes are beneficial genetic changes occurring within organisms, the materials of adaptation, while the effects of ARC mutations are nearly always deleterious to the organism. Two different phenomena, with different origins and with different final effects that are opposite one another. These facts seem to make clear that there is a natural distinction between these two genetic phenomena, one that we also need to differentiate between.

Conclusion

      It all began with a paper by Cairns et al. (1988) that challenged the currently held view of mutations, and other papers quickly followed presenting concordant observations (Foster 2000). Such papers as these were viewed with much skepticism because they challenged the fundamental premise that all genetic change occurs only randomly as chance events without respect to any advantages they may give an organism (Colby and Williams 1995). Drake stated in her book, The Molecular Basis of Mutation (1970) that “It is clear that the experimental evidence supporting many currently popular hypotheses concerning mutational processes is quite inadequate.” Those words, written almost forty years ago, still appear to hold true today. Nevertheless, clarifying the terminology can advance understanding of biological processes.

Addressing these different classes of genetic change, Hall (1990) stated, “although the two classes of mutations are basically distinct and have different molecular mechanisms…evidence for Cairnsian mutations has now been found in all cases where it has been sought.” According to the evidence in the literature, it appears that we are, indeed, observing two distinct classes of genetic change that must be differentiated between. If not, we could be inundated with perplexity in certain aspects of our research until these distinctions are recognized. For example, Hall himself (1988) illustrates this point in the following quote: “[W]e are ignorant of the fundamental mechanisms and rates of mutations in non-growing but metabolizing cells.” If we are talking about two entirely different phenomena, the mutations Hall addresses here are non-ARC genetic changes (VGC’s), in which there wouldn’t be a mutation rate because these changes occur naturally in populations only when they are cued by the environment. It is important for research to delineate between these two phenomena, for correct “characterization of individual beneficial mutations may lead to the identification of underlying molecular rules and constraints, as well as common adaptive pathways” (Rainey 2000; Travisano 2001; Otto 2002 as reported on by Arjan et al. 2004).

The history of medicine demonstrates a succession of theories of disease and treatment. A strong evidence base is now a requirement for the adoption of new treatments. Similar criteria regarding strength of evidence should be applied to molecular science that now underpins many medical advances. The specificity of non-ARC genetic changes have been demonstrated experimentally (Hall 1997) numerous times by different scientists. Indeed, understanding the differential mechanisms of change, fully and correctly, is critical to the understanding of any genetic phenomena under investigation. Clarity about the origins, mechanisms, and results of both mutations (replication-dependent ARC genetic changes) and VGC’s (non-ARC genetic changes) will improve the quality of biological understanding. Colby and Williams (1995) make the statement, “taking these kinds of mutants into account may therefore be necessary to produce more accurate models of bacterial genome evolution.” Clearly, we are observing two different categories of events. These differences require terminology fit to distinguish the processes taking place. This would also distinguish between the mechanisms and results of each kind of change.

Finally, Hall (1990) states, “Because the randomness of spontaneous mutations forms such a basic part of our view of biological processes, most of us may be more comfortable with an underlying random mechanism than with a directed one. We should be cautious, however, about rejecting the notion of ‘directed’ mutations simply because it makes us more comfortable to do so,” (Hall 1990). This is especially true when considering that these “directed mutations” do not appear to be random mutations at all, having their origins firmly grounded in completely different genetic mechanisms.

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge and thank Dr. Jerry Bergman, as well as several other anonymous contributors, for their insight, suggestions, and other contributions to this paper. Their assistance has proven invaluable to its production.

REFERENCES

1. Arjan, de Visser, Akkermans, Hoekstra, and de Vos; Insertion-Sequence- Mediated Mutations Isolated During Adaptation to Growth and Starvation in Lactococcus lactis; Genetics 168:1145-1157, Nov. 2004

2. Barton and de Vladar; Statistical mechanics and the evolution of polygenic   quantitative traits; Genetics 181:997-1011, 2009

3. Bull, McKenzie, Hastings, and Rosenberg; Evidence thatStationary-Phase     Hypermutation in the E. coli Chromosome is Promoted byRecombination;         Genetics 154:1427-1437, Apr. 2000

4. Cairns and Foster; Adaptive Reversion of a Frameshift Mutation in E. coli; Genetics 128:695-701, Aug 1991

5. Cairns; Mutation and Cancer: The Antecedants to our Studies of Adaptive Mutation; Genetics 148:1433-1440, Apr. 1998

6. Cairns, Overbaugh, and Miller; The Origin of Mutants; Nature Vol. 335, Sept. 1988

7. Chao, Vargas, Spear, and Cox; Transposable Elements as Mutator Genes in   Evolution; Nature,  June 1983

8. Chung, Wadhawan, Szklarczyk, Pond, and Nekrutenko; A first look at ARFome: dual-coding genes in mammalian genomes; Plos Computational Biology 3(5): e91.doi:1371/journal.pcbi.0030091, 2007;

9. Clancy; Genetic Mutation; Nature Education, 2008

10. Colby and Williams; The Effect of Adaptive Mutagenesis on Genetic Variation at a Linked, Neutral Locus; Genetics 140:1129-1136, July 1995

11. Crosio, Cecconi, Mariottini, Cesareni, Brenner, and Amaldi; Fugu intron oversize reveals the presence in some introns of the ribosomal protein S3 gene; Genome Research, 6:1227-1231, 1996;

12. Drake; The Molecular Basis of Mutation; Holden Day Publishers, 1970

13. Dorn, Reuter, and Loewendorf; Transgene analysis proves mRNA trans-      splicing at the complex mod(mdg4) locus in Drosophila; PNAS 98:9724-9729

14.  Elson, Samuels, Turnbill, and Chinnery; 2001; Random Intracellular Drift   Explains the Clonal Expansion of Mitochondrial DNA Mutations with Age; The American Society of Human Genetics, 2001

15. Fischer, Butler, Pan, and Ruvkun; Trans-splicing in C. elegans generates the negative RNAi Regulator ERI-6/7; Nature, September 25; 455(7212): 491-496, 2008

16. Foster; Adaptive Mutation: Implications for Evolution; BioEssays 22:1067-1074,  2000

17. Foster and Cairns; Mechanisms of Directed Mutation; Genetics 131:783-789, Aug. 1992

18. Foster; Adaptive Mutation: Has the Unicorn Landed?; Genetics 148:1453-1459, Apr. 1998

19.  Gautier, Faraut, Moazami-goudarzi, Navratil, Foglio, Grohs, Boland, Garnier, Oichard, Lathrop, Gut, and Eggen; Genetic and haplotypic structure in 14 European and African cattle breeds; Genetics 177:1059-1070, 2007

20. Gray; Entropy and Information Theory; Stanford University; Springer-Verlag, New York, 2009

21. Hall; Adaptive Evolution that Requires Multiple Spontaneous      Mutations. I – Mutations Involving an Insertion Sequence; Genetics 120:887-897, Dec. 1988

22. Hall; Spontaneous Point Mutations That Occur More Often When Advantageous Then When Neutral; Genetics 126:5-16, Sept. 1990

23. Hall; On the Specificity of Adaptive Mutations; Genetics 145:39-44, Jan. 1997

24. Hall; Activation of the bgl Operon by Adaptive Mutation; Mol. Biol. Evol. 15(1):1-5, 1998

25. Harris, Ross, and Rosenberg; Opposing Roles of the Holliday Junction Processing System of E. coli in Recombination-Dependent Adaptive Mutation; Genetic 142:681-691, Mar. 1996

26. Heldmaier, Steinlechner, Rafael, and Latteier; Photoperiod and Ambient       Temperature as Environmenta. Cues for Seasonal Thermogenic Adaptation in the     Djungarian Hamster, Phodopus sungorus; Int. J. Biometeor, Vol 26, #4, pp. 339-345, 1982

27. Horiuchi, Giniger, and Aigaki; Alternative trans-splicing of constant and     variable exons of a Drosophila axon guidance gene, lola; Genes Dev; 17:2496- 2501, 2003

28. Huang, Zhou, He, Chen, Liang, and Qu; 2005; Genome-wide analyses of two families of snoRNA genes from Drosophila melanogaster, demonstrating the extensive utilization of introns  for coding of snoRNAs; RNA, 11:1303-1316

29. Iwasa; Free fitness that always increases in evolution; Journal of Theoretical Biology 135: 265-281, 1988

30. Labrador; Protein encoding by both DNA strands; Nature 409:1000, 2001

31. Leimar; Environmental and Genetic Cues in the Evolution of Phenotypic     Polymorphism; Evol. Ecol. 23:125-135, 2009

32. Lobo; Environmental Influences on Gene Expression; Nature Education,  2008

33. Lobo and Shaw; Phenotypic Range of Gene Expression: Environmental      Influence; Nature Education, 2008

34. Loewe; Genetic Mutation; Nature Education, 2008

35. Lombardo, Aponyi, and Rosenberg; General Stress Response Regular RpoS in Adaptive Mutation and Amplification in Escherichia coli; Genetics 166:669-680, Feb. 2004

36. McKenzie, Harris, Lee, and Rosenberg; The SOS Response Regulates Adaptive  Mutations; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 12; 6646-6651, June 2000

37. Ralston and Shaw; Environmental Controls Gene Expression: Sex Determination and the Onset of Genetic Disorders; Nature Education, 2008

38. Riesenfeld, Everett, Piddock, and Hall; Adaptive Mutations Produce Resistance to Ciprofloxacin; Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; p. 2059-2060, Sept. 1997

39. Rosenberg, Thulin, and Harris; Transient and Heritable Mutators in Adaptive Evolution in the Lab and in Nature; Genetics 148:1559-1566, , Apr. 1998

40. Schneider and Lenski; Dynamics of Insertion Sequence Elements During    Experimental Evolution of Bacteria; Research in Microbiology; 155:319-327,    2004

41. Slechta, Liu, Anderson, and Roth; Evidence that Selected Amplification of a Bacterial lac Frameshift Allele Stimulates lac_ Reversion (Adaptive Mutation) with or without General Hypermutability; Genetics    161:945-956, Jul. 2002

42. Storz, Sabatino, Hoffmann, Gering, Moriyama, Ferrand, Monteiro, and Nachman; The Molecular Basis of High-altitude Adaptation in Deer Mice; Plos Genetics 3(3):e45.doi:10. 1371/journal.pgen.0030045, 2007

43. Williams and Foster; The Escherichia coli Histone-like Protein HU has a Role in Stationary Phase Adaptive Mutation; Genetics 177:723-735, Oct. 2007

44. Xia, Wei, Xie, and Danchin; Genomic changes in nucleotide and dinucleotide   frequencies in pasteurella multocida cultured under high temperature; Genetics 161: 1385-1394, 2002

This paper was written on 5/12/2011 and I was never able to get it published through a mainstream science journal, the reason usually cited that it would not contribute anything to mainstream scientific view on the subject matter. I disagree, as well as my peers whom I had review this paper. Therefore, I am “publishing” it here on my blog, that it may make some kind of impact on those who should come across it in their research. Dave Schoch, 10/31/2012.

Posted in Science untainted | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

But what about the indigenous peoples who have never heard of Jesus?

Researched, composed, and written by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

1/10/2024

So, I heard on the radio today while listening to the “To Every Man an Answer” show again, someone call in asking a very basic question that the two ‘pastors’ hosting the show did not answer correctly (which is nothing new). The question was from a woman who asked what God will do with those indigenous peoples like in South American, Indian (in India), or African jungles who have never heard about Jesus or the gospel.

The main host answered with Romans 1:19-20, which says…

..

Romans 1:19-20  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

..

The problem with this, is that in context this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the question that was asked. Verse 18 sets the contextual subject – those who suppress the truth through the unrighteous things that they do; this does not address unbelievers, because verse 21 says that these people “knew God.” If Paul speaks about OT people, then he speaks about the Jews; but in this context he is speaking of people who were once Christians who “exchanged the truth of God for lies” and are no longer Christians.

Many under the false teachings of calvinism reject this clear meaning because calvinism says that once a person gets saved they can never fall away from Christ (which is not what Scripture teaches in the least bit). However, Scripture affirms throughout the NT that a believer can still end up in eternal fire (and this is just one verse on the subject):

..

John 3:36*  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not obey the Son will never know life, because the wrath of God remains abiding upon him.

..

No, the answer to this woman’s question is found in the next chapter…

..

Romans 2:13-16  For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

..

Remember that God is righteous, He will judge those who have never heard the gospel according to their own consciences. For example, even the aborigine in the deepest, darkest jungle knows that it is wrong to rape his own daughter (or any woman for that matter)…he knows that it is wrong to steal his neighbor’s pig, goat, or whatever. Because God is righteous, He will always judge people according to righteousness – that means He will be fair in His judgments; He does not judge and condemn the way people do one another. The unreached (wherever they might be) will be judged according to what they knew, what God had revealed to them (if anything), and according to what they did – regarding them doing things that their consciences told them was wrong.

Although this is a short article because this is the only passage of Scripture (that I recall) that has to do with what God will do with those die never hearing the gospel, it does answer the question fully.

Until next time, Blessings!

Posted in Bible Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Update from America: Living in the days of Revelation chapter 6

Researched, compiled, and written by Dr. Dave Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

January 2 – 9, 2024

How do you start writing an article that many people will consider outrageous nonsense? I do not know, so I am just going to put it out there. I am not a prophet, rather I have been gifted to see things in Scripture and the world that most people, for whatever reason, do not see or do not want to see.

I have been moved to write this article because of the many, numerous things taking place not only in the world, but here in America that most people have no knowledge of, primarily because the news media outlets have become ever bit as much propaganda machines as those used in China by the communists in order to take over their country. Although this propaganda machine is used today in a different way, the goal is the same (and anyone who does not believe that our current government is social-marxist in nature and goal…well, what can I say).

My purpose here is to take real-world activities going on today and line them up with what Scripture says will take place during the last days before the Church is raptured out of the earth. I am doing this because most people in the church today have been taught bad theology for so long that they actually believe the church will be taken out of the world before really bad things start taking place – but that is not what Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that the church will be taken out of the world in order to save it from the Tribulation activities (giant demon-locusts the size of horses flying around the world for five months stinging people to the point that they will try to kill themselves, but God will not allow them to die, etc.) (Rev. 9:1-10).

We will begin by breaking down the first six (6) seals of chapter six, because the church will go through these first six seals, and indeed – we are living in these days right now. Many pastors and Bible “teachers” misidentify these seals as part of the Tribulation period, and even identify the first rider as the antichrist; but when we pay close attention to the words employed (particularly in the Greek), it is not hard to see that such preachers do not understand what they are talking about. I will give the wording as the ESV gives it, and then I will correct the passage straight from the Greek (identified by an asterisk – *)

Revelation 6:1-2 Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder, “Come!” And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer.

Revelation 6:2* I watched as the Lamb opened the first of seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say to me like thunder, “You, come here!” And I looked, and saw a white horse, and one sat upon it having a bow, and he was given a crown, and he came subduing and for the purpose that he should frustrate the victory of another.

White – symbolizes purity or prosperity (the color of each horse answers to the mission of its rider).

Horse – represents strength, especially in battle. Here it can also symbolize the power by which the rider performs what he does; the energizing or causing force behind the rider. Since this horse’s color is the only one that does not have negative connotations, it seems to represent God (purity) as the force and plan behind this rider’s activities. This observation becomes clearer as we continue.

Rider – from the context of these passages, these riders can be identified as either a physical human male, or a spiritual being (when warranted), or as a representation for John to see as he wrote down what he saw, representing specific events either as individual occurrences, or series of occurrences. By the wording here, I am inclined to believe that this rider is a human being, energized by God as a tool temporarily preventing certain things from taking place, and setting into motion other things.

A bow – firstly, the bow represents a powerful weapon of war, a weapon that can kill from a safe distance. Secondly, this rider is not said to have any arrows, no missiles for the bow to shoot; it speaks of the power to conquer, but not by means of warfare. This rider will conquer his enemies but not through physical war.

Was given a crown – first, this rider was given a crown from God, for this specific purpose and time in human history. Second, it represents a king, kingship, a kingdom, or kingly power and authority to rule. This rider (if representing a man) was not born a king, but was given a crown, his story (or divinely ordained ministry, whether godly and spiritual, or physical like Cyrus’ purpose from God) begins after he is given this crown, the power and authority to temporarily rule.

Conquering and for the purpose of conquering – if a man, he takes up his God-ordained purpose as soon as he is crowned with power and authority. The word for conquer here is nikao, meaning to be victorious, to prevail over another, to overcome another, to subdue another, or to frustrate the victory of another.

Keep in mind that there is no sense of time in the narrative, which seems to run together, one event immediately following the preceding event. In reality, literal years can fall between the opening of each seal.

Revelation 6:3-4 When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” And out came another horse, bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, and he was given a great sword.

Revelation 6:3-4* When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” And another horse came, fiery red in color, and the rider sitting upon it was given power to take away civil peace from the earth, for the purpose that people will kill one another; and he was given a great sword.

Horse – represents strength, especially in battle. Here it can also symbolize the power by which the rider performs what he does; the energizing or causing force behind the rider.

Red – represents carnage, blood, bloodshed, or war (the color of each horse answers to the mission of its rider).

Was given power – this rider was given power from God to fulfill his purpose.

To take away the peace from the earth – this particular rider’s mission. The word translated as “peace” here is eirene, meaning peace – but not just any kind of peace, peace in a civil sense, which is the opposite of war and dissension. In this sense, here it means worldwide civil unrest.

In the Greek, the peace is worded as “the peace,” not simply “peace.” This implies that before this rider came on the scene, there was specific peace in the world. It is interesting to note that the first rider’s mission seems to be, as a God-empowered vessel, one who temporarily keeps peace upon the earth, whereas this rider, who follows the first, comes to destroy the peace that the first rider temporarily maintained by what he did.

By the symbolism of the color of this rider’s horse (and the meaning of the word for ‘peace’ in the text), he will take peace away from the earth not through war so much as is understood as one nation against another, but rather each nation upon the earth will be swept into its own internal civil turmoil.

Kill – the word utilized here in the Greek (sphazo) means to slaughter, kill, or slay, but not in a war-like fashion. It can, therefore, also mean murder. It can also mean the slaughtering of a sacrificial victim.

Given a great sword – firstly, this rider was given this sword by God in order to accomplish his purpose. Secondly, a sword symbolized civil authority, warfare, or the instrument of death by which men kill one another. For example, in our day, a sword could symbolize a police officer, hand gun, rifle, machete, military general, bomb, etc.

I do not believe that the word “civil” has been implied in this text twice, by different meanings of two different Greek words, by accident. Here, we are given some details about what and how things will take place during this time period.

Revelation 6:5-6 When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come!” And I looked, and behold, a black horse! And its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius, and do not harm the oil and wine!”

Revelation 6:5-6* And when He opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “You, come here and look.” And I saw a black horse and its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard a sound like a voice coming from the midst of the four living creatures, saying, “Cause a measure of wheat to cost a man’s daily wage, and three measures of barley to cost a man’s daily wage; but do not harm the cost of olive oil or the wine.”

Horse – represents strength, especially in battle. Here it can also symbolize the power by which the rider performs what he does; the energizing or causing force behind the rider.

Black – represents scarcity, want, mourning, famine, distress, calamity (the color of each horse answers to the mission of its rider).

Scales – an instrument for weighing things such as dry goods, in a day when coins were specific weights; one would place two coins (for example) on one side of the scale, and the wheat that equaled the weight of the two coins would be placed upon the other side of the scale until the scale was balanced.

Measure of wheat – the measure here is less than the present-day quart, between three and four cups. It takes 16 ounces of wheat to make a 1½ loaf of bread; 16 ounces is two cups.

A man’s daily wage – a denarius, or Roman penny; is how much a man received daily for his labor in the days of Jesus. Since the vision is of the future, we expect to increase this amount to our modern-day daily wage, which beginning with the average minimum wage of $18 an hour, would be equal to about $144 a day. In other words, speaking of scarcity, want, and famine, in these days a simple loaf of bread will cost a person about $100.

Do not harm the cost of…wine – this is an interesting statement indeed. All hell is breaking loose, food prices are sky-rocketing, food lines will become as common place as when they were in Russia after the fall of communism there (as well as during the U.S. Depression in 1920-21)…but don’t make the price of wine go up astronomically!

One interpretation here is to leave the price of wine lower than food, so that those who cannot afford food can still afford wine…to deaden their suffering by getting drunk. Drunk people, and those addicted to substances, are easier to control than the sober person with his will fully intact and in operation.

Revelation 6:7-8 When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.

Revelation 6:7-8* When He opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” And I looked and saw a pale horse, and the rider’s name that sat upon it was Death, and Hades followed together with him; and he was given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill by the sword, famine, plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Horse – represents strength, especially in battle. Here it can also symbolize the power by which the rider performs what he does; the energizing or causing force behind the rider.

Pale colored – symbolizes pestilence (wasting disease), famine, terror, and death (the color of each horse answers to the mission of its rider). Pale is the color of a person’s face in extreme terror (they go pale); the decomposing body is pale; those starving to death are pale; and those whose bodies are wasting away because of deadly pestilence, turn pale.

Death – whether death personified physically, or spiritually, or figuratively, the result is the same. This seal unleashes death upon one fourth of the earth (today, roughly 2 billion people). Understanding the times, and where the events of Revelation take place most of the time (Europe and the Middle East), it seems likely to say Europe should be that quarter. Any quarter of the world that has modern day appliances (for food storage) and factories where foods are prepared and produced (such as canned, dried, and preserved foods), which includes frozen foods; which is interesting because the UN’s list of goods that are not sustainable, includes frozen foods such as meats, and frozen “TV” dinners. They will no longer be available once the New World Order comes to power.

A short list of the things taken for granted today that the UN Agenda 21 sustainable goals lists as not sustainable (and will be, therefore, outlawed), are: animal meats, consumerization, frozen entre foods, farm lands, livestock grazing, small electrical appliances, and air conditioners, to name a very few. Ridding the world of these things will cost lives by the millions through starvation, murder (killing others for their food), heat death (if you live in a place like Arizona without A/C), and other means. But this is no concern for the NWO, because one of their Agenda 21 goals is depopulating the planet…the more people who die through these means, the less people they will have to kill as sacrifices for ‘mother earth,’ so she can survive.

Given authority to kill…by the sword, famine, plague, and by wild beasts – we are told that the means of death will be varied, that even animal attacks upon humans will take place under this period of time. Again, reading the UN’s Agenda 21, which is part of their Goal 2030 program (that is underway as we speak), and their list of unsustainable things of the modern day, death will easily come to over half of the world’s 7.8 billion people over a very quick period of time. Imagine not having a refrigerator to keep perishable goods…no restaurants to deliver your food orders…no dairy farms for meat or milk (because they are now outlawed)…no power for your stove or microwave…and people, even neighbors, freaking out and killing each other for their food stuffs, blankets, fire wood, homes, etc.

Before we move forward, I want to take the above information on the four horsemen and line them up against the things that have happened in the recent past, as well as things that are in the works from major “players” in the world today.

Revelation 6:2* I watched as the Lamb opened the first of seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say to me like thunder, “You, come here!” And I looked, and saw a white horse, and one sat upon it having a bow, and he was given a crown, and he came subduing and for the purpose that he should frustrate the victory of another.

First, it is important to understand that Jesus is the initiating factor here; when the time is right on God’s timetable, He will give the scroll to Jesus and He will begin opening the seals according to the timetable and will of God.

Second, some people say the first rider is Christ, because the horse is white. However, if this was true, according to what the rest of the text states, this would be His Second Coming, not the Rapture (if anyone might think that, also). When we follow the chronology of the chapter, this is untenable because the church is still found on earth – which would make the Second Coming take place before the Rapture. Neither is this the antichrist – which others teach because he is astride a white horse but is conquering; these folks say that he is the antichrist because it first appears that he is good because he sits upon a white horse (purity). Although the symbolized purity is the color of the horse, not the rider – thus the purity speaks more concerning where the power comes from that energizes this rider (God). With nothing but assumptions behind both of these thoughts, we move past them as both false theories. Another reason why some people believe the first rider is the antichrist, is because they erringly assume (without evidence) that the first seal begins the Tribulation period.

But again, none of the seals are called, or otherwise labeled, as any kind of judgment or wrath of God – the things that take place do so because they lead up to the formation of the New World Order that will shortly be handed over to the antichrist when he does come upon the world’s scene. (I stress again, the seals are not part of the Tribulation period, and the church is still upon the earth in chapter six until somewhere between verses 6:12 – 7:8…because the fifth seal shows Christians who had been martyred and beginning with 7:9 we see the Tribulation martyrs. The church is Raptured out of the world somewhere between 6:12 – 7:8.)  

Given the wording in the text, the first rider is a man personified. He had no political history and appears to have had no prior issues which pushed him out into the political spotlight. That he becomes a political person is obvious because God gives him a crown, making him some kind of political leader. This tells us that in whatever country he hails from, they do not have successional kingship of royalty, but rather he hails from a country where the leaders are put into place by some other means (presidential, prime ministers, chancellor, etc.). He is given a bow, an implement of war, but no arrows – again lending to the idea that he will do what God has raised him up to do, but not through the means of war.

The God-ordained purpose (from the alternative meaning of the Greek word nikao) for this rider is to “frustrate the victory of another.” While most people today continue to believe that this is still a future event, taking all of the chapter together, I believe that this has already taken place – we are living in the days of Revelation chapter six right now! There is a person living today who has fulfilled verse two, but before I give you his name, let us look at recent historical events.

In 2015, Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum invited billionaire Donald Trump to their annual meeting of the rich and powerful in Davos, Switzerland (like they had every year prior), but unlike every year prior to this, in which Trump refused the offer, this time he decided to go. While attending the WEF that year, and learning what the rich and powerful were making plans to do, particularly to America, he left and announced that he was going to run for presidential office in 2016. His announcement did not ruffle anyone’s feathers. There were no protests, no marches to claim that he was unfit to be president. No one brought up his past “debaucheries.” No one brought up taped conversations and seeming anti-feminist nonsense. No, nothing in that regards.

There was no problem in anyone’s eyes concerning him running for president – until the first time in a public debate where he said if he was elected, America under his presidency would not participate in the New World Order. Suddenly, Trump was public global enemy #1. Suddenly, in news headlines from every corner of the globe, we read things like: “Neocons Panic that Trump Presidency Would Mark End to their New World Order,” and “Who is Donald Trump? Why the US Globalist Elites Dread President-Elect Donald Trump,” and “The Trump Doctrine and the End of the ‘New World Order” demonstrates, President Trump was preventing the new world order from marching forward…and the social-marxist democrat globalists do not like that, at all.

Even Politico, an on-line news outlet, today screams in their headlines: “Trump vs. World, Round 2,” and The Economist headlines scream: “Donald Trump poses the biggest danger to the world in 2024.” Why all of the nonsense? Why all of the screaming that Trump will “kill us all” and “destroy the world” as we know it today? Because the globalists have an agenda – their New World Order, which will be a one world marxist totalitarian nightmare for anyone not at the top. Trump successfully postponed and “frustrated the victory of another,” the UN and all of their flunkies; and that frustration continues today, and the 2024 Primaries are just a few months away – causing the Left to panic because none of their ill-conceived, illegal moves to keep Trump from running again have succeeded.

Someone asked me, “Why do you see Trump as the first rider? Why now?” And part of my answer goes back to Rev. 6:1-2…we cannot see what is happening in heaven, Jesus did not just arbitrarily walk up to the Father, take the scroll out of his hand, and begin opening the seals. All of these things were written down, foreordained by God, to take place when He says that it is time. Trump ignored the invitations for years to go to Davos, Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum’s agenda-setting meetings…until 2015. Something made him change his mind to go check out what these billionaire-elites were up to; I believe it was the opening of the first seal. Once it was opened, things began to change because God is behind that change. Since that day, we have observed a marked rise in deception – not only in America, but globally…

II Thessalonians 2:9-12* The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and because they are deceived by all of the wrong things they are doing, they are on their way into the lake of fire – because they did not choose to love and embrace the truth; they cannot be saved until they do. And because of this, God is sending among them strong delusion that will cause them to wander out of truth and lead them into believing what is false, in order that all may be condemned who chose not believe the truth, but chose to revel in unrighteousness.

The amount of deception globally today is unmatched to any time previous to the last 12 years, both nationally from national news media outlets, and globally from the UN and its propaganda machines (the Club of Rome, The World Health Organization, the World Bank, the WEF, among others). If you go back and look at world and US events, you will find that the world seemed hunky-dory until Trump made his statement concerning American anti-participation in the New World Order…then all hell broke out on a global scale.

In order to fear-monger the planet, COVID-19 was released upon the world, with a “vaccine” that had been commercially concocted and manufactured up to at least a verified six months before the “break out” was scheduled to take place (both of these things have been discovered and verified even by some news media outlets). Two medications that were effective against COVID – Ivermectin and Hydrochloroquine – were denounced as nothing but hijacked horse de-wormers by the US government and the UN, even when I found at least 15 science journal articles clearly stating that they could be used for COVID. The lies keep mounting, and one by one we are finding them to be lies as the days continue moving forward. We knew that Ivermectin and Hydrochloroquine would save lives – knowledgeable physicians knew it – medical researchers knew it – therefore, for the government to claim that they did not know it also (which they have never claimed, by the way), would have been just another lie. Therefore, it behooves us as responsible researchers to ask why they made such claims when they knew that those claims were lies. The ONLY responsible, logical answer, is that the current administration was following their UN master’s orders because they wanted people to die.

I myself have read and copied those science journal papers before they were deleted from off the internet (and I still have those copies today as evidence of the conspiracy taking place by the conspiracy-deniers). South American countries had vehicles driving out into the city streets of their towns handing out free Ivermectin to people because it was recognized by medical professionals long before COVID was released upon the world, and had been used for the past 30 years all around the world. Suddenly, the World Health Organization, along with certain national leaders (Biden, Canadian, and Australian heads of State), denounced these two drugs that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Why? I already gave my answer above (and my answer is based upon logical inference, it is not an “opinion”).

The other part of my answer is what the UN and all of its flunkies are in the process of doing: The UN wants a one world governing body up and running by the year 2030, they call their plans for implementing this one world government, “Goal 2030.” When you look at the heads of state, and world ‘shakers and makers’ who make up the body of the UN, they are all either communists, socialists, or globalists – what kind of world government do you suppose they are working behind the scenes to establish? I can tell you this…it will not be a Constitutional Republic! The World Economic Forum wants to shut the world’s economy down and start up again with digital currency, so that they can control you better.

This digital currency will be part of the World Bank (part of the UN) and is modeled after China’s cashless system that is already up and running; and if you do anything they do not like, they will punish you by taking money out of your bank account. There will be no more paper money, no more coin, no more gold or silver – the only thing that you will be able to pay or buy with, will basically be an amount the government will put into your account. All of this information can be verified with your phone or computer, I am not coming up with this stuff out of my head. For Americans, there is another angle; Henry Kissinger (democrat) stated in the World Press Conference, on April 19, 1994, that:

The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change.

If Trump had gone along with the UN and Klaus Schwab’s desires, COVID might not have been released upon the world…because there would not have been a need for it. After Trump announced that under him America would not participate in the UN’s wickedness, suddenly Antifa and BLM (both communist organizations) started rioting in democrat-run states and cities around the United States, and they continued their onslaught until the 2019 election had been stolen by the democrats (yes…stolen; since the election the servers and other illegitimate means have been discovered, votes re-counted, etc., but the only way we hear about these is from people who were actually there taking videos of what had been found – the state-run news media continues to deny those facts).

At the same time all of the LGBTQ and gender nonsense started up…children being taken from their parents in California and other states because they would not affirm their 8 year-old’s gender “identity,” and other foolishness. At the same time, biden stopped the border wall and has allowed untold millions of illegals into the country, and the latest reports on the subject tell us that thousands of known terrorists have come into the country. Just yesterday (1/3/2024) it was reported that the border patrol arrested a middle eastern man posing as a Hispanic with four home-made bombs on his person.

At the same time, the “woke” nonsense started up…and the “cancel culture” nonsense started up…and then the climate change nonsense… and then the current administration began making very stupid, moronic decisions all designed to either cripple the American economy more, or to give militant groups around the world free military equipment that cost American’s millions of dollars. Handing guns, grenades, and all kinds of other weaponry over into the hands of people who have sworn “death to America” does not demonstrate any kind of commitment to America. Rather, it demonstrates a commitment to destroy this country as we know it today. Make no mistake, biden may be a moron, but he is not making economic blunders – he is doing exactly what his UN overlords have told him to do because the New World Order cannot start until America no longer exists as a free nation.

While the idea that this was planned still hits many people as ludicrous, the facts bear out the reality of the situation. This was all part of the plan to destroy America as we know it today…because Americans will not give up their freedom and be turned over to a Marxist regime. The only way America will become part of the New World Order, is if America as we know it today is destroyed…and the New World Order is coming. One thing Kissinger had wrong – the New World Order will not change America, it will have to be “changed” before the New World Order can begin. All of these things and more, with the UN’s “Great Reset” through the World Economic Forum, their passing laws to stop all farming and ranching in order to control the global food market, digital currency, and the other things that are part of “Agenda 21,” all coming to a boiling point within months of each other…and all made known by Trump’s proclamation when he was running for President.

Need further evidence? For the last 12 years or so, they have been desensitizing Americans through movies to what they are doing, so that if anyone like myself tries to show you what they are doing, they simply label me as a conspiracy theorist, point to movies where they have put their plans down for you to watch, and then claim that I am watching way too many movies. For example, in the movie, Captain America: Winter Soldier, we have a computer room scene where a computerized Dr. Zola (from the first Capt. America movie) tells “Cap” that…

Humanity cannot be trusted with its own freedom. What we did not realize was that if you try to take that freedom, people resist. The war taught us much, humanity needs to surrender its freedom willingly. After the war…secretly feeding crises…accidents will happen…creating a world so chaotic that humanity is finally willing to sacrifice its freedom in order to gain its security. Once the purification process is completed…the new world order will arise.

In the movie, Avatar, by globalist James Cameron, the hero (“Jake”) comes to pray to Aiwa, the name of the mother planet the Navi live on, saying…

If Grace is with you, look into her memories, see the world that we come from. There’s no green there, they killed their mother, and they’re gonna do the same here…unless we stop them.

Humanity needs to surrender its freedom willingly, and much of the world today, through the efforts of the UN globalists, creating a world so chaotic that much of the world today is ready to sacrifice their freedoms because of the lies these elitists are spreading, in order to gain world security, which can only be achieved (we are told) by abolishing national boundaries and coming together under one banner of humanity – with them in charge. YOU are the problem, a disease upon the face of the earth, and if you do not change your ways, you will become one of those to be taken out in “the purification process” so that “the new world order will arise.”

But let us continue…

Revelation 6:3-4* When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” And another horse came, fiery red in color, and the rider sitting upon it was given power to take away civil peace from the earth, for the purpose that people will kill one another; and he was given a great sword.

Recall that the color red in Scripture represents carnage, bloodshed, and war…the first rider fulfilled his purpose and temporarily hindered the UN’s goals; but now, after the second seal is broken, the world powers that crave to dominate the world begin to push forward again. Civil peace is taken away from practically every country in the world, why? The passage tells us why, “for the purpose that people will kill one another.” Remember the UN’s population control agenda, to curb the human population down to between 300,000 to 500,000 people world-wide. Currently, the human population of the world is around 7.8 billion; so that means those who want to be in power over the world want to kill (murder) over 7.5 billion people. They claim that it is the earth that they are trying to save…that it is better for 300,000 people and the earth to survive rather than human beings killing “mother earth” (gaia) and all life on the planet.

This is their idea on the subject – human beings are a plague upon the earth, and the only way to save the earth is to depopulate the human “disease.” Why would people kill one another in the amounts implied in the text (because people kill one another every day around the planet), what makes this different? The difference is that it is on a huge scale worldwide. For example, in order to cause America to fall to the state that most of the population can be controlled, hundreds of thousands of Americans will have to surrender…or be killed. In countries like Germany, Spain, Austria, and France (all over Europe), people are rising up and protesting their governments’ new laws making their countries marxist.

They are protesting the only way they can, by dumping manure in the middle of streets, and so-forth – because they have been disarmed…Americans have not allowed themselves to be disarmed, so when the social-marxists begin to do here what other countries have done to their citizens…the blood will flow. Right now, as we speak, UN “peacekeepers” have been shipped into the US, and videos of multitudes of military vehicles (without the US flag on the side like all US military vehicles have) are being transported across the States to specific locations. When the order comes down and those UN troops start driving down our streets in force, and war has been declared upon the United States by its own government UN-stooges…then America will fall to the same ground fighting we have witnessed in different African countries, as well as other countries that have been attacked from without (like Ukraine, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, the Congo, Colombia, and Mali).

Americans have been secure from war within our national borders since the Civil War ended in 1865 (which the social-marxist democrats started because they wanted to keep their slave labor), for 158 years…in the very near future, our fight for national survival will begin, and end, in a short and bloody, violent surge against the enemies of freedom. This is one reason why I believe we do not find America – at one time the world superpower – in end-time prophecy; in order for a world superpower not to even be mentioned in Scripture means that something happened to America which changed our superpower status. America is either completely destroyed, or it falls to the conniving powers dead set upon its fall so that they can rule the world with a iron hand – something that America would fight to keep from happening if it was still a world superpower.

From my understanding, this second seal shows the UN and its flunkies doing whatever it takes in order to bring down those countries that are unwilling to “go with the flow” of what they are doing; and right now, the main country keeping the UN at bay is the United States. The next seal begins dealing with what takes place after this totalitarian-marxist New World Order becomes up and running…

Revelation 6:5-6* And when He opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “You, come here and look.” And I saw a black horse and its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard a sound like a voice coming from the midst of the four living creatures, saying, “Cause a measure of wheat to cost a man’s daily wage, and three measures of barley to cost a man’s daily wage; but do not harm the cost of olive oil or the wine.”

Remember what the color black represents in Scripture? Scarcity, want, mourning, famine, distress, and calamity…do some research on what took place in China, Austria, Russia, Venezuela, and other countries after communists took over their countries. When the communists took over China, more people died from starvation than were killed as enemies of the State…to the tune of 76 million people. The number of tortured and killed was only 2.5 million. We can also observe the same trend today in socialist Venezuela, a country of 6.8 million people, where because of socialist policies, 78% of the population (5.3 million people) are starving to death or have already died, because of hyperinflation.

And that is what we observe in verses 5-6; hyperinflation not only because of communist policy, but because of a shortage of available food. Again, today…right now in certain European countries like Germany, France, Spain, etc., people are protesting the illegal confiscation of farms and farmlands, and ranches because these countries leaders are bowing to the UN status quo. Once the New World Order is up and running, having a refrigerator, microwave oven, frozen foods, A/C units, gas powered vehicles, and many other things that you take for granted today, will be outlawed. Today, people in Venezuela are leaving in droves because they are starving, they have roving blackouts from no electricity, no gasoline at gas stations, long lines just waiting for gas to show up, long lines at grocery stores waiting for food to arrive, and when it does, the people are only allowed to purchase one bag of selected items. This is coming to America very shortly.

This is one reason why civil peace will be striped from countries…because starving people will be breaking into your house to steal your food, clothes, blankets, medicine, and whatever else they can steal from you – including your very life. The days are coming when people will break into your house and kill you because they do not have the things that you have. This is why I write this article…because God promises to take care of His own people; if you are not walking hand in hand with God today, you had better get yourself right with Him and start spending quality time with Him in prayer and worship. I recall stories from saints gone by who grew up during the Great Depression in this country, stories of divine intervention and divine provision, by angelic visitors and so-forth. God will do it again…

A loaf of bread will cost you around $100, and any kind of meat will no longer show up at the grocery stores, having been outlawed. What will beans, potatoes, soups and other canned goods, or other veggies and fruits sell for in these days? And if you are not a good boy, they will take money from out of your account, giving you less to purchase food stuffs with. It is interesting that they will not make the price of olive oil or wine go astronomical…the olive oil has me stumped, but it is easier to manipulate and control people who are drunk; and if you are starving and cannot afford a lot of high-priced food goods, buying wine to get drunk so that you no longer feel your hunger pains is the next best way to go. These things above take place in countries where marxism takes over, the only difference between these past countries and the marxist New World Order to come, is that communism will cause these things on a grand global scale, which leads us to the fourth rider…

Revelation 6:7-8* When He opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” And I looked and saw a pale horse, and the rider’s name that sat upon it was Death, and Hades followed together with him; and he was given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill by the sword, famine, plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Remember what color “pale” represents in Scripture? It symbolizes pestilence (a word for wasting diseases, that cause you to waste away physically until it kills you), famine, terror, and death. Pale is the color of a person’s face in extreme terror (they go pale), the decomposing body is pale, those starving to death are pale, and those whose body is wasting away because of deadly pestilence, turn pale. The passage says that this rider is given authority over 1/4th of the population of the earth, that is, to kill 1/4th of the human population; today that number would be 1,950,000,000 people (one billion, nine-hundred and fifty million).

It says that he will be allowed to use sword, famine, plague, and wild beasts of the earth to do all of this killing…how can we see that playing out? People will kill one another for food still, and shelter; domesticated dogs will have to be let loose by those who owned them because they will have no food to fed them with (they will be too busy trying to feed their own families). Domesticated dogs will turn feral just like cats do, and they will try to kill whatever they can so that they can eat…and that will include humans. People will starve to death, mostly because of the New World Order’s policies that they institute under the guise of “saving the planet.” And it is not hard to imagine the UN releasing other man-made plagues upon the world (since they have already done it at least once). And with all of this genetic manipulating taking place, it is also not hard to imagine something mixing with something else unintentionally in the wild, to form something that could potentially destroy practically all life on earth.

It is these days that I believe Jesus addressed in Matthew 24 when He said “unless those days were cut short, no flesh would survive.” Most people think Jesus’ comment speaks to salvation from sin, but in context and from the Greek, He means exactly what He says here…things will get so bad that unless He comes back in the Second Coming, NO life will continue on planet earth. Men and their power-hungry greed and will to dominate all life, will eventually destroy this planet with toxins, pollution, and other gross human behavior when it is unchecked. Another scenario that could be played out regarding wild beasts killing people, is that people will get so desperate to get out of cities where most of the killing will be taking place (both by UN troops hell-bent upon upholding the UN’s New World Order, and by their starving, desperate neighbors), that they will begin heading out for the mountains and forests to get away from all of the senseless violence. There, they may well meet their grizzly end (no pun intended) at the hands of wild animals, such as bears, snakes, mountain lions, wolves, etc. Again, this is not a plague, judgment, or wrath of God…this is the direct result of a world-wide marxist regime and what has followed suit every time a country falls to communism. The only difference here, is that it is on a global scale.

It is not the world as we know it today that the man who will become the antichrist, who seemingly has all of the answers to the world’s problems, will step out into the global spotlight and save the world…no, it will be the mess that the new marxist world-wide government has created that the antichrist will save the world from. How do I know that? Some people think that it will be UFO’s and interstellar aliens that he will save us from, but when we use our brains and think about that, it is not really plausible. Jesus said that these days would be unlike any other since the beginning of creation, and I find it interesting that communism as an actual governing body, did not exist in the world until 1917 in Russia, and since the fall of communism in Russia, five other countries are now under its totalitarian rule: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.

As I stated earlier, if you look at all of the 190+ delegates that make up the UN, practically every one of them are either a globalist, socialist, or full blown marxist. So, it is only logical that when they come into power in this one world government, that government will be communist in nature, and no other type of governing philosophy results in the mass killings and deaths through starvation that communism has demonstrated itself to cause. What does Scripture tell us…

Daniel 2:43* and as you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so the peoples of this kingdom will mingle among one another, but will never adhere with one another; just as iron does not adhere to soft clay.

Daniel 7:23* And he said, “The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom upon the earth, but this kingdom will be different from all of the previous kingdoms that came before it; this kingdom will consume and destroy the whole earth, and it will trample down the earth, and it will crush all other kingdoms into pieces.

This verse describes the kingdom that will become the antichrist’s just before the Great Tribulation period. They tell us that the one world government will be made up of “peoples” meaning not just one people of a certain nation, but peoples spanning many ethnic groups or nationalities (Pilipino, Greek, Mexican, Chinese, Samoan, etc.). However, what is the dividing factor, why do these peoples not mix, why do they not adhere together as a single nation? One possible answer is found within marxist nations – there are usually only two classes, the rich and powerful ruling class, and (essentially) the peasant class. These two classes are always at odds with one another because the ruling class does whatever it wants to with, or to, the peasant class.

There are some exceptions, apparently North Korea has concocted about 50 different classes, all based upon what your ancestors did in the past (military, cook, janitor, shoe repair, etc.). The verse says that this kingdom “will be different from all of the previous kingdoms that came before it,” speaking of the other kingdoms in Daniel’s vision, not every kingdom that has ever populated the earth that came before this last one. The one element that makes this kingdom different from the previous ones, taken from all of the descriptions about it from various places in Scripture, will be that it is a marxist (totalitarian dictatorship) kingdom. There were no kingdoms fashioned in the order of marxism in world history until after 1888, when the communist manifesto was published. No national kingdoms before then ever treated their own peoples so badly, and oppressed them into the dirt like communism does.

The other elements that make this kingdom different, is that its rulers will consume and destroy the whole earth, trample the earth down under their power, and destroy (crush) every other kingdom in the world. What does the angel mean by these descriptions? According to past history, these very same words can be directly applied to how communism treats those under its rule; it is oppressive, murdering, consuming until there is nothing left for the peasant class. Those in power live like kings in plush living, feeding their own sinful desires in abundant luxury while their people are starving in the streets…and the leadership does not care.

During this time many millions will suffer and die because of marxist UN policies, particularly one class of people in the world – Christians. If you do even a cursory search on your computer today, you will find that most of the world hates Christianity, and the UN is on the top of the list. No other group of people in the world raise the alarm about what the UN and its flunkies are doing because we see it as prophecy working its self out before our very eyes. The New World Order has to come into being, and it will ultimately be led by ten men…this is the world government that will be in place when the man who will become the antichrist steps out into the spotlight. Scripture says that these ten men will give that world government over to the antichrist (presumably because he ‘saves the world’ and has all the answers)…

Revelation 17:9-13 This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind, and they hand over their power and authority to the beast.

Therefore, everything that the UN is doing today in order to get their one world government up and running, is part and parcel of what leads up to the Tribulation period. People have been saying for the last hundred years that the Rapture and Tribulation could come at any time, but that is not according to what Scripture says…

II Thessalonians 2:1-8 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only that which now restrains him will do so until it is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

In verses 1-2 Paul addresses the Rapture of the church, as he speaks about “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and “our being gathered together to Him,” and “the day of the Lord” all as one and the same day. Some people think the day of the “Lord” equals the “Day of Yahweh” from the OT prophecies (written out in English translations as the Day of the LORD, where LORD stands in place of God’s name, Yahweh), but Paul never uses the phrase to mean the Day of Yahweh – which is always attributed in the OT prophecies to a time of God’s wrath poured out upon a specific people, city, nation, or the “time of Jacob’s trouble” (the Tribulation period in the NT).

Paul goes on in verse 3 to say that the Rapture of the church will not come until “the rebellion comes first,” which straight from the Greek is “the apostasy.” The emphasis in the phrase in the Greek is upon the definite article…this is not just any apostasy (or falling away), this is THE apostasy, so emphasized that it is the great abandonment of Christianity. Paul also says that the man who will become the antichrist will be revealed to the world…the great apostasy has been taking place now over the last 12 years or so with the democrats in the white house, stirred into commotion by all of their pro-choice, pro-homosexual, pro-gender nonsense for just starters.

The liberal “church” has grown by leaps and bounds while the church of God shrinks, pretty soon the direct influence of the Holy Spirit through the church will have shrunk so much that it will no longer be able to hold back the “man of sin” from coming upon the scene. Most Bible teachers I have listened to ignore this key fact of Scripture because they do not like what they think it means, yet there it is. They think it means the church will be here during the Tribulation period, but Paul does not say the antichrist will be manifest to the world, he says that the “man” of lawlessness will be revealed. I understand this to mean (in the face of the facts of when the Rapture will take place) that the man who will become the antichrist…before he becomes the antichrist. Scripture says that the antichrist (dragon) will have been killed by a wound to his head, and then days later he comes back to life. This is none other than satan possessing this man’s body after he has been most likely assassinated by a bullet to the head; he takes over this man’s body completely, making it seem like he resurrected himself – this is satan’s mock resurrection of Christ.

Therefore, before the Rapture can take place, this guy who will become the full-blown antichrist after he is assassinated (I am assuming assassination), must be revealed to the world, this is the only thing left (aside from the last Gentile getting saved in this world as we know it) that must take place before the Rapture event. My point here, is that all of these things are “falling into place” with events happening in the world today, all coming to a head within the last 6 years or so…

1.  The UN’s plans to dominate the world.

2.  The World Economic Forum, headed by Klaus Schwab…whose father was a Nazi.

3.  The World Bank (part of the UN) and the Great Reset and digitalized “money.”

4.  Farmland being taken away or bought up by globalists.

5.  The shutting down of ranches and farms that produce food, not just meat but also apple farms and other fruit farms where farmers have been told not to harvest their crops – “or else.”

6.  The release of covid…

7.  Making Ivermectin and Hydrochloroquine illegal to use for covid…

8.  Antifa and BLM and others causing havoc…

9.  Homosexual rights nonsense, gender assignment/identity nonsense, the border nonsense…

10.  The Club of Rome (UN) planning to use disasters to make the world feel insecure.

11.  UN “peacekeeper” troops here in the United States…

12.  All of the stupidity from the present Administration…

13.  People on social media posting videos of military vehicles transported all over the country (we are not currently at war with anyone, does the government know something that we do not? Or are these vehicles not for our military, but for the UN soldiers that are already here?).

All of these things just happened to start taking place around 2015, and some getting worse and then stopping while others have slowly boiled to a head within the last six months…that is just way too much of a ‘coincidence’ for my tastes. The verified “Deep State” has demonstrated to have far-reaching tentacles from the UN and their UN masters…but all of the gender nonsense and other localized stupidity here in the States continues to keep more simpler minds from seeing the things that are going on around them.

Let us continue…

Revelation 6:9-11 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Revelation 6:9-11* When He opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been killed because of the Word of God, and because of the witness they had testified about. And they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Master, holy and true, how long will You wait before You judge and execute justice upon those who dwell on the earth, for spilling our blood?” And they were each given a stately white robe and told to rest a little longer until the full number of their fellow servants and brothers came to fulfillment, who would be killed as they were killed.

In chronological order here, we have John given a glimpse of Christians who have been martyred, killed because they preached the Word of God, and presumably testified in witnessing to people about Jesus so that they could get saved. Again, we must pay close attention to the wording here, because some teach that this is a picture of the Tribulation saints…however, the Tribulation saints do not come on the scene until chapter seven (7:9-17) and they are clearly articulated as martyred Tribulation saints. No, here John sees the pre-rapture martyrs who have been murdered from the opening of the very first seal until now – four seals later. The Rapture has not taken place yet otherwise these folks would not be martyrs; neither has the Tribulation period begun yet. By this time in the chronology, I believe the person who will become the antichrist has made his appearance in the global scene, and because of that (II Thess. 2:1-3) the Rapture of what remains of the church will take place any time now (as far as the context is concerned).

Again, in this time line, the Rapture event can take place anytime between Rev. 6:12 to 7:1…but this can be better understood in continuing to what takes place after the opening of the sixth seal.

Revelation 6:12-17 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of Their wrath has come, and who can stand against Them?”

Again, there is no discernable amount of time that elapses between the opening of the seals; while they seem to take place one immediately after another, that just cannot be according to what each seal releases. Between each seal is discernable time…time for plagues to kill people…time for people to starve to death, etc. It takes a person at least 40 days (give or take) before he starves literally to death, depending upon his weight at the point where he no longer had food to eat. We are given no hints as to how much time elapses between each seal, and I doubt there is a uniform amount of time (for example, each seal is opened every four years).

With this in mind, we do not know how much time elapses between the fifth and sixth seal, and I say that because with the opening of the sixth seal, we see terminology that seems to indicate that the Tribulation period begins with the natural disasters that take place after it is opened (“for the day of Their wrath has come…”).

The purpose of this article, as stated earlier, is so that the church can see where we are in the Biblical time line and get our affairs in order, because the end is quite near. However, we are not to think that life between here and there will be a bed of roses…no, particularly we here in America, are about to face unprecedented times that none of us would ever believe that we would suffer. War has not touched our native soil for over 150 years – but it is coming, perhaps even before I can post this article. When it does come, the church needs to be ready, because Christian or not, if we are not ready for it, we will not survive.

Christians need to stop doing all of the stupid nonsense that we do on a daily basis…spending hours watching TV, doing nonsense things that do not matter, like gardening, washing your vehicle, playing video games, and all of the other things that have become distractions from spending time with God. The average Christian only spends about 15 minutes in prayer a day (if they pray at all), and that simply will not do. The only way Christians survived during the Great Depression in this country, was by spending hours with God in prayer and worship, to the point that God supernaturally took care of them by providing food and clothes sometimes out of thin air.

The days ahead of us are going to be just as bad as they have been in other countries right up to today, like in Africa where warlords systematically torture and kill hundreds of people in one day in order to take over a village. I do not relish the idea of what is coming, but it is coming; and from what Scripture seems to indicate…it is coming fairly quickly. Again, I urge you, Christian, make God your priority today like He should have been already. Cease filling your days with distractions that keep you from spending time with God and coming to know Him on a personal basis – because in the days to come, the only way you will survive is if you are walking with Him so that He takes pains to supernaturally sustain your physical life.

Far too many Christians today believe that they are on their way to heaven just because they got saved 30 years ago…saved is one thing, walking with God is quite another, which is why we read:

John 3:36*  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not obey the Son will never know life, because the wrath of God remains abiding upon him.

Again, just getting saved and nothing else is false calvinistic doctrine, because Jesus says a number of times that if you do not spend time with Him in order to get to know Him personally, then you will be shut outside the ark of safety…

Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of My Father who is in heaven.  On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?’  And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Matthew 25:12 But He answered, “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.”

Luke 13:24-27* Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When the Master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, “Lord, open to us,” then He will answer you, and say, “I do not know you, where have you been?” Then you will begin to say, “We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.” But He will say, “I say to you, I do not know you, where have you been? Depart from Me all you workers of iniquity!

When Jesus says in the passage above, “I do not know you, where have you been?” which is how the original Greek reads, what He is saying is that you were not spending time with Him in order to get to know Him personally. Where have you been lately? Spending time with God in prayer and worship…or participating in distractions that will cost your soul dearly in the days to come?

Until next time, blessings!

Posted in The End Times | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are Catholics really “Christians” (generally speaking, of course)?

Researched, organized, and researched by Dr. Dave Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

01012024

Right off the bat, many people will say that I am being heretical here and claim that Catholics use the Bible, so they are Christians. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Calvinists also use the Bible (along with many other so-called Christian “cults”), but that does not make them Christians.

One of the problems here is that far too many Christians (or those who call themselves Christians, when they are not) teach that Scripture says all one has to do in order to get saved, is the Calvinist mantra “by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone;” however, this is not what Scripture teaches that a person must do in order to get saved. This is mainly due to the fact that false calvinistic doctrines have crept into the church at large, and those who have never studied calvinistic doctrines have no idea that they espouse such.

First, history (things that calvin did) and his own writings give us no indication anywhere that calvin ever got saved or ever walked with God, and his doctrines, writings, and the things he did (as well as did not do) testify against him on that point. His doctrines originated out of his own carnal mind, not a man indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Calvin demonstrates in his writings that he did not know how to read and interpret Scripture – as a matter of fact, practically the only doctrine he got right was that Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh…after that, every one of his doctrines goes out into left field. This is what Scripture teaches when it comes to how a person gets saved:

1.  Choosing to believe in Jesus:

John 3:15-16  that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 6:40*  And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that everyone who acknowledges the Son, and believes on Him, can have everlasting life: and that I raise him up on the last day.”

John 20:31  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in His name.

Hebrews 11:6  And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.

2.  Repenting from their former sinful lifestyle:

Mark 1:15  and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Mark 6:12  So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent.

Luke 13:3  No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

Luke 24:47  and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38*  And Peter said to them, “You all must repent from your sinful practices, and receive water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ so your sins can be forgiven, and you will receive God’s gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.”

Acts 3:19  Repent therefore, and turn back, so that your sins may be blotted out,

Acts 17:30  The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent,

Acts 20:21  testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

II Corinthians 7:10  For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

II Peter 3:9  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Revelation 2:16  Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

3.  Receiving water baptism into Christ, the Living New Covenant:

John 3:5  Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, if one is not born out of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Mark 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38  And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:41  So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 22:16  And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

I Peter 3:21  Which also is now a type for you of deliverance through baptism, not the washing of the flesh, but of a right conscience of integrity in pledging yourself into God by covenant oath, because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Acts 19:1-5  And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Romans 6:3  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Now, those under calvinistic doctrine knock out water baptism because calvin could not see how water baptism had anything to do with getting saved – and that is just the point; calvin could not see many things in Scripture because he did not have the Spirit of God dwelling within him, and this is what Scripture teaches concerning such people walking in the flesh:

I Cor. 2:14*  But the natural man chooses not to receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are absurd to him; and he does not have the power to come to know them because they are only carefully and accurately examined by the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, calvin knew nothing about covenants, and failed to understand that Scripture teaches that unless a person is water baptized into Christ, then he is not in Christ. Everything that we have from God is given only to those who are in Christ: salvation, eternal life, justification, holiness, righteousness, etc. If one never received water baptism into the New Covenant of God in Christ, then he is not in Christ, and has nothing of God has made available to us. Someone inevitably brings up the thief on the cross, which to me demonstrates a spectacular lack of understanding. First of all, the thief died before Christ did, and that fact alone makes his “example” null and void. Secondly, the thief did not have the opportunity to come down off of the cross in order to receive water baptism; if God did not accept him because he lacked the opportunity, then God would not be righteous, would He.

But we have gotten side-tracked…this article is not supposed to be about the false doctrines of calvinism that has crept into the Church; it is supposed to be about the differences between the catholic “church” and Christianity. Many catholic doctrines are antagonistic to Scripture and what it teaches; indulgences, apparitions of “Mary,” idol worship (which they call veneration), and others…along with all of the extra-biblical teachings that they teach that are not part of what they call a body of doctrine.

One example is marriage – I had a friend who was catholic in the military; while talking one night he and his wife told me that they had never had a wedding ceremony. They said that they asked their priest about marriage and he told them that if they had already had sex then they were married in the eyes of God and didn’t have to get married in an “official” capacity. This is heresy! If what their priest told them was true, then we should not find passages like Exodus 22:16 and others in the Bible.

Recently, one of the worst things about the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) is that the pope is advocating a one world religion, in line with what the U.N. is calling its new religion – Gaia. They claim that the earth has somehow become sentient within the last few years, and are reverting to the ‘ancient’ pagan nature-worship religions that once covered the face of the earth. You cannot be a Christian and worship Mary. You cannot be a Christian and worship Gaia. You cannot be a Christian and venerate apparitions of supposed dead ‘saints.’ With the turn of every successive year, the RCC looks more and more like the false Christian religion of liberalism – they espouse homosexualism and all of the sex-related nonsense going on with the so-called gender identity.

I have heard people claim that they had grandmothers or other family members that were good catholics and that they “loved the Lord with all of their heart,” but people are easily deceived. A person who was a catholic, who might have finally actually come to God and received salvation, can not remain in a false religion and still be considered to be walking with God. God will not hold hands with a person who is holding their other hand with doctrines of demons – that is not what Scripture tells us. This is what Scripture tells us…

I Corinthians 10:21  You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and partake of the table of demons.

When people allow their bias to blind them to the truth of Scripture, then they allow themselves to be deceived…and Jesus gave warning after warning after warning for us not to allow ourselves to be deceived.

The long and short of it, is that catholics are not Christians; the RCC church is not part of the Christian church; catholic doctrines are not part of the doctrines of the church. It is as plain as that. The next thing you know, people will be saying that the Christian God and the Muslim God are the same God…but anyone who believes that does not have a solid grasp upon Christian doctrine, the Bible, or what the koran teaches.

Until next time, Blessings…

Posted in False Teachings | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is Jesus Christ Yahweh God in the flesh? (Part 4)

Researched, compiled, and written by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

October 15, 2020

10.  Attributes of God shared by Christ:

–  Eternality

Isaiah 9:6  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Micah 5:2  But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me One who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

Hebrews 13:8  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

John 1:1-2  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

John 8:58  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 17:5  And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.

..

..

–  Omnipotence

Isaiah 9:6  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Hebrews 1:3  He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

..

..

–  Omnipresence

Matthew 18:20  For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them.”

John 3:13*   No man has ascended into heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.

John 6:48-51, 58  I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh…This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

..

“down from heaven” where ek (from) speaks of an object or person which was beforehand in something or somewhere else but are presently separated from where they once were, such as an egg yoke taken out of the egg shell. In Biblical Greek, if something is separated from where it once was, then that separation ‘from’ it is expressed with ek; while if that something was only near it, on it, or with it, then that separation is expressed with apo. ek is used in respect to either place, time, source, or origin – in this case, when Jesus uses it, He uses it in respect to origin. Its base definition is out of, or separation from. When used of origin, ek implies “likeness.” The word translated as “down” is the verb katabainw, and what is interesting about its use here, is its grammar – it is in the present active participle. What this tells us is that Christ was in a constant present state of “coming down” from heaven, in allusion to being presently in heaven and on earth at the same time, mirroring the statement in John 3:13. This speaks of the omnipresence of Christ as God, who was both in heaven and walking the earth at the exact same time.

..

..

–  Omniscience

John 2:24  But Jesus on His part did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew all people.

John 21:17  He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” and he said to Him, “Lord, You know everything; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.

Luke 6:7-8  And the scribes and the Pharisees watched Jesus, to see whether He would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him. But He knew their thoughts, and He said to the man with the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” And he rose and stood there.

..

..

–  Immutability (unchanging nature)

Hebrews 1:10-12  And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe You will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.”

Hebrews 13:8  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

..

..

11.  Old Testament Messianic Prophecies that tell of His divine nature:

Zechariah 12:10  [God says,] “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on Me, on Him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”

..

With…

..

John 19:34-37 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness–his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth–that you also may believe. For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of His bones will be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They will look on Him whom they have pierced.”

Revelation 1:7 Behold, Jesus is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him. Even so. Amen.

..

Yahweh is speaking in verse 10, saying that He will pour out grace upon the house of David and Jerusalem, and that “they” will “look upon Me, upon Him whom they have pierced,” specifically addressing the humanity of the coming Messiah. This text demonstrates that Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh. We must examine the language of the Zechariah text: and part of the explanation as to why a certain pronoun was changed, finds its place here…

..

S Lewis Johnson has some additional insights on the Jewish approach to Zechariah 12:10  – “I have a commentary on the Old Testament written by some Jewish scholars, it’s not a bad commentary in many ways, and I find a great deal of help. I notice the explanation that they gave of the 10th verse of the 12th chapter. It was something like this: ‘They shall look unto me, because THEY, the nations, have thrust Him through.’ ‘They shall look unto me because they the nations have pierced him through.’ And I looked in my Hebrew text to discover how this rendering of  the text was possible. It is impossible. Will you look at the text carefully, it says, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem”. There (“HOUSE OF DAVID…INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM”) is the “THEY” of the text, not the nations. The nations have been mentioned in the 9th verse. But since that mention, there has only been the mention of the Jews in verse 10! And so surely the normal interpretation of the 10th verse is, “And they”, that is, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, about whom I’ve just been speaking. [https://www.preceptaustin.org/zechariah-12-commentary; Johnson was a professor of the OT and Fluent in Biblical Hebrew]

..

Basically, what Austin is telling us (through Johnson), is that the scribes didn’t like the idea that Jews would be responsible for killing (piercing) their coming God-Messiah, so they changed things up a little during their copying in two different ways…

..

Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next…The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear—they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable—and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT. [note on the text from the NET Bible, electronic version, emphasis theirs]

..

The copying scribes didn’t like the theological implication of their own people killing their Messiah, so they changed the interpretation to be that of the Gentile nations killing Him and then, for good measure, changed the pronoun from “me” to “him” in effort to make it look like two different people are being spoken about. The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary backs this up…

..

The Jews, to avoid the conclusion that He whom they have “pierced” is Jehovah-Messiah, who says, “I will pour out … spirit,” altered “me” into “him,” and represent the “pierced” one to be Messiah Ben (son of) Joseph, who was to suffer in the battle with Cog, before Messiah Ben David should come to reign. But the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic translations of the verse oppose this rendering. [The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, electronic version]

..

According to the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic Bible translations, this verse reads, “when they look unto Me, unto Me whom they have pierced.” Some commentators believe this is the pre-incarnate Christ who is speaking instead of God because of the wording, but a pre-incarnate Christ is not in the text, it is Yahweh God speaking through the prophet.

Furthermore, the mention of the Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David is a hint at the Jews’ misunderstanding of Scripture to teach two Messiahs (the one suffering servant, and the other the conquering King). When the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate to be executed, they believed that they were executing the suffering Messiah, Messiah Ben Joseph, not the conquering king Messiah (Ben David). If they had realized that there was only one Messiah, then they would have accepted His claims to be God and would not have killed Him.

What these facts tell us is that the original wording of the text in question, has been altered by Jewish scribes, not because the idea of Yahweh-Messiah being pierced (because plenty of OT passages teach that the Messiah would be Yahweh in human form, but because of the reading that “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (the Jews) will look upon their God-Messiah “whom THEY have pierced.”

The conclusion on this passage (Zechariah 12:10) is that “me” and “him” (which was originally both first person “me”) refers to the speaker, who is Yahweh in the text. Since it is Yahweh in the text, when we observe that it is quoted and attributed to Jesus in John 19:34-37, and then again mentioned in Revelation 1:7, about the glorified Christ, we have another proof positive piece of evidence of Scripture that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh. Fully human and fully God, just as both Scripture and the Jews fully recognized in the centuries before His incarnation.

..

..

Malachi 3:1  “Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says Yahweh of hosts.”

..

With…

..

Mark 1:1-3The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send My messenger before My face, who will prepare My way;and “the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way for Yahweh, make His paths straight,’”

..

And…

..

Isaiah 40:3  A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way for Yahweh; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

..

With…

..

Matthew 3:3  For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight.’”

..

While all four gospels attribute Isaiah 40:3 to John the Baptist, only Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 concerning him. However, in Mark the wording has been changed from what Malachi originally states. Malachi reads, “He will prepare the way before Me,” while Mark changes it to “before Your face.” This is not a discrepancy, corruption, or contradiction – it is what has come to be called in numerous NT quotations of the OT, as “interpretive quoting.”

In other words, Mark understood from Scripture (and most likely the church’s teaching on Jesus) that Malachi 3:1 was a form of Messianic prophecy, and that the Messiah was God in human form; therefore, he quoted it interpretively as meaning before the Messiah’s face. Either way, the original text tells us that Yahweh was the one coming, and that He was going to send a messenger before Himself in order to “make straight paths” for Himself.

This is yet another instance of the NT writers’ practice of applying to Jesus what the OT Scriptures related to Yahweh. In turn, this is another OT passage that affirms the identity of the Messiah as Yahweh in the flesh – Jesus Christ.

..

..

Zechariah 14:5  And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then Yahweh my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.

..

With…

..

Jude 1:14-15  It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Revelation 19:11-14  Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems, and He has a name written that no one knows but Himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which He is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following Him on white horses.

..

Firstly, angels are never called “holy ones” in Scripture, this is a designation of God’s holy saints; therefore, the Zechariah text does not refer to angelic beings.

Secondly, Enoch seems to be repeating the same prophetic utterance about God coming with His holy ones.

Third, both prophetic utterances from the OT (although we do not have the Book of Enoch) are fulfilled in Rev. 19:11-14, where again, “the armies of heaven” are depicted as the saints of God, NOT angelic beings. The words “the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure,” are descriptors of the saints, which is identical in Rev. 6:11, 7:9-14, and 19:6-8.

Therefore, having all of the facts in order, God is prophesied to be coming with His saints for judgment, which we see fulfilled in Rev. 19:11-14 when Christ rides down out of heaven with His saints following Him on their white horses.

Again, Jesus is depicted as fulfilling a prophetic utterance about God, because He is Yahweh God in the flesh.

..

..

12.  Old Testament passages that are attributed to Him, which are not Messianic prophecy:

Isaiah 42:8  I am Yahweh; that is My name; My glory I give to no other, nor My praise to carved idols.

..

God clearly states that He will not give His glory to anyone (or anything), it is His alone. Yet one of the titles of Jesus Christ in the NT is “the Lord of Glory”…

..

1 Corinthians 2:8  None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

James 2:1  My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

..

Even if we discount the fact that in the NT the title “Lord” is synonymous with God (as a replacement for God’s name – Yahweh – as it appeared in the Septuagint, which is what the First century Jews read), the fact that God will not give His glory to anyone else, and then we find by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is called the “Lord of Glory,” by itself is prima facie evidence that Jesus’ claim to be God in the flesh is validated and vindicated.

Taking both of these Scriptural facts in hand, we find that these passages and other Scriptures, do indeed teach that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.

..

Numbers 21:4-6  From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” Then Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.

..

In the above passage, it is recorded that some in Israel, after their miraculous release from Egyptian slavery, tested God in the wilderness out of lack of faith, and so He sent among them serpents that bit them so that some of them died. But…Paul tells us about the same incident, but in a different way…

..

1 Corinthians 10:9  Neither test Christ, as some of them tried Him, and perished by serpents.

..

Paul tells us here, by direct reference, that Yahweh and Christ are one and the same…because the Israelites tested God in the OT text, and the Holy Spirit through Paul tells us that it was Christ that they tempted and were punished by serpents for their impudence’s.

In effect, Paul tells us that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh, particularly since “Jesus” didn’t exist in the OT because He had not yet been made incarnate.

..

Deuteronomy 10:17  For Yahweh your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Psalms 136:3  Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for His steadfast love endures forever;

..

In these two OT passages, God is called the “Lord of lords,” a title that specifically belonged to Yahweh alone, and yet in two different places in the NT Scriptures, Jesus Christ is also called the Lord of lords.

..

1 Timothy 6:14-16  to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will display at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

Revelation 19:11-16  Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

..

According to these passages, Jesus Christ and Yahweh God are the same person; Jesus is God in the flesh, holding the same titles of Yahweh that were specifically and explicitly His alone.

..

..

Psalms 68:18  You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in Your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that Yahweh God may dwell there.

..

The whole of Psalm 68 is all about Yahweh, and in the text above, David uttered this textual prophesy concerning God. Then, Paul pens the following:

..

Ephesians 4:8  Therefore it says, “When He ascended on high He led a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.”

..

Paul attributes Psalm 68:18 to Jesus, thus indirectly telling us that He is God in the flesh. Another prima facie pair of texts that link God and Christ together, demonstrating the deity of Christ.

..

Isaiah 8:13-14 (NKJV)  The LORD of hosts, Him you shall hallow; Let Him be your fear, And let Him be your dread. He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

..

Isaiah is specific in his prophetic utterance; Yahweh God would be a “stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” Then, under the moving of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Peter attributes this passage from the prophet to Jesus, that Christ is that “stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”…

..

1 Peter 2:8 (NKJV)  and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

..

Once again God makes it very clear that He was incarnate in Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh. There is only one stone of stumbling, and only one rock of offense; and Scripture tells us that it is Jesus Christ the God-man.

..

Psalms 119:89  Lamedh. Yahweh, Your word is firmly fixed in the heavens forever.

Isaiah 40:8  The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

..

Both the Psalmist and the prophet Isaiah tells us that God’s Word will stand for all eternity, which should not be a surprise since He is God. Then we have similar statements by Jesus Himself concerning the eternality of His Word…

..

Matthew 24:35  Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Mark 13:31  Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Luke 21:33  Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

..

When Jesus says that His words will not pass away, He echoes the statement made by God that His word will stand forever. In effect, Jesus here makes a statement of deity that a mere man cannot make. No mere human being will ever originate a word that will never “pass away” and “stand forever.”

These passages are yet another feather in the hat of Christ’s (and of the Scriptures’) claims that Jesus is God in the flesh.

..

Joel 2:32  And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as Yahweh has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom Yahweh calls.

..

Joel says that whoever calls upon the name of Yahweh will be saved. There is no disputing this by any rational person who knows what they are talking about. Yet, Paul…being moved along by the Holy Spirit, writes…

..

Romans 10:8-13   But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on Him. For “everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved.”

..

First, remember that the title “Lord” in the Septuagint substituted for God’s name, Yahweh, and the Apostles carried that fact over into their quotes and writings. In verse 9 when Paul says that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord,” he is saying that you believe and confess that Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh, echoing what Jesus Himself tells us in John 8:24 and what John also testified to in John 20:31 (“Son of God”).

Paul’s intent is ratified and verified when he says in verse 12 that “the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on Him,” speaking of Jesus, which Paul led up to for quoting Joel 2:32 in verse 13. Paul imputes Yahweh in Joel to Jesus whom we are to call upon for salvation, which Peter also testified to in saying…

..

Acts 2:16-21, 36  But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on My male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out My Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of Yahweh comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved’…  Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

..

So Peter the Apostle, along with Paul, also attributes Joel 2:32 to Jesus, being the “Lord” (Yahweh) that we are to call upon for salvation. And again, Peter refers to this verse and the name of Jesus, in his defense before the Council…

..

Acts 4:12  And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

..

God tells us by His Spirit, through the hands of the Apostles, that all who call upon His name will be saved, and that the name we are to call Him by for salvation is Jesus. These passages give positive evidence for the fact that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.

..

..

13.  Extra-Biblical historical witnesses:

–  Early church fathers

The following are brief excerpts and quotes from the early church fathers, most notably Polycarp who was a first-generation disciple of John the Apostle, and Ignatius who was a disciple of Polycarp. So, we have two generations of disciples of John the Apostle, confirming his words in his Gospel that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh. This destroys the lies and false claims of those who try to persuade us that the doctrine of the deity of Christ is a false doctrine that was never taught by the apostles in Scripture, but came about in the Third Century.

All together there are nine Fathers of the early church listed here, ranging from 50 – 254 A.D. Two of these witnesses (Polycarp and Ignatius) lived during the lifetime of John the Apostle, and more than likely both of them heard John teach and preach and speak about the things of Christ.

Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians he says,

..

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.

..

Ignatius (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and was a disciple of Polycarp. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,

..

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy. [Letter to the Ephesians, Introduction (Greeting)]

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you. [Letter to the Ephesians]

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. [Letter to the Ephesians]

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit. [Letter to the Ephesians]

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life. [Letter to the Ephesians]

For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father. [Letter to the Romans]

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. [Letter to the Smyrnaeans]

Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way. [Letter to Polycarp]

..

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was a Christian apologist of the second century.

..

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said. [Dialogue with Trypho]

Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts. [Dialogue with Trypho] 

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. [Dialogue with Trypho] 

The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin… [First Apology]

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. [Dialogue with Trypho] 

..

Melito of Sardis (written between 160-170 A.D.) was the bishop of the church in Sardis.

..

He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all [God] was subjected to ignominy in a naked bodyGod put to death!…[I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened—because they slew God, who hung naked on the treeThis is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.

..

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of John the Apostle.

..

For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man…He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him. [His work, “Against Heresies”]

He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons. [His work, “Against Heresies”] 

Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. [His work, “Against Heresies”] 

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God. And He shows that He is a man…[W]e should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh. [His work, “Against Heresies”] 

..

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was another early church father. He wrote around AD 200. He writes,

..

This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, God and man – the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal…The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends. [His evangelistic writings, “Exhortation to the Heathen”]

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God… [His evangelistic writings, “Exhortation to the Heathen”]

..

Tertullian (AD 150-225) was an early Christian apologist. He said,

..

For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. [Treatise on the Soul]

Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled…That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. [His work, “Apology”]

As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of Oneby unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [“Against Praxeas”]

..

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) was a third-century theologian. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He writes,

..

The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. [His work, “Refutation of All Heresies”]

For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself. [Exegetical fragments of his writings from commentaries on Luke]

For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word. [His work, “Against Plato”]

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name…He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow. [His work, “Against the Heresy of one Noetus”]

..

Origen (AD 185-254) was another early Christian theologian. He writes,

..

Jesus Christ…in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was. [From the preface of his work, “De Principiis”]

For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. [From his work, “Contra Celsus,” Book 5]

And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent. [From his work, “De Principiis,” Book 1]

..

Further facts on the subject…

..

It was not until the Gospel had been preached for some 300 years in New Testament terms, that anyone took on himself to assail the belief of Christians in the deity of Christ. The person who did it was Arius. The novel form of his attack shows that Christians had hitherto accepted it without question. His arguments, as formulated by him, were clearly intended as an objection to the prevalent view, not as a correction of a heresy. If the state of affairs had been otherwise, that is, if Christians generally had denied the deity of Christ, then his opposition would have been meaningless.

The Deity of Christ; F. F. Bruce; W. J. Martin; NOEET Journal; 1964; pg. 5

..

Therefore, when someone tries to tell you that the early church did not believe in the deity of Christ, they either do not know what they are talking about, or they are lying through their teeth for the cause of their false bias.

Rejection of Jesus as God in the flesh is based solidly upon philosophical grounds, not historical grounds. It is virtually impossible to disprove the Bible on this point on a historical basis. Rejecting the historicity of Scripture on this point because of the events or messages it contains is a rejection based firmly upon philosophical grounds, not historical grounds.

This is the end of this study.

Until next time, God bless!

Posted in The Deity of Christ | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Jesus Christ Yahweh God in the flesh? (Part 3)

Researched, compiled, and written by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

October 15, 2020

Continuing:  3.  Jesus indirectly claims to be Yahweh God in the flesh:

Romans 9:5* whose are the fathers, and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, inherently worthy of praise forever. Amen.

..

Some play with the punctuation in this text, trying to change Paul’s Greek from a descriptive clause about Christ’s divinity, into a doxology of God, but the doxological formula in Scripture is always “Blessed be God…” and not “God…be blessed.” There is no evidence for a doxology here, only a statement of naked truth, that Christ is fully human and also God in the flesh. Any such doxology here in the text would be out of step with the wording of the text. The facts of the text suggest anything but a doxology.

..

Who is over all, God blessed for ever (ho on epi pantōn theos eulogētos):

A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. [Robertson’s Word Pictures, electronic version]

..

Alford and Wuest agree:

..

Further grammatical reasons for rejecting the idea of a doxology here are as follows:  (1) Without one exception in Hebrew or Greek, the predicate eulogētos (blessed) precedes the name of God. Here the word order is theos eulogētos (God blessed), the descriptive word “blessed” follows the name “God.”

     (2) The present participle on would be altogether superfluous if we understood the words to be a doxology having reference to God rather than a descriptive clause speaking of the deity of the Lord Jesus. The construction in Greek is as follows: After speaking of ho Christos, the Christ coming as to His human nature out of Israel, Paul adds ho ōn, the article pointing back to ho Christos and the participial form of the verb of being, the Greek reading “the One being above all,” or in good English diction, “the One (Christ) who is above all.” The sense then follows, “The One (who is above all), who is God.”

     (3) The doxology would be unmeaning and frigid in the extreme. It is not the habit of the apostle Paul to break out into irrelevant ascriptions of praise; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one. If it be said that the survey of all these privileges bestowed on his people prompts the doxology, then such a suggestion ignores the grammar of the text, and the construction of the sentence, and causes the idea to be most unnatural.

     (4) The expression “blessed forever” is twice used by Paul, and each time unquestionably not in an ascription of praise, but in an assertion regarding the subject of the sentence. In 2 Cor. 11:31 we find the same construction, ho ōn, and there it refers to the subject of the sentence.

     (5) The interpretation which holds that the clause is not a doxology, but descriptive of the Christ, is the only one permissible by the rules of Greek grammar and arrangement.

     (6) It also admirably suits the context: for, having enumerated the historic advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by stating one which ranks higher than all, that from them sprung, according to the flesh, He who is God over all, blessed forever. The Amen implies no optative ascription of praise, but is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty.

     Thus does the devout scholar, Henry Alford, demolish the position of the present-day Liberal who would fain take out of the Bible as much of the testimony to our Lord’s absolute deity as he can, changing Paul’s Greek from a descriptive clause to a doxology. [Wuest’s Word Studies, electronic version]

..

Furthermore, there are no (none) variant readings of the text in any ancient manuscripts, this reading is thoroughly true in all extant versions of the Scriptures – neither do any of them give adverse punctuation (that which differs from the punctuation previously discussed above) to give any hope or help to those who claim that the punctuation herein is wrong or in error. Those who make such an argument do so with absolutely no evidence to support their ill claims, as well as doing so when all of the evidence demonstrates the error of their claims.

Further evidence that Paul did not break out in doxology, is found in two other similar texts by him where he basically says the same thing, which are NOT doxologies:

..

2 Corinthians 11:31  The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.

Romans 1:25  because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

..

In conclusion on this text, Paul does whole heartedly proclaim that Jesus Christ “is God over all,” and adds to the collection of passages that clearly claim that Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh.

..

II Corinthians 4:3-6And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Master, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

..

1.  “the image of God” – Verse four ends with, “Christ, who is the image of God.” The words here in their grammar, speak of the sameness that Christ is with God, His nature and essence. Yahweh is the bon-fire and Christ is the living flame out of that bon-fire – one in essence and nature, the same and yet one is wholly spirit and the other has added to His nature that of human flesh. He is Yahweh in the flesh, His very image in human flesh.

The word for “image” here is eikon, which basically means a representation, resemblance, likeness, or image, whether a reflection or copy. As a copy, the word literally takes on the meaning of “a living copy,” “embodiment,” or “manifestation.” It can also mean an appearance of something, not as a revelation, but something beforehand invisible now appearing (making an appearance) in a physical manifestation [TDNT Vol. 2, pg. 388].

Furthermore, eikon carries with it the idea that this copy or image is not a weakening or a feeble copy of something, but it directly implies the illumination (revelation, manifestation) of the original’s inner core and essence [TDNT Vol. 2, pg. 389] – “The peculiarity of the expression is related to that of the ancient concept, which does not limit image to a functional representation present to human sense but also thinks of it in terms of an emanation, of a revelation of the being with a substantial participation in the object (copy).” [TDNT, abid.]

Thus, in this text and in others such as Colossians 1:15, eikon means that Christ is the one and only ‘copy’ of God in which He actively participates in. Yahweh God embodied, manifested, copied by His own choice and participation, in human flesh. Furthermore, this word also has a religious meaning in Greek completely separate from the Jewish ideology, in that “the copies have the same powers and the same capacities of feeling and action as the original” from which it is a copy of [TDNT, pgs 389-390].

When Christ is called the eikon of God…all the emphasis is on the equality of the eikon with the original,” that which the copy is made and originates from [TDNT, pg. 395]. Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh according to Paul and his use of the words and grammar in this text. As far as I can find, there are no textual variants of this passage; the only way to get around what Paul says here is to call him a liar, as well as the Holy Spirit who moved upon him to write this text.

2.  “Jesus as Kurios” – Verse five says, “Jesus Christ as Master” which is kurios; and according to our earlier study on kurios as a title of both Yahweh and Christ, Paul is here basically saying in English, that “Jesus Christ is God.”

For all of the details on that study, see pages 14-16. Paul, speaking from the point of view of a reader and quoter of the LXX, where Yahweh (for the pious Jews’ sake) was substituted with kurios, calls Jesus “kurios” which is the Lord or Master of creation – Yahweh God.

3.  “the glory of God in the face of Jesus” – The last part of verse 6 is the whole reason for the creation of mankind and the new covenant gospel, leading back to God’s purpose and desire hinted at in the Garden and in His response to Moses:

..

Exodus 33:18-23  Moses said, “Please show me Your glory.” And God said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you My name ‘Yahweh.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” And the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me where you shall stand on the rock, and while My glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

..

How can God have intimate relationship with man when man cannot look upon His face because of His glory, without dropping dead on the spot? Hence the reason for God coming into the world in human form in Christ, so that we could look upon Him and engage Him in relationship and fellowship on a personal basis.

But, as verse six further teaches, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who not only cannot see the gospel, but neither which can see the Scriptural fact that Jesus, as the “image of God” in human flesh, is indeed and in fact Yahweh Himself. They cannot understand because their minds cannot be illuminated because of the false ideologies that they hold to, that Jesus is in fact Yahweh God in the flesh. Why? Because satan does not want them to become saved, and Scripture (even Jesus Himself) tells us that unless we believe that He is Yahweh in the flesh, that we cannot be saved.

Believing that Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh, is one of the criteria for getting saved. This is one reason why the devil fights so hard in people’s minds to keep them from seeing the truth of Christ’s identity.

..

Galatians 4:6-8  And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.

..

First, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit of God – if God shares His Spirit with the Son, then the Son is as much deity as is the Father.

Second, Paul here is contrasting the deity (God-ship, Godhead) of the Son (Christ) to those whom the Galatians were at one time under bondage to in worshiping demons, which “by nature are not gods.” Paul is comparing Jesus, who by nature was God in the flesh, against the false gods who “by nature are not gods.”

..

Philippians 2:5-8Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, continuing to be in the form of God as a man, He did not regard being equal with God in nature as robbery, but He divested Himself, and took upon the form of a servant, in the likeness of men; and having become fashioned like as a man. He humbled Himself by entering into a new state of being in human form, and was obedient unto death – even death upon a cross.

..

Textual facts:

1.  “continuing to be in the form of God as a man” from the word huparcho (uparcw), which means “to be” in an absolute sense, the same as eimi (to be). In verse 6, it is in the Present Active Participle, meaning continuous action that is being accomplished by the subject, in this case “who,” which is Christ Jesus from the previous verse. Furthermore, in this specific case from the grammar, huparcho directly implies continuing to be that which one was before – Christ continued being what He always was even as a man (continuance of an antecedent condition). Nothing appeared that was not an objective reality from before He ‘continued.’

2.  In this passage, morphe (form) appears with schema (external appearance, fashion, appearance) in verses 6 and 7, respectively. The use of both words together in the same sentence implies that an appearance of what was previously invisible has been made in a visible form and fashion.

Here they presume an objective reality – no one could be in the form (morphe) of God who was NOT God. Nothing less than God Himself can have equality with God, which is why the Jews wanted to stone Christ at least three times in the gospels.

3.  These facts of the text give clear evidence that Christ was the incarnation of deity (Yahweh in the flesh), in taking on the form (morphe) of a servant by taking upon Himself the shape (schema) of humanity. The schema, shape or fashion, is the outward form having to do not only with His essential being, but also with His appearance. The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself human flesh.

4.  The “He” in verse 8 is still addressing Christ from verse 5, telling us that God humbled Himself by coming into a new state of being (ginomai – to begin to be, a change of state or being) through taking on human form through birth; unlike when God simply made Himself a physical body when He appeared to people in the OT, like He did with Abraham (Genesis 12:7; 17:1; 18:1), Isaac (Genesis 26:2 and 26:24), and Jacob (Genesis 35:9).

5.  Furthermore, taken in context, verses 1-4 address things that cause division in the church; selfish ambition, conceit, pride and selfishness, which Paul then leads into an example found in Christ of living and doing for others rather than for yourself. God did what He did not have to do, but He did it for our benefit. Furthermore…

..

     The use in Philippians 2:7 is of great theological importance. It refers to Jesus Christ as emptying Himself at the time of His incarnation, denoting the beginning of His self-humiliation in verse eight. In order to understand what is meant by Jesus’ emptying Himself, the whole passage (Philippians 2:6-8) must be examined.

     The two states of the Lord Jesus are spoken about here. In verse seven, the state of His humiliation is referred to as having taken “the form [morphḗn {acc.}] of a servant,” and having become “in the likeness [homoiṓmati {dat.}] of men {gen. pl.}].” In contrast to this, we have His preincarnate, eternal state spoken of in verse six as “being in the form [morphḗ] of God,” and “equal [ísa] with God.” The truth expressed here concerning His preincarnate state is that He had to be equal with God in order to have the form of God. He could not be God the Son without being Deity. He who showed us the morphḗ of God, the form of God, the essence of God, had to be equal with God Himself.

     The fact that Christ in His human form showed us God presupposes His being God at all times. He never claimed to be something without really being that in His essence. If He had, He would have been making a false claim.

     As to the use of the subst. harpagmós, robbery or plunder, see the verb harpázō, to seize, catch, pluck or pull. As a subst., harpagmós is used only in Philippians 2:6. It refers to Christ’s not taking that which did not belong to Him by being in the form of God. His whole life was characterized by being (hupárchōn) that which He always was. Prior to His incarnation He was in the form, the essence of God, and after His incarnation He was still in the form of God in spite of His voluntary humiliation…

     The use of the aor. act. part. labṓn (lambánō, to take), having taken (with reference to the form of a servant), indicates that humanity did not displace deity in His personality. Rather He took upon Himself voluntarily, in addition to His preincarnate condition, something which veiled His deity. [The Complete Word Study NT Dictionary; Zodhiates, on-line version; entry for G2758, kenoo.]

..

..

..

Colossians 1:15-19 He is the image of the invisible God, preeminent over all creation; because all things were created by Him, whether in the heavens or upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities; all things have been created by Him, and for Him; and He is preeminent in all things, and He holds all things together. And He is the head of the body, the Church: Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; for the purpose that in all things He would continually be first. Because it was pleasing to the Father to cause the totality of His fullness to dwell in Christ;

..

1.  “The image of the invisible God” – The words here in their grammar, speak of the sameness that Christ is with God, His nature and essence. Yahweh is the bon-fire and Christ is the living flame out of that bon-fire – one in essence and nature, the same and yet one is wholly spirit and the other has added to His nature that of human flesh. He is Yahweh in the flesh, His very image in human flesh. The last part of the sentence is literally, “of the God, the invisible,” wording which emphasizes the idea of the manifestation of the essence which is invisible, the adjunct tou aopatou (the invisible) is of the utmost weight to the understanding of the idea expressed here, particularly in the predicate.

The word for “image” here is eikon, which basically means a representation, resemblance, likeness, or image, whether a reflection or copy. As a copy, the word literally takes on the meaning of “a living copy,” “embodiment,” or “manifestation.” It can also mean an appearance of something, not as a revelation, but something beforehand invisible now appearing (making an appearance) in a physical manifestation [TDNT Vol. 2, pg. 388]. What Paul says here in verse 15, is that Christ is the physical embodiment of the invisible God.

Furthermore, eikon carries with it the idea that this copy or image is not a weakening or a feeble copy of something, but it directly implies the illumination (revelation, manifestation) of the original’s inner core and essence [TDNT Vol. 2, pg. 389] –

..

The peculiarity of the expression is related to that of the ancient concept, which does not limit image to a functional representation present to human sense but also thinks of it in terms of an emanation, of a revelation of the being with a substantial participation in the object (copy). [TDNT, abid.]

..

Thus, in this text and in others such as Colossians 1:15, eikon means that Christ is the one and only ‘copy’ of God in which He actively participates in. Yahweh God embodied, manifested, copied by His own choice and participation, in human flesh. Furthermore, this word also has a religious meaning in Greek completely separate from the Jewish ideology, in that “the copies have the same powers and the same capacities of feeling and action as the original” from which it is a copy of [TDNT, pgs 389-390].

When Christ is called the eikon of God…all the emphasis is on the equality of the eikon with the original,” that which the copy is made and originates from [TDNT, pg. 395]. Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh according to Paul and his use of the words and grammar in this text. As far as I can find, there are no textual variants of this passage; the only way to get around what Paul says here is to call him a liar, as well as the Holy Spirit who moved upon him to write this text.

2.  “all things were created by Him…all things have been created by Him” – that is, Christ Jesus created all things. “Created” from ktizw meaning to create out of nothing, the equivalent of the “ex nihilo” creation of God in Genesis 1. Here again is a hint at who Jesus really is, because what being lesser than God can create anything out of nothing? “Created by” where en means “by” instead of “in,” which is one of its standard possible meanings (in, on, at, or by).

The second re-phrasing of the creation aspect, while seemingly not having much difference in English, carries with it in the Greek a far greater and weightier meaning; here ektistai is in the perfect passive indicative, carrying with the implication “to stand created” or “to remain created,” which basically means that after the initial creation He is holding the creation together, bolstering the claim in verse 17, which is echoed in Hebrews 1:3. Furthermore, in this second re-phrasing, Paul uses dia instead of en (“created by Him”), which carries with it the meaning of “efficient cause,” – that Christ (Him) is the cause of the creation. In effect, Jesus is the Creator…another title that can only rest with Yahweh Himself as God.

How do we know that “Him” refers to Christ and not Yahweh? The beginning of verse 15 says “He” referencing Christ, saying that He is the image of God…there is no doubt that “He” in the verse is Jesus Christ. Verse 16 follows upon the description of Christ as “the preeminent over all creation,” again – references Christ, not God. The same obviousness is also found in verse 19, because “the Father” was pleased to cause all of His fullness “to dwell in Him.”

The text refers to God and “Him,” in the text two different persons – not in their nature or essence, but in their personages. It is obvious that Paul has two individual persons in mind in the text, and that in his text he says that the two are of one essence and nature, which is more forcible in the Greek than it appears in English.

3.  “the fullness of God…dwells in Him” – while there is no word in the text for God or Father, the verb calls for either one as the subject of the sentence. In other words, it is implied by the text that Paul is speaking about the fullness of God. Paul begins the sentence with “oti” (for or because), for the simple fact that oti is causative and as such, is a term of explanation. Paul is telling his audience the reason why Christ is preeminent over all things – because He is Yahweh God in the flesh.

paV (all or totality) means without exception, without deficiency or lack of some attribute of God. Again, all that makes God what He is, dwells in Christ – the God-man. Yahweh is deity, and Jesus was of the same essence and nature of Yahweh – God.

The word rendered as “dwell” is katoikeo (katoikew), which reads as a certain, fixed, permanent inhabiting, as one lives in his house. It is distinguished from the only alternative word, paroikeo, which is a transitive, temporary dwelling place. Paul is telling his audience that the fullness of God dwells permanently, certainly, and fixedly in the person of Jesus Christ.

The word translated as “pleasing” means much more than simply pleasure in something; here eudokew (eudokeo) means “to think well of something by understanding not only what is right and good, as in dokeo, but stressing the willingness and freedom of an intention or resolve regarding what is good” [The Complete Word Study NT; Zodhiates, electronic version]. In other words, God did not just sit by and think this was a good idea, He participated in, and determined, was resolved in Himself, to bring about the incarnation.

The “fulness of God” is just what it says, the very fullness of God, that which makes God what He is in nature and essence, as well as personality and character. All that God is, dwells in Christ in bodily form (Col. 2:9); thus, “it was pleasing to the Father to cause the totality of His fullness to dwell in” Christ.

..

..

Colossians 2:8-9*   Be on your guard so that no one might destroy your relationship with God through a philosophy void of the demonstration of the Spirit and power, seducing and destructive, according to the traditional doctrines of men, according to worldly understanding and not according to Christ. Because in Him dwells all the fullness of Divinity in bodily form,

..

First, the whole reason why Paul pens verse 9, is found in verse 8. People were trying to convince the church in Colossae that Jesus was not God – through philosophical arguments and deceit, according to human carnal rationality and the elemental spirits (demons) of the world behind their false teachings (Paul gives the same warning to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:1). The Gnostics were teaching that matter was evil and wicked, and that God would not have entered into such a physical world. What Paul says in verse 9 about the deity of Christ was his answer to their heretical doctrine.

Second, Paul says that Jesus had the “fullness” of God within Him…He didn’t have only a piece, or a portion, or a slice of God – He had the fullness of God. What makes Yahweh a deity, was also found in Christ. Zodhiates says, for this verse specifically (as well as in John 1:16 and Ephesians 3:19), figuratively it means “plentitude of the divine perfections” [The Complete Word Study NT Dictionary, electronic version).

paV (all or totality) means without exception, without deficiency or lack of some attribute of God. Again, all that makes God what He is, dwells in Christ – the God-man. Yahweh is deity, and Jesus was of the same essence and nature of Yahweh – God. The word translated as “divinity” is theotes, which specifically means deity or Godhead, the nature or state of being God [Thayer; Zodhiates; Moyer; the TDNT: vol. 3, pg, 119]. It speaks of Christ’s divine nature, not His divine attributes. Paul states very deliberately and specifically here that Jesus is the very nature and “state of being” as Yahweh God.

The word rendered as “dwell” is katoikeo (katoikew), which reads as a certain, fixed, permanent inhabiting, as one lives in his house. It is distinguished from the only alternative word, paroikeo, which is a transitive, temporary dwelling place. Paul is telling his audience that the fullness of God dwells permanently, certainly, and fixedly in the person of Jesus Christ.

And finally, the word rendered as “bodily form” is somatikos, which means in bodily form substantially, really, truly. It speaks of a physical body, in direct opposite to pneumatikos (spirit). It means here that what makes Yahweh God (deity) resided certainly, and fixedly inhabited the human form (body) of Christ. This text teaches that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh; it teaches the deity of Christ.

..

..

Titus 2:13  continuously waiting for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

..

The Greek grammatical rule, which has come to be called the “Granville Sharp’s rule,” says that when there are two nouns in the same case connected by ‘and’ (kai), and the first noun has the definite article (the = Greek word ten), and the second noun lacks the definite article, then the second noun refers to the same thing as the first noun and serves as a further description. Thus, the blessed hope is the appearing of the glory of our God. This verse actually has this same grammatical rule in operation twice (the second occurrence we will discuss below).

The second occurrence of this grammatical rule is found in the phrase, “τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” where a single article (tou) modifies two singular substantives (both grammatically and semantically) that are connected by the word “kai” (and), which are personal and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals). Consequently, what Paul is directly implying here, is that God and Jesus Christ are one and the same. (Note: the rule does not apply to two substantives that are in the plural.)

There are many text throughout the NT where this rule is found, but for our purpose and current discussion where this rule applies, there are only two (concerning demonstration of the deity of Christ): Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Two examples of those many are…

..

2 Peter 1:11  For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 2:20  For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

..

These are just two examples out of many where the rule actually applies (article+single substantive+kai+single substantive) which are never rejected are argued over. The only passages that are ever fought over are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 because they give clear evidence of Christ’s identity as Yahweh God in the flesh, and it is only ever disputed by those who deny the deity of Christ…unitarians and such.

This rule has been determinedly confirmed by many scholars since the 1700’s when it was discovered. This principle of semantics holds true in English grammar as well. It must be noted that only unitarians deny this basic rule of Greek grammar, and not because of the grammar but for no other reason than in order to protect their false doctrine that Christ is not Yahweh in the flesh.

Every attempt by Unitarians to discredit this rule, set up a straw man argument by failing to give the FULL description of the rule (in failing to tell their audience that it only applies to singular nouns, NOT plurals), and then giving supposed examples to discredit the Rule which are all in the plural. All this does is demonstrate the underhanded and illegitimate lengths they will take to cling to their biased false doctrines in direct opposition to what the Scriptural facts tell us. The deity of Christ is brought out here in this text by the rules of Greek grammar and composition.

..

Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful work The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (theos) and “savior” (soter) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. [preceptaustin.org/titus_213-15; and the same sentiment by numerous others]

..

Furthermore…

..

Professor Daniel Wallace (NT contextual studies) words it this way: “In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-καί-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), then they have the same referent.” [Austin, abid]

..

Furthermore, with the advent of some manuscripts using the word “Lord” instead of “God,” it must be attended to that the vast majority of manuscript evidence, both internally and externally, give the overwhelming weight of evidence to the reading Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.

Here, Paul tells his audience that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Contrary to what unitarians claim, there is no wiggle room in the simple construction where the deity of Christ can be argued to not be the point of what Paul is directly stating in the grammar of the text.

..

..

Hebrews 4:15*   because we are not in a special relationship with a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, because He has suffered in every way that we do, yet He never sinned.

..

First, in order to grasp the full intent of the point here being made, we need to look at some texts that set the background for that point:

..

Romans 3:23  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin came into the world, and through sin spiritual death entered therein; so also, death comes upon all men because all have sinned at one time or another;

..

The point here is that Scripture, and Paul in particular, tells us that no human being has ever not sinned; all people have fallen to sin. There is only one person who lived a human life who never sinned, not once – and that is Jesus Christ the God-man, which is why He was able to walk in the flesh, to be tempted by sin, and yet not ever sin, at all.

If Jesus Christ was just an ordinary man, aside from His virgin birth, then He could not have walked this earth for 33 years without sinning at least one time in His life. This alone is prima facie evidence that He was not just a mere human being, but rather – as He claimed – God in the flesh.

..

..

II Peter 1:1  Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

..

First, in the Greek there is only one definite article in the text (tou) that modifies both “God” and “Savior.” This grammatical construction demands that we interpret what Peter is saying as the same as that which Paul makes claim of in Titus 2:13 – namely, that God and Christ are one and the same (specifically, that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh).

As to the previous discussion on the so-called Granville Sharp’s Rule, the Greek construction of the text, “τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” where a single article (tou) modifies two singular substantives (both grammatically and semantically) that are connected by the word “kai” (and), which are personal and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), then they refer to the same individual, not two different individuals.

Professor Daniel Wallace (NT contextual studies) words it this way: “In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-καί-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.”

This rule has been determinedly confirmed by many scholars since the 1700’s when it was discovered. This principle of semantics holds true in English grammar as well. Every attempt by unitarians to discredit this rule, have all failed in the end.

Furthermore, with the advent of some manuscripts using the word “Lord” instead of “God,” it must be attended to that the vast majority of manuscript evidence, both internally and externally, give the overwhelming weight of evidence to the reading Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.

..

..

1 John 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

..

A mere man could NOT atone for the sins of the human race. Why? Because the only one who could atone for the sins of mankind could not have ever sinned, and Scripture tells us that all men have sinned.

..

..

6.  The witness of other NT writers (Apollos):

Hebrews 1:1-3*   Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world. Christ is the radiance of the glory of God and the precise reproduction of God’s essence in every respect, and upholding all things with the word of His power. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

..

the precise reproduction of God’s essence in every respect” – from charakter (carakthr), originally meaning the tool which made the engraving or impression. Later it came to mean the impression or reproduction itself, whether cut into, stamped upon, marked, signed, etc. It was considered to be the “precise reproduction in every respect” as that which it mirrored, in every detail, not simply a mirrored reflection. This is one of the passages that teaches the deity of Christ as the direct representation of God in human form.

This reflects Jesus’ words in John 14:9 (and others) when He says that those who have seen Him have seen the Father. He is of the same nature and substance as the Father yet separate in manifestation.

The word translated as “essence” is hupostasis, which means that which underlies the apparent, hence the reality, essence, or substance of something. It addresses the essential nature of a thing, in this case, the exact expression of God’s essence or being – what Yahweh Himself is. According to this verse, whatever Yahweh is, Christ is also. Such power is God’s alone (Neh. 9:6; Psa. 33:9, 104:5), Christ is here given the same descriptors as Yahweh, the Creator and Sustainer of all things. This descriptor of Christ attributes to Him omnipotence, an attribute which belongs solely to God.

In the second half of the verse we read that “upholding all things with the word of His power,” which firstly tells us that, like God, who created all things and holds all things together by His power, so, too, Christ does the exact same thing that God is doing. The word for “upholding” is in the present participle, meaning continuous action. The phrase “word of his power” is a Hebraism, and means His efficient command. There could not be a more distinct ascription of divinity to the Son of God than this. He upholds or sustains all things – that is, the universe.

..

..

Hebrews 1:8-12   But to the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond Your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe You will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.

..

1.  Some people try to say that the quote in verse 8, specifically “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” is somehow supposed to be read as either in the nominative (“God is your throne”) or as a predicate nominative (“Your throne is God”)…neither one of which make any logical sense at all. The text is actually in the vocative because God is speaking, giving it the rendering, “Your throne, O God.” Even though it is rarely used as such, the nominative can function as a vocative, like it does in John 20:28. This is easily ratified by going back to the verse which Apollos is quoting, Psalms 45:6-7…

..

Psalms 45:6-7  Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond Your companions;

..

Apollos is quoting the Psalm word for word…and it is in the vocative. Those who argue that it is not in the vocative, are doing eisegesis rather than exegesis, and are not being forthright in their claims. Furthermore, while some argue that the text should read one or the other of the “alternative” readings, only “your throne, O God” resonates with the central theme of this section and book.

2. “But to the Son He says” the preposition “pros” means ‘to’ or ‘toward’ (particularly with the accusative of person, such as in this text), but can figuratively mean ‘on account of,’ ‘because of,’ or ‘for’ when addressing the motive, ground, or occasion of an action – which does not fit here with the meaning of the text or context. In other words, the rendering of some translations reading “But of the Son” is in error, not following the rules of Greek grammar.

3.  Then, verses 10-12 are directly linked to the Son, by the word “and,” wherein Apollos says (by the Holy Spirit) that God also said of the Son, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning…” which is quoting Psalm 102:25-27:

..

Psalms 102:25-27  Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but You are the same, and Your years have no end.

..

In both cases, the Holy Spirit through the author attributes these two passages to Christ, directly telling us that He is Yahweh God in the flesh. God is the Creator, Christ is the Creator; God will never end, Christ will never end. God is eternal, and Christ is eternal; because Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.

..

..

7.  His appearance in the Revelation:

Revelation 1:12-18  Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around His chest. The hairs of His head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, from His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and His face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

..

Let us examine the details of the glorified Christ in the above passage:

1.  White hair, like wool or snow.

2.  Eyes of flaming fire.

3.  Feet in appearance like polished bronze.

4.  Voice sounding like the roar of many waters.

5.  Face shining like the sun in full strength.

Now let us examine in detail how God appeared to Daniel in his visions:

..

Daniel 10:5-6  I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a Man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around His waist. His body was like beryl, His face like the appearance of lightning, His eyes like flaming torches, His arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of His words like the sound of a multitude.

Daniel 7:9  As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took His seat; His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of His head like pure wool; His throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire.

..

1.  Face bright as lightning.

2.  Eyes burning like flaming torches.

3.  Arms and legs like polished bronze.

4.  Voice like the sound of a multitude of people all raising their voices at once.

5.  Hair as white as wool.

Identical descriptors of five different physical aspects of both God and Christ – identical because they are one and the same in nature and essence; Yahweh. This comparison between God and Christ demonstrates Jesus’ claims to being God in the flesh; that is, they demonstrate that His claims were true.

No mere human being will be in the same glorified state as we see Jesus in, the very image and likeness of God as He appeared to Daniel, after death in heaven. We will receive a glorified physical body, but it will look nothing like the way Jesus appears – in the exact same way that God appears in the OT.

..

..

8.  How men react to God and the glorified Christ:

Ezekiel 1:26-2:2  And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance. And upward from what had the appearance of His waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of His waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around Him. Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh. And when I saw it, I lost strength and fell down on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking. And He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you.” And as He spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I heard Him speaking to me.

..

When Ezekiel saw the image of God in the vision, he lost strength and fell down to the ground. The word here rendered as “lost strength and fell down” in Hebrew is napal, which simply means to fall down. The Septuagint gives us a little more information; it uses the word pipto, which also means to fall down to the ground, but when used with proskuneo (which here it is not) it takes on the meaning of to fall to the ground in worship. As used in this verse, it means to fall down as if one passed out or fainted.

..

Daniel 10:5-10   I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a Man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around His waist. His body was like beryl, His face like the appearance of lightning, His eyes like flaming torches, His arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of His words like the sound of a multitude. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me. My radiant appearance was fearfully changed, and I retained no strength. Then I heard the sound of His words, and as I heard the sound of His words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground. And behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees.

..

Again, we see Daniel’s reaction is the same as Ezekiel’s – he lost strength and fell down to the ground in a deep sleep, describing the potential of passing out or fainting. As with Ezekiel, he didn’t get up until he was touched and regained at least some strength to stay upright.

Now, let’s see how a man reacted to seeing the glorified Christ…

..

Revelation 1:10-18  I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around His chest. The hairs of His head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, from His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and His face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

..

When John turns around to see who was speaking to him, he sees the glorified Christ Jesus, and just as Ezekiel and Daniel fell to the ground in passing out or fainting, so does John, wording his experience “as though dead.”

If Jesus was an ordinary man, not God in the flesh, then He would not look like God in John’s vision, which clearly identifies Him as such in the visions that the two prophets had in their own rights. The point being, John passes out after seeing Jesus, just as Ezekiel and Daniel passed out upon seeing God in His glory form in their visions.

No mere human being appears in the afterlife in Scripture as glorified as Christ appears, and that appearance is the exact same as Yahweh in the first two appearances. John passed out because he, like the prophets before him, saw God in His glory.

..

..

9.  The Jews’ reactions to Jesus’ claims:

Mark 2:5-7  And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?

Luke 5:20-21  And when He saw their faith, Jesus said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

..

In the two passages above, Jesus says that He can forgive sins and the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees) rightly and correctly respond with, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Their response is understandable and correct – what they miss is that Jesus is here indirectly claiming to be God in the flesh. As Yahweh in the flesh, He does have the authority and ability to forgive sin. The Jews’ reactions here demonstrate that they understood full well what He was claiming, and evidences that He was claiming Godhood.

..

John 8:58-59  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself from their eyes and went out of the temple.

..

In this verse, we observe that the Jews’ reaction to what Jesus says demonstrates that they understood full well what He was claiming. They picked up stones to stone Him to death, which was the prescribed punishment in the law of Moses for blasphemy, which they took His claim to be. Their reactions demonstrate without a doubt that Jesus had just claimed the title of “I AM,” the covenant name God gave to Moses on mount Sinai, for Himself, basically a direct claim to being Yahweh God in the flesh.

..

John 5:18  This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

..

In this text, the Jews “were seeking…to kill Him” because, John tells us, Jesus’ claims made “Himself equal with God.” Jesus outright claimed to be divine as Yahweh is divine, yet there is only one true God – therefore, He was claiming to be God in the flesh.

The Jews recognized what He was claiming and so sought a way to put Him to death. Their actions demonstrate that they understood His claim to be God, and they reacted in kind according to the law of Moses.

..

John 10:30-33*   “I and the Father are one and the same in essence.” Then the Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works have I done among you from the Father; for which one of them are you going to stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, “We are not going to stone You because of a good work that You have done, but because You, a man, blaspheme in claiming that You are God.”

..

First, see the notes and explanations on this passage that were fully examined earlier. Second, the Jews’ reactions to what Jesus said demonstrates that they understood that He was claiming to be one with God, one in the same essence and being, and to them that was blasphemy. They “picked up stones again to stone Him,” “again” because this was not the first time that they understood His claim to being God in the flesh.

..

Matthew 26:63-66*   But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.Jesus said to him, “What you have asked Me is a fact. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard His blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

..

In this passage, Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin and they are trying to find something to accuse Him of so that they can put Him to death, which they have tried a number of times but “His time had not yet come.” The high priest finally gets frustrated and asks Jesus to tell them plainly if He considered Himself to be “the Christ, the Son of God.”

Recall our previous examination of the title “Son of God” and that it means equality with God in person and essence. For Jesus to answer in the affirmative, He knew would sign His death warrant and give the Jews the ‘evidence’ they needed in order to sentence Him to death. Yet He replied in the affirmative, and the high priest’s reaction is telling.

He tore his robes and claimed that Jesus has blasphemed by calling Himself God, which they had already accused Him of in the passages above that we have already looked at in this section. The reactions of the others in the room also demonstrate that they understood full well what Jesus had just claimed by answering in the affirmative.

In essence, the high priest asked Jesus, “Are you Yahweh come as a man?” and Jesus answered him, “Yes, I am.” There is no getting around what this passage states; no getting around what the high priest asks Jesus; and no getting around His reply and their reaction to His reply. They understood Jesus to claim that He was Yahweh in the flesh, and no other answer that He could have given would have incited such a response from these men.

In effect, this passage demonstrates that Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh.

..

John 19:6-8  When the chief priests and the officers saw Jesus, they cried out, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.” The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law He ought to die because He has made Himself the Son of God.” When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid.

..

This is a “Son of God” statement. What the Jews were telling Pilate, was that they had a law that anyone who claimed to be equal with God, deserved to die. That had been their number one issue with Jesus during His whole ministry – which they tried to stone Him to death for on at least three different occasion, each time giving the reason that He made Himself equal with God.

Also take note that Pilate understood EXACTLY what they were saying when they said that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. As a pagan god worshiper of Roman deities that often had demi-god children, he understood that if Jesus was such an offspring (which He wasn’t), then He would indeed be part god. The difference here was that Jesus was only the offspring of God as to His flesh, but as to His Spirit, according to the whole counsel of God’s Word, He was very God Himself temporarily dwelling in a human ‘meat suit.’

The FACT that the title “Son of God,” that Jesus used for Himself, was a claim to deity, is clearly understood when we take the Jews’ reactions to Him calling Himself by that title. We are all sons of God as to Adam, so I can call myself a son of God in that sense – but that was not the sense in which Jesus used the phrase, and the Jews recognized and understood this completely.

When a person claims that the “Son of God” statements by Jesus does not mean that He was claiming to be equal with God, that person is making the claim that the Jews, all those who heard His claims and teachings, in that day and age, culture, historical setting, etc., didn’t know what they thought they understood. Such a statement is so full of assumption and presumption, based upon no facts at all, so as to make that person’s claims pure emotional bias in action. Scripture evidences those who understood what “Son of God” intended, and their actions back up their clear understanding. They were there, they spoke the language. You were neither. Again, recall our full examination of the title, “Son of God,” which basically means in no uncertain terms, that a person called the Son of God in this manner, is equal with God in nature and essence.

The reason that the Jews wanted Jesus to die, was because they heard Him with their own ears claim to be Yahweh in the flesh, and they took it as blasphemy because they did not know God and therefore did not recognize Him as God when it came down to brass tacks. Their reactions to His claims, again, demonstrates that they understood: (1) that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh in the flesh, and because (2) that was blasphemous to them, they pushed for His execution.

This is the end of part 3, until next time, God bless!

Posted in The Deity of Christ | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Jesus Christ Yahweh God in the flesh? (Part 2)

Researched, compiled, and written by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

October 15, 2020

4.  Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh, demonstrated by things that He did and said:

– He received religious worship (not as homage to a king):

Matthew 14:27-33But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage! I AM! Do not be afraid” …And those in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are truly the Son of God!”

..

First, we need to get the background on this text. The disciples were out in a boat in the middle of the lake, in the middle of a storm – seasoned fishermen all, fearful that their boat would flounder and they would drown. Then, Jesus comes walking to them upon the sea, something no mere human being could do. Then He calls out to them, “Take courage! I AM!…”

To those who delight in perverting the Word of God, they will say that He actually says “I am He,” which makes no logical sense in the text at all. What? The mere human messiah has the power to walk on water? No, only the God-Messiah foretold by the OT Scriptures. By telling them “I AM” He was making a direct claim to being Yahweh in the flesh, in order to comfort them.

Peter responded that if it was indeed Him, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to you on the water.” Peter used the word kurios (lord) in the understanding of Jesus being God in the flesh, because if He was God in the flesh, then He could call Peter out onto the water as He was walking on the water…something impossible to do for a mere human being. And, if Jesus was Lord, then He could cause Peter to be able to walk on water, too.

Peter may have been in doubt at that point by saying, “Lord, if it is You…” but after having walked upon the water because of the power that Jesus exuded for Peter to do so, he had a better understanding of who Jesus was, which was why the disciples said, “You are truly the Son of God!” and by that realization, they reacted by worshiping Him. Both their words and actions demonstrate that they understood that Jesus was Yahweh God in the flesh…they were Jews, they knew the law against worshiping anything other than God – yet they willingly and freely worshiped Him instantaneously.

Furthermore, because some pervert the clear meaning of the Scriptures, proskuneo (worship) here does not mean paying homage to a superior in rank out of respect. The text demonstrates that there was absolutely no reason for them to simply, and suddenly, feel the need to pay respect to Jesus – what they were doing was actual worship…something forbidden to anything or being other than Yahweh God.

..

Matthew 28:9And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Joy to you!” And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

..

Again we must remember that the meaning of a word is based upon how it is utilized in the text itself, then in its immediate context, and if need be, even wider in context of the entire chapter, book, covenant Scriptures (OT/NT), and even the entirety of the whole Word of God. Furthermore, we must also take into consideration the attitude of the person bowing down, why they are bowing down, and to whom/what they are bowing down to, in order to get the proper and accurate interpretation of the scene.

Here, in this text, the two women come to the tomb to find it open and empty, and then Jesus appears to them in physical form. Out of joy to see Him alive, they bow down (“took hold of His feet”) and prosekunhsan (worshiped) Him. Whenever we find a person bowing down + the word proskuneo, the text implies not respectful homage as to a king or person of higher rank; rather the combination of bowing down with proskuneo directly implies an act of religious worship, an act strictly forbidden to anyone or anything other than God.

The text demonstrates that Jesus received religious worship (not respect of social or religious rank), and act that was reserved for God alone. He does not rebuke these women and tell them not to worship Him. If Christ was not God, and He allowed them to worship Him, then He would have deceived them, making them continue to think that He was Yahweh if He, in fact, was not, and that act alone would have disqualified Him from being the Savior as a deceiver.

..

..

John 9:35-38  Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is He, sir, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen Him, and it is He who is speaking to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped Him.

..

Firstly, this text gives us some important information concerning the title “Son of Man” and the Jewish mindset and understanding of that title. This man, a Jew, who had undoubtedly been taught and heard all of his life that only Yahweh God was worthy of religious worship, yet something in the title “Son of Man” told this Jewish man that the holder of such a title was worthy of religious worship that belonged to God alone.

How do we know that what this man was doing was actually worshiping Jesus and not, as the unitarians claim, that he was only offering to Jesus respectful homage as a godly man and Rabbi? First, this man evidently understood two different titles used in the text: Jesus calls Himself by the title “Son of Man,” which concerned His humanity. The title that refers to one’s humanity, if that was all that He was, a mere human being, would have been oddly self-redundant.

This title that Jesus gave to Himself in many conversations with the Jews, pointed out His deity clothed in His humanity…and this formerly blind man apparently understood that title and what it meant. Second, he calls Jesus “Lord,” which (again) as used in this manner was a direct implication of His equality with God in essence and nature.

..

Wilson agrees with others in deliberating on this verse, saying that “it appears he concluded that the person bearing this title [Son of Man] was worthy of worship as God” [Is Belief in Christ’s Deity Required for Eternal Life in John’s Gospel?; K. Wilson; Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, Vol. 12 (Fall 2006), pg. 74].

..

Harris concurs in his deliberations and meticulous study on the subject of the deity of Christ: “The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity” [Jesus as God; Murray Harris; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992; pg. 289].

..

Thus, observing what was worshiped, and the attitude and understanding of the person doing the action of worshiping, it is clear that understanding who Jesus was led to the act of giving Him religious worship, not simply paying Him some kind of lesser homage. This was no mere earthly lord standing before him, this was the Messiah who had just opened the eyes of a man born blind, by His own power. This man understood who Jesus was, and reacted in kind.

..

..

Hebrews 1:5-6  For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? Or again, “I will be to Him a father, and He shall be to Me a son”? And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “Let all of God’s angels worship Him.”

..

In verse 6 the author continues from the previous verse, saying, “And again, when He (God) brings the firstborn (speaking of His preeminence, not His creation) into the world (of His incarnation), He says, ‘Let all of God’s angels worship Him.’”

Worship is reserved specifically, and only, for Yahweh alone – for God to tell His angels to worship the incarnate Christ, is prima facia evidence that the Son is Yahweh God in the flesh. God says that we are to worship no one but Himself (Exodus 34:14; Jeremiah 13:10).

..

..

Acts 10:25-26  When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

Revelation 19:10  Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Revelation 22:8-9  I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

..

No Jew, knowing the prohibitions of worship, that it belonged to Yahweh alone, would have fallen to the ground and worshiped a mere human being. All accounts in the OT of men falling down before other men are accounts of the rendering of kingly homage – NOT worship…the two attitudes and actions are as different as metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. People may kneel before a person in both instances, but what they are doing is not the same thing…just as when people sit on the toilet is different from sitting in their vehicles.

Furthermore, if Jesus was not God, by accepting religious worship which is only supposed to be given to God, then He would not only have been a deceiver…letting people continue in their erroneous belief if He wasn’t God in the flesh…then He could not have been the Messiah because He would have sinned through that deceit. The fact is, Jesus is the Savior, the Messiah; therefore, He is also Yahweh God in the flesh.

–  He healed people by His own power and authority:

Matthew 8:1-3  When Jesus came down from the mountain, great crowds followed Him. And behold, a leper came to Him and knelt before Him, saying, “Lord, if You will, You can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

..

All of the healings and miracles that Jesus did, He did by His own power, we never hear that He ever invoked the name of Yahweh in any way, shape, or form…like believers today can heal “in the name of Jesus.” Jesus did not have to invoke the name of Yahweh in order to perform His works of power, because He was Yahweh in the flesh. Here, Jesus says, “I will” and then heals the leper…He healed the leper by His own power and authority, demonstrating His deity.

But what about when Scripture says that He couldn’t do many miracles in His hometown because of their unbelief? God always works through a person’s faith. It wasn’t that He “couldn’t” perform for lack of power, but the constraining aspect was their lack of faith, because He has already ordained that He will work in the world through people’s faith. In effect, He constrains Himself according to the ultimate purpose of His will.

–  He forgave sin, a prerogative that belongs only to Yahweh:

– He “knew” their thoughts (Omniscience)

Matthew 9:2-4 (Mark 2:5-8; Luke 5:20-22)  And behold, some people brought to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Take heart, My son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?”

..

In the texts, particularly in Mark, when Jesus says that the man’s sins “are forgiven,” the word for this (aphiemi) is in the Present Passive Indicative, representing that the action of the forgiveness was accomplished upon the man at the moment Jesus spoke the words. In other words, the grammar of the text demonstrates that Jesus was the one – as the context directly implies – who forgave the paralytic. Some try to press the Passive voice in saying that because Jesus was speaking, if it was Him actually forgiving the man, it would be in the Active voice.

(I do not know why the color changed above, and I could not figure out how to change it back to black.)

However, the Passive or Active addresses the action being accomplished upon the subject, and Jesus is NOT the subject of the discourse, the paralytic is the subject. Jesus says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The man Jesus addresses in His sentence, “son,” is the subject. All the Passive tells us in this text is that the man was not the one acting upon himself – he was forgiven from outside of himself, in this case, by Jesus, just as He stated.

Jesus specifically implied that He could forgive sin, a strict prerogative of God alone (since God is the one sinned against – while I can forgive myself of sinning against God or someone else, my forgiving myself has absolutely NO IMPACT upon the one sinned against; I cannot forgive myself on behalf of the one that I sinned against, only they can forgive me in that area). In this act of forgiving this man, Jesus demonstrates that He is Yahweh God in the flesh, and the scribes understood that silent, indirect claim full well, which is why they reacted in the way that they did.

 “…blasphemy! Who can forgive sin but God alone?” They said this because they understood Jesus to be assuming a divine prerogative, and their logic and understanding was absolutely correct…

..

Exodus 34:6-7  Yahweh passed before him and proclaimed, “Yahweh, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Isaiah 43:25  “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”

Micah 7:18  Who is a God like You, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of His inheritance? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in steadfast love.

..

The only flaw in their determination was the fact that Jesus held a peculiar relationship with God which justified His claim.

..

The word “blaspheme” originally means to speak evil of anyone; to injure by words; to blame unjustly. When applied to God, it means to speak of him unjustly; to ascribe to him acts and attributes which he does not possess; or to speak impiously or profanely. It also means to say or do anything by which his name or honor is insulted, or which conveys an “impression” unfavourable to God. It means, also, to attempt to do, or say a thing, which belongs to him alone, or which he only can do. This is its meaning here. Christ was charged with saying a thing in his own name, or attempting to do a thing, which properly belonged to God; thus assuming the place of God, and doing him injury, as the scribes supposed, by an invasion of his prerogatives…None of the prophets had this power; and by saying that “he forgave sins,” Jesus was understood to affirm that he was divine. [Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible; electronic edition]

..

Next, Jesus “knew” their thoughts, demonstrating omniscience, another attribute of God alone. Matthew uses the word eido (to see, figuratively to know) in the Perfect Active Participle, meaning that He absolutely knew their thoughts. The Active demonstrates that Jesus KNEW, not that He received this knowledge from God or the Holy Spirit…He knew.

Both Mark and Luke use epiginosko (to know fully in a complete sense, to have full knowledge of) in the Aorist Active Participle form. Both words (eido and epiginosko), because of their grammar, come to equal the exact same sentiment – Jesus had complete knowledge of their thoughts the moment the scribes thought them. And again, both grammars show in the Active voice, meaning that Jesus knew their thoughts; that knowledge of their thoughts was not given to Him by God or the Holy Spirit. Demonstration, again, of His omniscience – deity.

–  Divine nature demonstrated by what He said:

Matthew 5:21-22  You have heard that it was said to those of old [by God], ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

..

Here Christ takes on the position of taking up the commandments of God into Himself, and then re-giving them as the law-giver of the New Covenant. Giving the law Himself, out of Himself, rather than saying “thus says the Lord,” demonstrates His identity. If He was a mere human man, then He had no right or authority that may be observed in Scripture to change the law as given by God. But, because He was God in the flesh, He had the right and authority. His changing the law, as only God could since it was His law, demonstrates that Jesus was Yahweh in the flesh. Since He was the original law giver, He had the only right to expound on it or to change it as He pleased.

Furthermore, He taught on His own authority as God, and not like mere humans. For example, the OT prophets always prefaced their words with “Thus says the LORD…” but Jesus, over 70 times in the gospels (30 in Matthew; 13 in Mark; 6 in Luke, and 25 in John) says both “Truly, truly, I say to you…” and “Amen,” which asserts authority, certainty, and potency. By their prescriptions, the OT prophets denied authority of what they said, pointing back directly to God. By Christ’s prescriptions, He asserts His authority to speak because He is God in the flesh, and what He says is true because of who He is.

Further still, all people in Jesus’ day referenced authorities in their dogma’s to show that what they were teaching was Biblical and true. For example, when the Pharisees would quote or reference Moses in their chidings with Jesus – but Jesus never, not once, made reference to a higher authority than Himself…because for the simple reason that as Yahweh in the flesh, there was no greater authority than Himself.

..

..

John 3:13“No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.”

..

1.  “He who descended from heaven” –

What is Jesus saying here? He is saying that before His incarnation, He existed in heaven in eternity past. The title, “Son of Man,” speaks of this and every time He uses it of Himself, He points to this meaning – that He is from heaven and existed with God before creation. This is why John opens his gospel with what he says about Christ in 1:1-3…those were John’s words describing what Jesus tells us about Himself here and in other places. John almost seems to be making a direct reference to Proverbs 30:4…

..

Proverbs 30:4-6  Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name? Surely you know! Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.

..

The passage both rings with a Messianic tone (although it is not considered as such by many) and comes with a stern warning that is very valid today. Those who would add to God’s Word, trying to change the intended meaning of His Word, are liars twisting His Word to suit their own carnally minded, unregenerate biased false doctrines.

All attempts at explaining away the clear meaning and implication of the text are futile and a fool’s errand, and ridiculous. The Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, was in heaven before His incarnation, and came down out of heaven. Yahweh, and His divine Son according to the flesh, but Yahweh Himself incarnate.

This is a clear statement and claim about Christ’s pre-existence before His incarnation in His own words. Alone this claim would not amount to very much, but taken together with other passages concerning His deity, it bolsters and reinforces the Biblical teaching that Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.

2.  “Who is in heaven” –

We begin this section of our examination of this text by acknowledging that there is one variant reading of this verse, where “who is in heaven” is not present. Historically and geographically, this variant is only found in a localized area from the Alexandrian text, which over the years has lost its hold on scholars’ and theologians’ minds as being a “pure” form of Scripture.

Consistently scholars have uncovered copy errors and changes by scribes to the NT texts which the scribes found offensive doctrinally and theologically. Having this information statistically demonstrated since the 1970’s with the discovery of older texts, the Alexandrian texts: the uncials Sinaiticus (x) and Vaticanus (B).

..

Examination of the external and internal evidence for the reading of John 3:13 indicates that the longer reading (which includes the clause ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) should be regarded as authentic. This longer reading has extensive external attestation. Furthermore, transcriptional probabilities and John’s style and theology lend strong internal support for this reading. Therefore, John 3:13 is a proof of the omnipresence of the earthly Jesus. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]

The phrase “ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ” is far more likely to be part of the original text, excised in the Alexandrian text-stream by a copyist prone to relieve perceived difficulties, that it is to have originated as a scribal expansion.  The absence of this phrase in the fifth edition of the UBS/Biblica Greek New Testament, and in the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testatementum Graece, is an echo of previous compilers’ reliance upon poorly represented data combined with a preference for manuscripts that happened to be stored in a dry climate.  In the Sinaitic Syriac and the Curetonian Syriac and the Old Latin Codex Palatinus (and in the uncial 0141, in which the closing phrase states that the Son of Man is from heaven) we see copyists surrendering to the temptation to alter the text in order to resolve a perceived difficulty; the manuscripts that lack the phrase echo the work of an early scribe who took things a little further. [John 3:13: The Son of Man Who is in Heaven; James Snapp, New Testament Textual Criticism, Feb 28, 2018] 

..

Furthermore, when we compare the treatment of the text (John 3:13) in different editions of Greek New Testaments, we find that their use of resources for their translations does not build confidence in their manuscripts. One of these resources is the UBS Greek New Testament in which the first edition of 1966, the Ethiopic version was listed as a source for not including the phrase “who is in heaven,” while the Arabic Diatessaron and Georgian versions were listed as source witnesses for including the phrase.

Then came a change of plans with the fourth edition which came out in 1993, where the same Georgian and Arabic Diatessaron versions were now listed as supporting the removal of the phrase, and Didymus (who was previously listed as a witness for the validity of both readings) was not listed as giving support for only the removal of the phrase. The Ethiopic version also “switched sides” favoring the inclusion of the phrase. [Snapp] “It appears that the strongest evidence in favor of the shorter reading is the fact that the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ are lacking in the early Alexandrian manuscripts (x and B)” [Black].

..

The external evidence shows almost the entire ancient tradition supporting the disputed phrase (including the Old Latin [Itala], which establishes the date of the longer reading as at least the last quarter of the second century)…the testimony of the Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and Church Fathers thus forms, as it were, a strong three-cord strand which is not easily broken… therefore, the reading which is both early and supported by independent witnesses from a wide geographical area is more likely to be [the] original. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]

The evidence for the inclusion of the words is as follows. The phrase is found in nearly all the uncial and minuscule manuscripts of the NT as well as in nearly every ancient version, including the Bohairic of lower Egypt. Support for the longer reading is also found in the great majority of the earliest patristic witnesses, including Origen himself…moreover, this reading is not limited to manuscripts of only one geographical area, as is its omission. The reading was accepted as genuine over a wide geographical area, encompassing most of the then civilized ancient world. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]

..

Regarding the Internal evidence of the text:

..

The clause contains features which, taken at face value, seem faithfully to reflect the apostle’s characteristic style, grammar, and vocabulary…the inclusion of the disputed words is the best solution since it is supported by significant external and internal evidence…given the strength and diversity of the external attestation, the improbability of an accidental omission, and the intrinsic probability favoring the inclusion of the phrase…the cumulative effect of the data can hardly be ignored. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]

..

Therefore, with all of the evidences, external and internal, taken together, the overwhelming data dictates that the longer version is far more likely than not to be the original writing of John the Apostle. Along with the fact that the only reason why an Alexandrian scribe would have taken the phrase out during his transcription, would have been because his own theological misgivings were playing his bias and caused him to remove the phrase, which is a tragedy. When men take it upon themselves to tamper with the Word of God because they don’t like what a particular text says…I would hate to be in that man’s shoes when he stands before God on judgment day.

As further evidence of the implication of the full reading of the text under examination, we also have a clue two verses earlier which, when first we come upon, doesn’t really to make a whole lot of sense…

..

John 3:11  Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.

..

Jesus speaks in the plural, taking up the meaning of Elohim from the OT, in part of a new section of His dialogue with Nicodemus…which He alludes to with finality in verse 13. He is both standing before this Pharisee of faith in human physical form, and at the same time in heaven, the “we” and “our” attesting to His plurality – Yahweh God in heaven and Yahweh manifest in flesh as Jesus the God-Messiah. Over and again, John depicts Jesus as existing in union with God at all times…because He is God and man at the same time.

There is no other reason that can stand up against scrutiny of the facts, why Jesus all of a sudden speaks of Himself in the plural. He begins here in this verse to hint at Nicodemas of who He really was, and then finishes that hint in verse 13 by telling him that He was both standing before him in conversation, and…at the same time…sitting in heaven upon His throne from which He ruled the creation. Jesus had also hinted at this in verses where He claimed that when He spoke, God was speaking…

..

John 3:34  He whom God has sent utters the words of God, because God gives Him the fulness of the Spirit.

John 14:24  Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words, and the words that you hear are not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

..

When Jesus speaks, it is the words God spoke through His lips of flesh; because Jesus and God are one and the same. The end of the matter on this text, is that Jesus claims that He was both standing before Nicodemas holding their conversation, and at the same time – manifesting His deity through His omnipresence – was in heaven.

..

John 6:62  Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

..

First, we need to look at the text within its context:

..

John 6:48-51, 58  I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh…This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

..

It is abundantly clear that Jesus makes the statement that He is the “bread” and that this bread “came down from heaven.” What He is saying is that, for our purposes, He came down from heaven. In this context He then asks “what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending back to where He was before?”

“down from heaven” where ek (from) speaks of an object or person which was beforehand in something or somewhere else but are presently separated from where they once were, such as an egg yoke taken out of the egg shell. In Biblical Greek, if something is separated from where it once was, then that separation ‘from’ it is expressed with ek; while if that something was only near it, on it, or with it, then that separation is expressed with apo.

ek is used in respect to either place, time, source, or origin – in this case, when Jesus uses it, He uses it in respect to origin. Its base definition is out of, or separation from. When used of origin, ek implies “likeness.”

The word translated as “down” is the verb katabainw, and what is interesting about its use here, is its grammar – it is in the present active participle. What this tells us is that Christ was in a constant present state of “coming down” from heaven, in allusion to being presently in heaven and on earth at the same time, mirroring the statement in John 3:13. This speaks of the omnipresence of Christ as God, who was both in heaven and walking the earth at the exact same time.

This is a clear statement and claim about Christ’s pre-existence before His incarnation in His own words.

5.  The witness of the Apostles:

John 1:1-3* In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were brought into existence by Him, and without Him was not anything brought into existence that was brought into existence.

..

1. First, it is important to know and understand that verses 1-18 are John’s Prologue to his gospel account. This is important because it needs to be read, interpreted, and understood as a prologue and not the beginning of his body of work. It is the introduction to the main theme of John’s work, and that main theme is the deity of Christ.

2. “In the beginning” – some try to make this opening phrase to mean the beginning of the preaching of the gospel, out of bias for the false doctrines that they hold to. There is no article before arche, therefore it means before there was any beginning whatsoever, which destroys the idea that it means in the beginning of the gospel (a favorite interpretation of unitarians and arians). This same meaning and rule of Greek grammar applies to the “beginning” in verse 2.

Therefore, John makes reference to the beginning before creation (creation is not mentioned linearly until verse 3). Since all things were “made by Him,” then He had to exist before He could make all things. Furthermore, the idea that “in the beginning” intends the beginning of the gospel, rather than in the beginning before creation, does not stand up under the weight of the Scriptural evidence. (see John 17:5, Eph. 1:4)

Furthermore, note the use of “en apch” (in beginning) instead of “ap apxhV” (from beginning) in John’s writings – “in the beginning” addresses ‘time’ before creation (John 1:1, John 1:2), and “from the beginning” addresses either the point of creation, or when the gospel age started (John 6:64, 8:25, 44; 15:27, 16:4; 1 John 1:1, 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5-6).

3.  “was” (in the imperfect tense, which conveys “a past continuing”) denotes absolute existence, not created existence in time and space. In this imperfect tense, eimi literally means “was existing,” a direct implication of past eternal existence. He was not speaking of ideas, knowledge, plans, or any other such mental acuity of God before creation or any other time – but of the substance of existing in some tangible spiritual form.

4.  “the Word” – what is the identity of the Word? Unitarians rely upon extrabiblical (natural) definitions of the term and completely ignore semantics. Furthermore, John’s viewpoint in using logos as an identifier of Christ is from that of the Old Testament, not from that of Stoics, Philo, or any other philosopher of the logos. It is recognized by all scholars and theologian of any weight, that we find certain specific words (or phrases) in Paul and John where they semantically use words (or phrases) but fill them with their own intentional meanings.

The “Logos” is one of those terms found only in John wherein he intends the meaning of the preincarnate Christ, which he tells us in plain language in verses 14-15. John uses the term without explanation to us today, but which was well known to his readers – which is why when we ignore cultural/historical principles in our interpretation of Scripture, we assign false interpretations to the narratives in question.

Therefore, we must tackle this question based upon both historical and grammatical grounds, NOT simply grammatical alone – to do so would be a failure of due diligence on the part of the exegete. John tells us that “the Word became (ginomaicame into a change of state of being) flesh and dwelt among us” and that John the Baptist bore witness about Him saying “He who comes after me ranks before me, because He existed before I did,” in reference to His identity as eternal deity.

Both John the Baptist’s, and John the Apostle’s witness concerning Christ, is that He was the preincarnate Yahweh manifest in the flesh. This is the identity of “the Word” according to Scripture. Yahweh, who has always been, came into a change of state of being when He manifested Himself in the form of human flesh in the incarnate Messiah, just as the grammar of the text clearly states. This first clause, more accurately rendered, states: “In the beginning, He was the Word.”

5.  In the second clause, John uses the preposition pros (proV) which basically means toward; but with the accusative, as it is in this text, it takes on the meaning of either in, with, by, or among, particularly with the accusative of person. Furthermore, it presents a plane of equality and intimacy, where two are face to face with each other. In this sense, a better rendering of the second clause could read, “and the Word was in God.”

6.  “The Word was God” – again, “was” is in the imperfect tense, which conveys “a past continuing”) denoting absolute existence, not created existence in time and space. Here, according to the Greek grammar, John tells us that the Word has always been in absolute existence as deity – Yahweh God in the flesh, now come to be manifest and incarnate in human flesh. The way John phrased this part of the text completely destroys the false argument that the Word was only in the mind of God as His plans, intellect, or thoughts…because John tells us that the Word “WAS God,” not the Word was a figment of God’s imagination, intellect, or plan(s).

7.  As to the grammar and word placing in the text:

..

The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word – the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. [Vincent’s Word Studies, electronic version]

..

8.  In verse 2, John continues the narrative; “was” is still in the imperfect tense, meaning an eternal existence in the past. “Beginning” is still being used by him as denoting eternity past before the physical creation of anything that was created. In this verse John is telling us that the Word (Christ) existed in eternity past with God before anything was created. Thus far, John presents the Word and God as two distinct persons sharing the attributes and nature of deity.

9.  In verse 3 John tells us that the Word created all things, but we must look at the Greek to get the full and accurate rendering of the text: The preposition “dia” (basic meaning of through or throughout) takes on different meanings in translating based upon different grammatical cues. In the case of the present text under consideration, which is in the genitive, it takes on the meaning of “efficient cause,” the author or first cause of a work.

In this case, it does not mean “through” but “by,” (all things came into being by Him); otherwise stated as “all things were created by Him.” Since Yahweh God is the Creator, and the Word is also clearly stated here as the Creator, the reference is to Christ before He became flesh incarnate – God. The text continues in saying that nothing that has ever been created (come into existence) came into existence without Him, confirming and ratifying that the Word is the Creator.

..

The verb was (ēn) is in the imperfect tense which depicts continual existence, a continuous state, not a completed past. As Phillips says “It suggests the idea of “absolute, supra-temporal existence.” Or stated another way, the verb in this tense “denotes neither a completed state nor a coming into being. It is appropriate to eternal, unchanging being. John is affirming that the Word existed before creation, which makes it clear that the Word was not created.” (Morris). “The Word continually was” is the idea. This truth provides definitive proof of Christ’s deity, for only God is eternal. As Phillips says, John “does not refer to a start, but to an infinite state!” [www.preceptaustin.org/john_11_commentary]

Was (1510) (ēn which is the imperfect form of eimi) means to be and is the usual verb for existence. In the metaphysical sense as in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word,” meaning it had been before there was any beginning or existed before the beginning of anything; John 8:50, estín, in the present tense indicating.” (Zodhiates) Notice John does not say in the beginning CAME the Word or BEGAN the Word, but WAS the Word. This verb is in the imperfect tense which speak of continuous action. In a word, the Word was continually existing! [Austin, abid]

Watch John’s masterful use of the Greek verbs and Greek tenses — four times in Jn 1:1-2 he uses the imperfect tense (ēn) of the verb eimi to say the Word was God (all of John’s statements regarding His pre-existence are in this tense), but in Jn 1:14note he uses the verb ginomai in the aorist tense (egeneto) (punctiliar, an instantaneous intervention, decisive, at a moment or point in time – the aorist usage here refers to some historical time in the past as the beginning of the new state) He became Man. So Jesus who always was God, became Man in a moment in time, doing so without ceasing to be God! John never says Christ became God but only that He was (always) God! [Austin, abid]

It is notable that the verb ēn (imperfect of eimi) is used by John in every instance where he is referring to the eternal state of Jesus (see Jn 1:124891015). One exception might be John’s use of ginomai in an allusion to Jesus’ existence before [implying His eternal state] John (the Baptist) (Jn 1:15note). [Austin, abid]

As discussed above John uses ginomai in the aorist tense (egeneto) to refer to becoming something that one was not before in John 1:14note where God became a Man. In addition to John 1:14, other uses of ginomai in the aorist tense (egeneto) in John’s prologue are found in John 1:3note (twice in the phrase “came into being”), John 1:6 (“There came a man, sent from God”), John 1:10note (“the world was made through Him”) and John 1:17note (“grace and truth were realized [came] through Jesus Christ.”). [Austin, abid]

Note that ginomai is also used in the perfect tense in John 1:3 (“has come into being”) and John 1:15-note (“He existed before me”), where the perfect tense implies a continuing existence of a new state. [Austin, abid]

..

10.  Aside from all of the grammar, there is another aspect of John’s use of “the Word” in describing Jesus Christ, which is found in two Messianic prophecies:

..

Isaiah 42:6  I, Yahweh, declare You righteous, and I will strengthen Your hand, and will keep You and set You as a covenant for the people, a light unto the Gentiles,

Isaiah 49:8  Yahweh says this: In the time of favor I will answer You, on the day of deliverance I will help You; I will keep You and set You as a covenant to the people, to make binding the land so as to possess the deserted inheritances;

..

Through study of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants, we come across in particular, Suzerain-Vassal covenants, where the covenant that is being offered by the Suzerain (conquering) king, to the would-be Vassal king, is called in the prologue of the covenant, “the Word of the Great King…”

In Isaiah God speaks to the Messiah who was to come and says that He (God the Father) is going to make the Messiah to be His living New Covenant. There is no doubt that the covenant which God speaks about is the New Covenant, and He says that Christ will be the living embodiment of His covenant “for” and “to” the people. In other words, by calling Christ the “Word” in his prologue, John intimates a direct connection back to these two passages in Isaiah, where he is basically telling us in no uncertain terms, that Christ is the living New Covenant of God made manifest in the flesh. As such, every word that Christ speaks that has to do with doctrine, are aspects of God’s New Covenant in Christ and are, in fact, covenant doctrines.

..

..

John 1:18*  No one has ever seen God; the unique God, who is in the Father’s bosom, He has made Him known.

..

This verse has some textual variants in the Greek manuscripts; however, the majority of critics agree that monogenes theos (unique God) was the original reading. The best and oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenes theos, which is undoubtedly the true and original wording. Reymond points out, “The reputable textual critic must admit that the evidence points rather decisively in favor of an original theos.” [[1]] The “one and only God” has the least doubt in terms of manuscript evidence; all attempts to make the text say otherwise is to place your bets on shaky evidence.

According to the vast majority of scholars, theos is attested in the best Alexandrian majuscule and in the earliest available MSS manuscripts. Furthermore, the quality of the Western MS supporting “theos” is comparatively greater than all Alexandrian MSS supporting documents for “vios” (son). Given the totality of the weight of the evidence, both internally and externally, “theos” is most likely the correct word used in this text.

Regardless of which reading one takes, the force of the text is not weakened in its intended meaning – Christ is still deity. As for “who is in the Father’s bosom,” this related directly back to John 1:1 where we read that “the Word was with God.” We must also remember that from the very beginning of John’s Gospel, his purpose and intent was to demonstrate that Christ was God in the flesh, from the very first verse, unto the very last. For him to use “son” instead of “God” would have been out of character with the rest of his gospel.

..

The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenēs theos, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenēs huios, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones, read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. P א 33 have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in P א* B C* L. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. [The NET Bible, online study notes]

The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. [The NET Bible, online study notes]

Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16181 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (ho ōn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. [The NET Bible, online study notes]

The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos ēn ho logos) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:484:811:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text (“the one and only unique God…”). [The NET Bible, online study notes]

..

..

..

John 20:28  Thomas answered Him, “My Lord and my God.

..

Firstly, many try to claim that Thomas’ reply was an exclamation out of surprise or astonishment, but the text does not support this claim (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). The grammar tells us that this is an address to Christ, not an exclamation, as the vocative here indicates (even though it is in the nominative, which is common in Koine Greek).

Secondly, Jesus accepts Thomas’ reply and title-giving – He does not rebuke Thomas like He should have if He was not Yahweh God in the flesh. Thomas addresses Jesus Himself, not just saying words out into the open air like an exclamation from surprise or out of astonishment, as a knee-jerk reaction to something that just happened; “Thomas ANSWERED Him…” not “Thomas exclaimed…” Furthermore, if John’s intent was to say that Thomas exclaimed “My Lord and my God” that was NOT an actual address to Jesus, then he would have used the word anaphoneo (anafonew), meaning to cry out emphatically. However, this is not the word John used.

Furthermore, the word John does use here for “answer” is apokrinomai (apokrinomai), which is only used in the NT Scriptures in the middle deponent, giving it the strict meaning of “to answer.” Jesus just finished speaking to Thomas, saying, “Put your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe” speaking of the fact that He had been resurrected from the dead after having been crucified. And then Thomas answered Him, which in this text (John 20:28) is what scholars call a verba finita reply. Thomas answered Jesus, he did not exclaim “My Lord and my God!” out of surprise or any other such nonsense.

If Jesus was not Yahweh God in the flesh, then He would have instantly rebuked Thomas, or in the least corrected him, in scope of His truthfulness and honesty – otherwise He was dishonest and deceptive in NOT saying anything to correct Thomas. He was either God in the flesh, or a deceiver, in which case He could NOT be the Messiah. If He allowed such a deception to live and propagate, which is paramount to a lie, then chances are He would have told a lie sometime before His death and resurrection – again, in which case, He was automatically disqualified to be the Messiah at that moment. For example, see Acts 14:11-15; Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9.

Then, Jesus immediately commends Thomas for believing – but believing what? Believing that He was both Lord and God in the flesh. Furthermore, if Thomas’ reply was a mere exclamation out of surprise or astonishment (a knee-jerk reaction), then it was nothing to be commended…such a reaction would not be evidence of his belief.

..

Bishop Pearce says here: “Observe that Thomas calls Jesus his God, and that Jesus does not reprove him for it…” And, I would ask…could he be a prophet – could he be even an honest man, to permit his disciple to indulge in a mistake so monstrous and destructive, if it had been one? [Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible; electronic version]

..

Thomas looks right at Jesus and says, “My Lord and my God.” There was no mistake in what he said, and Jesus accepted his words. The sentence is simple, elegant, with no room to play with the Greek text. Jesus accepted the title of God from His disciple, thus indirectly claiming to be God.

Furthermore, only a single fifth-century Western manuscript (D) omits the second article in this text, which some have latched on to in trying to argue that Thomas was not calling Jesus God. The only problem with this, is that if this single manuscript (out of the thousands of others) is indeed correct, then it doesn’t help the unitarian argument because with the second article not there, then the grammatical rule (sometimes referred to as Granville Sharp’s Rule) comes into play…either way, Thomas refers to Christ as God.

..

The Socinian view, that these words, ὁ κύρ. μου κ. ὁ θεός μου, are merely an exclamation, is refuted—(1) By the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews. (2) By the εἶπεν αὐτῷ. (3) By the impossibility of referring ὁ κύριός μου to another than Jesus: see John 20:13. (4) By the N.T. usage of expressing the vocative by the nom. with an article. (5) By the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of Him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing Him, break out into an irrelevant cry. (6) By the further absurdity of supposing that if such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded any thing so beside that object. (7) By the intimate conjunction of πεπίστευκας. [Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary; Henry Alford, electronic edition (StudyLight.org)]

..

All of the external and internal evidence taken into consideration, Thomas gives us the evidence that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh…particularly because Jesus does not correct Him in his response. If Jesus was not Yahweh in the flesh, then He would have certainly corrected not only Thomas, but John and Paul, as well, through all of the visions, manifestations, and conversations that Paul, expressly, had with the risen Savior.

..

..

Acts 20:28  Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood.

..

Historical note: both of the validated Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus, have the wording, “God, which He obtained with His own blood.” This is first-hand weighty evidence that the word “God” is the original word, rather than the oft argued replacement, “Lord.”

As far as Scriptural evidence goes, Paul is the only NT writer to pen the phrase, “church of God.” Therefore, even with the other evidences equally balanced, that scale is heavily tipped in favor of that reading, rather than the “church of the Lord.” Paul uses it seven times (Acts 20:28; I Cor. 1:2, 10:32, 11:22, 15:9; II Cor. 1:1; and Gal. 1:13); again, no other NT writer uses this phrase. Not only this, but the claim that “the church of the Lord” is a valid alternative, has no forceful evidence, as this is the only place in the NT Scriptures that it would be found…while, as already mentioned, “the church of God” is found numerous times in the NT.

Additionally, while the internal evidence is equally balanced, the external evidence is undeniably superior for the reading of “tou aimatoV tou idiou” (the blood of one’s own), making “the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood” have more weight of grammatical evidence than those used by unitarians.

The late renowned Greek NT textual scholar Bruce M. Metzger did an excellent job of explaining the situation:

..

The external evidence is singularly balanced between “church of God” and “church of the Lord” (the reading “church of the Lord and God” is obviously conflate, and is therefore secondary – as are also other variant readings). Paleographically, the difference concerns only a single letter… In deciding between the two readings one must take into account the internal probabilities. [Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Second Edition); A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; ISBN: 3438060108], pp. 425-427]

The expression ekklesia kuriou occurs seven times in the Septuagint but nowhere in the New Testament. On the other hand, ekklesia tou theou appears with moderate frequency (eleven times) in the Epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, but nowhere else in the New Testament. (The phrase hai ekklesiai pasai tou Christou occurs once in Ro. 16:16.)…In support of the originality of kuriou is the argument (urged by a number of scholars) that copyists were likely to substitute the more common phrase he ekklesia tou theou for the more rare phrase he ekkleesia tou kuriou. [Metzger, abid.]

On the other hand, it is undeniable that theou is the more difficult reading. The following clause speaks of the church “which he obtained dia tou haimatos tou idiou.” If this is taken in its usual sense (“with his blood”), a copyist might well raise the question, Does God have blood?, and thus be led to change theou to kuriou. If, however, kuriou were the original reading, there is nothing unusual in the phrase to catch the mind of the scribe and throw it off its balance. This and other considerations led the Committee (as well as a variety of scholars) to regard theou as the original reading…Without committing itself concerning what some have thought to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou, the Committee judged that the reading theou was more likely to have been altered to kuriou than vice versa. [Metzger, abid.]

..

There is additional evidence from the apostolic and early Church fathers to substantiate that the original reading did refer to God purchasing the Church with his own blood.

..

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him “who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,” Ephesians 5:2 [you hastened to see me]. I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 1.)

If these things are so, it is certain that believers contracting marriages with Gentiles are guilty of fornication, and are to be excluded from all communication with the brotherhood, in accordance with the letter of the apostle, who says that “with persons of that kind there is to be no taking of food even.” Or shall we “in that day” produce (our) marriage certificates before the Lord’s tribunal, and allege that a marriage such as He Himself has forbidden has been duly contracted? What is prohibited (in the passage just referred to) is not “adultery;” it is not “fornication.” The admission of a strange man (to your couch) less violates “the temple of God,” less commingles “the members of Christ” with the members of an adulteress. So far as I know, “we are not our own, but bought with a price;” and what kind of price? The blood of God. In hurting this flesh of ours, therefore, we hurt Him directly. What did that man mean who said that “to wed a ‘stranger’ was indeed a sin, but a very small one?” whereas in other cases (setting aside the injury done to the flesh which pertains to the Lord) every voluntary sin against the Lord is great. For, in as far as there was a power of avoiding it, in so far is it burdened with the charge of contumacy. (Tertullian in a letter to his wife)

This visible appearance cheats death and the devil; for the wealth within, the beauty, is unseen by them. And they rave about the carcass, which they despise as weak, being blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a “treasure in an earthen vessel” 2 Corinthians 4:7 we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit. But be not deceived, you who has tasted of the truth, and been reckoned worthy of the great redemption. But contrary to what is the case with the rest of men, collect for yourself an unarmed, an unwarlike, a bloodless, a passionless, a stainless host, pious old men, orphans dear to God, widows armed with meekness, men, adorned with love. Obtain with your money such guards, for body and for soul, for whose sake a sinking ship is made buoyant, when steered by the prayers of the saints alone; and disease at its height is subdued, put to flight by the laying on of hands; and the attack of robbers is disarmed, spoiled by pious prayers; and the might of demons is crushed, put to shame in its operations by strenuous commands. (Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?)

..

Bowman further shows that “his own blood” was how the Church and scholars read it for the first eighteen centuries:

..

Although most contemporary English versions render the last part of the verse in the same way as the NASB (ESV, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, and others), many scholars and commentators in recent decades have preferred the rendering found in the NRSV (and also in REB). There is no doubt as to the reason for this preference: those who dispute the conventional translation find the language, which expresses the idea of God’s having “blood,” difficult if not impossible to entertain. [Bowman & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case For The Deity of Christ (Kregel Publications, 2007)]

A little lesson in grammar is unavoidable in order to understand the problem with the NRSV interpretation. The disputed words usually translated “his own blood” but translated “the blood of his own Son” in the NRSV are tou haimatos tou idiou (word for word, “the blood, the his-own”). The word idiou (“his own”) is an adjective, which normally we would understand as modifying the noun haimatos (“blood”). The word order here, with the adjective following the noun with a second article between them, is perfectly normal and common in Greek. Another example of this construction appears in the very same verse: “the Holy Spirit” (to pneuma to hagion, word for word, “the Spirit, the Holy”). It was not until the latter half of the nineteenth century, that anyone proposed that the words here in question did not mean “his own blood.” [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]

The basis for the alternate translation “the blood of his own Son” is that Greek can use adjectives as if they were nouns (the technical term is substantivally). Many modern scholars argue that tou idiou is such a substantival use of the adjective, and therefore means “of his Own,” comparable to the use of the adjective “the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6) as a kind of term of endearment. This reinterpretation of the text is grammatically possible and difficult to disprove absolutely, but it is hardly the most natural understanding. [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]

 As we mentioned, eighteen centuries went by before anyone came up with it. The New Testament nowhere calls Jesus “his Own” (ho idios), nor was this term ever picked up in the early church as a designation for Jesus. The substantival use of ho idios (or any grammatical variation, such as ton idion) is, in fact, rare in the New Testament, and in the singular occurs only once–and even then not in reference to a specific person (John 15:19). On the other hand, ho idios functions as an adjective following the noun–just as in Acts 20:28–in several New Testament texts (John 1:41; 5:43; 7:18; Acts 1:25). [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]

We are inclined to agree with Nigel Turner, a twentieth-century scholar of Greek grammar, who called the alternate translation of Acts 20:28 “a theological expedient, foisting imaginary distinctions into a spontaneous affirmation, and is not the natural way to take the Greek.” As the Catholic scholar Charles DeVine commented sixty years ago, it is nothing more than an attempt “to avoid at all costs the full force of the expression ‘God’s own blood.’” [Bowman/Komoszewski, abid.]

..

Therefore, with all of the evidence in hand, Acts 20:28 (like John 20:28) gives us the clear teaching that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. As Augustine worded it, “Behold, He was here, and was also in heaven; was here in His flesh, in heaven by His divinity; yea, everywhere by His divinity. Born of a mother, not quitting the Father.” [Augustine, Tractate 12 (John 3:6-21), paragraph 8]

..

This is the end of part 2, until next time, God Bless!


     [1] Jesus, Divine Messiah; Reymond, Robert L., Phillipsburg, NJ; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1990’ pg. 306.

Posted in The Deity of Christ | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Jesus Christ Yahweh God in the Flesh? (Part 1)

Researched, compiled, and written by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

October 15, 2020

Why didn’t Jesus just come right straight out and tell us that He was God in the flesh (well, actually, He did, on several accounts…but to humor this carnal question…)?

..

Matthew 13:10-12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Luke 8:10 Jesus said, “It has been given to you from heaven to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others they are taught and given in parables for this purpose – that only those who have a mind to see and listen to truth will come to understand.”

..

The last word in the text, suniemi (to comprehend, understand, perceive), entails the gathering together of individual facts, examining them thoroughly and organizing them together as a whole in order to come to the truth on the subject matter, much like gathering together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and putting them together in their proper places to reveal the picture they contain. Those who are not searching for God’s truth will not understand the principle truths of His kingdom…while God does want all people to come to salvation, because of their individual biases, attitudes, and heart conditions, not all people will come to Him.

..

Mark 4:22-25 For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” And He said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you. For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man chooses not to receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are absurd to him; and he is not able to understand them because they are only carefully and accurately examined by the assistance of the Spirit.

..

Note: unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk (*), all Bible quotations in this study are from the ESV translation.

1.  The titles and names addressing Jesus Christ

(I)  The Son of God:

John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 19:6-8 When the chief priests and the officers saw Jesus, they cried out, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.” The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law He ought to die because He has made Himself the Son of God.” When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid.

John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.

1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

..

The title “the Son of God,” because it carried with it in the Jewish mind a meaning that we today are generally ignorant of. The reason why the Jews were repeatedly thrown into a killing frenzy every time Jesus called Himself “the Son of God” is because Jews considered themselves the children of God by right – but Jesus called Himself “THE” Son of God (o UioV tou Qeou), which implies special significance. The claim to be “THE Son of God” directly implies uniqueness and equality with Yahweh God.

Jesus was not “a” son of God through faith and obedience like human beings can be, He was “the” Son of God as to His origin. He was not the Son of God because He was a “descendant” of God, or was God’s posterity – but because He shared the same divine nature of God. Furthermore, the phrase “son of” followed by the Genitive, implies quality, nature, and character (for example, “sons of disobedience,” “sons of thunder,” etc.), from something which one partakes of. In this case, telling us that Jesus has the same nature, quality, and character of God in every way, because He “partakes” of the nature, quality, and character of God, what Paul later says carries “the fullness of God.”

As the one and only unique Son of God, Jesus also made a distinction between Himself and His disciples, such as in John 20:17 where He makes the distinction between “My Father and your Father, to My God and to your God.” It is the one and same Father God to whom He obviously refers to, but the distinction follows upon their natures; He originates directly from the same essence and nature of deity clothed in humanity, while they originate strictly from human nature. This Hebrew parallelism is enunciated upon by Paul as to Christ’s human and divine nature in his opening statement to the Romans:

..

Romans 1:3-4 concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

..

Paul affirms that Jesus, the man, came according to the flesh and line of King David, and yet at the same time, is the Messiah (Christ), the Son of God sharing the nature of God according to the Spirit that fully dwelt within Him (which no mere human being has ever had – the fullness of the Holy Spirit of God…because we couldn’t handle it as mere human beings). John attests to this in his gospel:

..

John 3:34* He Whom God has sent speaks the words of God; because God gave Him the fullness of the Spirit.

..

No mere human being could ever receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit into himself, we are only given a portion of the Spirit; but Jesus had the fullness of the Spirit because He was able to receive it. This fact also speaks of His deity and equality with the Father.

Furthermore, John assigns the title “Son of God” not because of His virgin, miraculous birth, but based upon His equality with God, as Yahweh God in the flesh. Beginning with verse 1 in stating that the Word was God incarnate in a human being, and that He was the Creator of the universe (specifically – “all things were made by Him”)…not God, but the Word. Verse 14 tells us yet again, reaffirming verses 1-3, that “the Word became flesh” (ginomai – entering into a change of state of being from another state of being)…

..

John 1:14* And the Word came into bodily existence in a change of state of being, and He dwelled among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the one and only Son of the Father), full of loving-kindness and truth.

..

John says, “the Word,” making a direct link back to verse 1, the specific, unique Word which is God, not a philosophical ideology. The Holy Spirit through John says that the Word ginomai into a new state of existence, He became flesh – He was not created as to the flesh. The word is the same, but the difference in meaning comes from the context and how it is utilized in the individual texts.

In verse 3, ginomai (a term for coming into existence and change of existence) by context means came into existence by creation, changing from a state of nothingness into a state of createdness; while in verse 14 (due to its context and use) the change is from a state of infinite to the finite, from a previous existence that was other than flesh, into a state of existence within a fleshly body. The Word previously existed outside of time and space, outside of the creation that He created, but now (aorist tense) came into His physical creation at a specific point in time.

The title, “the Son of God,” is given to Christ because of this preexistence and what the Holy Spirit says through John, that He “was God.” The title pertains to the Scriptural fact that Jesus is the Son of God because He originates directly from Yahweh, and shares the attributes of deity with God. In plain English, Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh.

The title, “the Son of God,” means that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

(II) Immanuel

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

..

This name, “Immanuel,” is attested to concerning Christ in the gospel of Matthew:

..

Matthew 1:23* “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God is together with us).

..

The preposition meta, which is here translated as “together with,” generally means amid, in the midst, with, or among as its basic definitions. However, the grammar plays with these meanings as it does with other prepositions. Here it is with the Genitive of person, which specifies that it takes on the further modification of meaning “together with” in a physical, tangible way; whereas with other modifiers it can mean with someone only in spirit, or deed, or in various other ways.

This technical statement does not imply that “God is with us” in some generic meaning that He is for us – that He is in our corner, as it were – through life; here it specifically means that God was walking among us here in this world in a physical form…the form of this Son which the virgin bore.

(III)  Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

..

Here Jesus Christ, in a Messianic prophetic utterance of the Holy Spirit through the prophet Isaiah, God tells us that this child that would be born as the Messiah, would be called the “Mighty God” and “the Everlasting Father,” among others (“Wonderful Counselor” and “Prince of Peace”).

The title, “Mighty God,” is found in the OT two other times (Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18), and always speaks of Yahweh God; and “Everlasting Father” is found two times addressed directly as the everlasting God (Genesis 21:33 and Isaiah 40:28) and indirectly three more times (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 26:4; Jeremiah 10:10).

Even though these titles of God were not utilized in copious amounts in the OT Scriptures, they were – nonetheless – titles directly addressed to Yahweh and no other. The fact that God, by His Holy Spirit, says that the Messiah would be called by two titles specific to Him alone, is direct evidence that the coming Messiah would be Yahweh God in the flesh.

There is no mistaking what God is telling us here in this text, and the only way to get around these facts is to simply ignore them out of one’s bias, not according to the facts of the text.

(IV) Savior

Isaiah 43:11 I, I am Yahweh, and besides Me there is no Savior.

..

This is Yahweh God speaking, and He says here that there is no Savior besides Him (See also Isaiah 45:15, 18-21; and Hosea 13:4). We also find numerous places in the NT Scriptures (12 to be exact) where Jesus Christ is called the Savior…

..

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.

..

See also Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 13:23; Philippians 3:20; II Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:5-6; II Peter 1:1, 1:11, and 3:18 – which all say that Jesus Christ is the Savior. The question here is, in the OT passages, does God just call Himself the Savior in a physical sense, or does He also include being Savior from sin?

In Isaiah 43:11, 45:15, and 45:18-21 the contexts make it clear that God addresses Himself as both Savior from physical harm and the Redeemer – a direct implication of salvation. In Hosea 13:4 it is difficult to say whether it is only physical harm that He says He will deliver from, or both physical and salvation.

Nevertheless, the Isaiah texts speak of both, and therefore, since Christ is the Savior from sin for the whole world, and the title is pinned upon Him as the Savior, He is directly identified with Yahweh in these texts.

(V) the First and the Last

Isaiah 44:6 Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and His Redeemer, Yahweh of hosts: “I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no god.”

Isaiah 48:12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am He; I am the First, and I am the Last.

..

Here God tells us that He is “the First and the Last” and that beside Him there is no other god; He is the ONLY God. Yet, the risen and glorified Christ tells us in the Revelation that He is the first and the last…

..

Revelation 1:17-18 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the First and the Last, and the Living One. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

Revelation 22:12-13 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

..

Thus, the Holy Spirit of God confirms that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is Yahweh God in the flesh yet once again. Furthermore, many claim that Jesus never claimed to be God, yet right here He uses a title that Yahweh specifically used of Himself, and says that there is no other. The title “first and the last” used in the way that God uses it in Isaiah 44:6, makes it synonymous with God – and in this same manner Jesus uses it of Himself in Revelation 1:18.

For example, if I was awoken from sleep in the middle of the night by a noise in the living room, and I went to investigate and found a tubby older looking man with a white beard, dressed in regular clothing, and asked how he got into the house, or who was he, or what was he doing as I clutched the bat in my hands, and in response he simply laid his finger aside his nose and disappeared into sparkles that went up the fireplace chimney…

In an indirect response to my question he made a claim to who he was by his actions. This is what Jesus does by using a descriptor for Himself that God enunciated about Him-self in the OT Scriptures. When Jesus uses this particular title for Himself that God uses (which He follows up with, “besides Me there is no god”), He ratifies the claim that He is Yahweh God in the flesh.

Unless one calls God a liar like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) do when they make Jesus another god, such as in their bastardized version of the Bible where they translate John 1:1 to read that “the Word was a god.” Apparently, the fact escapes them that after they claim Scripture correct when it teaches that there is only one God, that they in fact teach polytheism by stating in their bible that “Jehovah” is one God and Jesus is another (“a”) god.

(VI) the Living One

Revelation 1:17-18 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the First and the Last, and the Living One. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

..

The phrase “the Living One” is another common epithet of God used in the OT Scriptures, which Jesus here uses for Himself…

Deuteronomy 32:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven and swear, As I live forever,

..

See also Isa. 49:18; Jer. 22:24, 46:18; Eze. 5:11, 14:16, 14:18 (and 14 others). In effect, Jesus uses two different titles of God for Himself in this verse, the “First and the Last” and “the Living One.”

(VII) The Rock

Deuteronomy 32:4The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is He.

..

Without a doubt, the OT Scriptures affirm that there is no “Rock” but Yahweh God (see also Deu. 32:15, 32:18, 32:31; 1 Sam. 2:2; 2 Sam. 22:3, 22:32, 22:47, 23:3; Psa. 78:35; Isa. 17:10, 26:4, 30:29, 44:8; and Hab. 1:12). Yet the apostle Paul, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, gives this title to Jesus Christ, once again confirming that Jesus is Yahweh God in the flesh…

..

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

..

If Paul had only said that the Rock which followed Israel was Christ, then we might have an instance of debate on whether or not the Rock that is Yahweh of the OT Scriptures is here being related to (in other words, Paul might have just been referencing the actual stone that Moses hit with his staff).

But, with the attributing of “the spiritual Rock” which speaks not of the physical stone (or in the least, not just that physical stone) but also of the deity behind the miracle, Paul intends an equality of Christ with Yahweh.

(VIII) Ancient of Days (from the days of eternity)

Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for Me One who is to be ruler in Israel, and His goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.

..

“from the days of eternity” is literally “miyemey olam,” which contains one of the title-names of Yahweh.

..

Genesis 21:33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba and called there on the name of Yahweh, the Everlasting God.

..

the Everlasting God” is literally “El Olam,” and was first given to God here in this verse by Abraham, as the God who always has been and will always be, who Abraham petitions to watch over the covenant that he had just made with Abimelech.

The Hebrew “olam” means perpetual, eternity, and continuous perpetual existence, depending upon its use in a text. For example, in texts speaking about an action in the distant past, but not so distant as to fall from memory, it is translated as since or until; yet when it is specifically addressing God or the Messiah, it takes on the meaning of eternality in both past and future, such as it does in the current text under discussion [TWOT entry 1630; The Complete Word Study Dictionary, Zodhiates; Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions; electronic versions].

This is the title in Micah 5:2 that Yahweh speaks through the prophet in assigning it to the coming Messiah. Not only does God give Christ a title that speaks of Himself coming in the flesh of mankind, but also is a direct allusion to His eternal existence. In other words, God here tells us that the identity of the Messiah includes that He existed in eternity past before His incarnation, even before the creating of all that has been created.

This title found in this Messianic prophecy is synonymous with the title of God, “the Ancient of Days” found in the OT Scriptures…

..

Daniel 7:9 As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire.

Daniel 7:13 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Daniel 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.

..

The “Ancient” of “Ancient of Days” is an Aramaic adjective meaning ancient as far back as the start of time with creation. It has to do with time, but only time that began with the creation of the world. Therefore, it specifically is addressed only to God. The “days of eternity” in the currently discussed text, is synonymous with this Aramaic term.

(IX)  Lord…which is equal in the NT for “Yahweh”

Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

..

“Lord” – from the Greek kurios, meaning Lord Master, or Owner. In NT Greek, according to just about every Greek professor and scholar out there, is the Greek equivalent to the OT Hebrew Yahweh.

For a better understanding of the names and titles, we need to understand that in the OT the word adonay, the emphatic form of adon, meaning sovereign, lord, master, owner. It is used as a proper name of God only.

As a rule…it  [Lord] is used as an expository equivalent for the divine name Yahweh…when the Greek translators used kurios for the divine name they did so in free creativity, applying the common use of kurios for the divine epithet in terms of the insight into the nature of the OT God which was current in Hellenistic Judaism. [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Vol. 3, pg. 1058-9]

The fact should not be overlooked, of course, that in the history of the Bible and the effect of its message the rendering “lord” has been no less significant than the use of the name (Yahweh) in the original. If the function of the two terms is not wholly identical, it overlaps to such a degree that they content of the statements, being equally orientated to the basic motif of the acknowledgment of the power of the divine will, can have a vital effect. [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Vol. 3, pg. 1060]

Furthermore, history demonstrates that the name Yahweh had been used freely in the early history of Israel, but by Jesus’ time the Jews (in particular, those in religious power, the Pharisees) had become so legalistic and didn’t want to take any chance on breaking the command of God not misuse His name – that is, using it in any other way other than calling upon Him, or teaching about Him or His name. Therefore, they attempted to ensure that no one would do so by scribing the Holy Name out of the Scriptures, replacing it with adonai (lord).

As time past and Israel had been conquered by Alexander the Great and Hellenized, and the OT Scriptures were eventually written in Greek, the name of God (Yahweh), which had previously been replaced by Adonai, was now replaced by the Greek kurios (lord). Consequently, because the NT writers were devout Jews quoting the Septuagint in their writings, they continued the tradition of replacing Yahweh with “Lord” in the NT. Thus, when it came to calling Jesus “Lord,” they did so in full recognition of what they were calling Him, as well as their target audiences.

When a NT writer or speaking calls Jesus “Lord,” they are using the same designation that their religious rulers used in addressing Yahweh God – they were calling Jesus God (in the flesh).

The God to whom the Canon bears witness is called “Lord” because He is there shown to be the exclusive holder of power over the cosmos and all men, the Creator of the world and the Master of life and death. The term “Lord” is thus a summation of the beliefs of the OT. It is the wholly successful attempt to state what God is, what the Holy One means in practice for men, namely, the intervention of a personal will, with approximately the pregnancy and binding force which constitute the distinctive mark of the name Yahweh. [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Vol. 3, pg. 1062]

In the OT adonay is used of God in such a way as to describe Him as the superior being who belongs to the speaker in this capacity. Kurios bears the same meaning in the LXX. [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Vol. 3, pg. 1081]

Jesus was the Messiah (not just a Messiah, but the God-Messiah), and they recognized that about Him. Therefore, they addressed Him as such by the title ‘Lord.” Lord in this case, when addressing Jesus Christ, means the sole Creator and Authority over all creation – God. When used of Jesus or God, it directly and emphatically implies much more than simple common respect from the lesser to greater in rank; it directly and emphatically implies deity.

The name of kurios implies a position equal to that of God. [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Vol. 3, pg. 1089]

“The reason why God is absolute Lord of this world and its course, and also of individuals, is that He is the Creator of all,” and from this we find that Jesus is also lauded as the Creator by John and Paul. By right of His creatorship, the title of Lord is justly given to the Christ. [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Vol. 3, pg. 1085]

The title ‘name replacement’ for Yahweh (Lord) encompasses all of the meanings of “Son of God,” “Immanuel,” “Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father,” “Savior,” “First and Last,” “the Living One,” “the Rock,” and “Ancient of Days” which Scripture assigns to Jesus.

Kurios – lord, master, owner. Also the NT Greek equivalent for the OT Hebrew “Yahweh.” [The Complete Word Study NT Dictionary, Zodhiates, electronic version]

Precept Austin gives us a quote from FF Bruce, saying:

To a Jew, there was only one name “above every name” – the Ineffable Name of the God of Israel, represented in synagogue reading and in the LXX text by the title “Lord.” And that the apostles meant to give Jesus the title “Lord” in this highest sense of all is indicated by the way in which they do not hesitate on occasion to apply to Him passages of OT Scripture referring to Yahweh. [preceptaustin.org/acts-2-commentary; electronic version]

Austin himself continues with:

Lord (kurios) means the supreme one, the owner, the one in control. The Jews would be very familiar with this title as the Name of God for Kurios was used in the Septuagint Scriptures in every place the Hebrew Name Jehovah was found. The Jews considered Jehovah or Yahweh too holy to pronounce, and so they substituted the word kurios. It follows that Peter’s use of kurios was clearly understood by his Jewish audience as a reference to God.

How, then, do we distinguish between when a person calls another person “lord” that it means lord or master in a human sense, as differently from calling Jesus Lord meaning that He is the divine Creator and Master of all creation, especially when one is speaking to another human being?

When a man of lower societal rank addressed another of higher rank, he would call him ‘lord.’ When anyone who is of lower rank than the king addressed the king, he would call him ‘lord.’ In societies outside of the Middle East, men of equal rank would call one another ‘lord’ in the same way that they would call one another ‘mister’ as a sign of respect. But the answer to the question is found in the historic documents of the OT Scriptures – the title of Lord is bestowed upon Jesus precisely because the Jews understood that the Law and the Prophets foretold that the coming Messiah would not be just a man, but God in human form.

There have been those down through history who overemphasized His humanity over deity, and those who did the same with His deity over His humanity – as always, the truth is always found in the middle, not the extremes. Particularly when the facts and evidence of Scripture clearly teach that Christ would be Yahweh in the flesh, and one can only deny this conclusion because of theological bias, not based upon the historical factual grounds.

2.  Jesus directly claims to be Yahweh God in the flesh:

Matthew 26:63-66* But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.Jesus said to him, “What you have asked Me is a fact. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard His blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

..

First of all, we need to look at the title “the Son of God,” because it carried with it in the Jewish mind a meaning that we today are generally ignorant of. The reason why the Jews were repeatedly thrown into a killing frenzy every time Jesus called Himself “the Son of God” is because Jews considered themselves the children of God by right – but Jesus called Himself “THE” Son of God (o UioV tou Qeou), which implies special significance. The claim to be “THE Son of God” directly implies that He was the only son of God, separate from mere human children of God, and a uniqueness and equality with Yahweh God (deity).

After Caiaphas asks Jesus whether or not He is the Messiah, the divine Son of God, Jesus answers with “You have so said,” which Mark records as “I AM.” Luke records it as a Greek idiom for “Yes” (“You say that I am”); and their reply was that He needed to die for blasphemy. Here in Matthew’s account, what Jesus replied with (“You have so said”) is paramount to “What you have asked Me is a fact,” which is why it is thusly translated here. The Sanhedrin called it blasphemy because they understood full well what He was claiming – that He was equal with God, that He Himself was deity.

The Jews instantly recognized what Jesus said and meant; where did this knowledge come from, that the Christ would be the son of man according to the flesh, but would be Yahweh Himself in human form? How did they recognize what Jesus was saying? Because they understood full well the OT Messianic Scriptures that the Messiah would be Yahweh in the flesh.

Unfortunately, they also misinterpreted the Scriptures into thinking that there would be two Messiahs – the meek and mild loving Messiah, and then the conquering King Messiah. They wanted the conquering Messiah, not the loving one, so they had no compunctions at fulfilling the Messianic prophecies telling them that the Messiah would be killed…thus they themselves brought those prophetic utterances to pass.

The main point here is that Scripture demonstrates that they knew full well the Scripture that taught the Messiah would be deity, and that they understood the claims of Jesus to be deity. People today who claim to know what the Jews (according to them) didn’t know, but only acted in self-interest, is not only preposterous to claim, but also foolishness. They understood full well, and we are to take their first-hand knowledge and understanding as fact.

..

John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

..

The Jews understood Jesus’ words to mean nothing short of peculiar personal Sonship with God, and thus equality of nature with God. When we see the designation, “Son of God” in Scripture, the designation means (as the Jews well understood) equality with God as to deity and nature, it has little to do with the fact that He was manifest in the flesh. Again, the reactions of the Jews demonstrate their understanding of Christ’s claim to be Yahweh God in the flesh.

“equal” – isos (isoV) meaning equal, alike (in quantity, quality, dignity, nature, or conditions). Here, John tells us that the Jews believed Jesus was making Himself equal with God in nature, which means that He was claiming to be Yahweh in the flesh, which is why they were going about seeking a way to kill Him for blasphemy. In this verse, isos does not express so much likeness or identity, but rather the equality of dignity, divine will, and divine nature (TDNT:3: pg. 353).

The Holy spirit tells us in Genesis 1:26 that God made man in His image so that he is like God (for a specific purpose), but only as a copy resembles the original form – this copy has no equality of nature, meaning that it is not divine. Christ, however, is not just in the “image” or “likeness” of God as to being a mere copy of the original – His equality speaks of the very nature of God: sharing God’s nature of deity.

This is the meaning of the word rendered as “own” (“His own Father”); idios (idioV) means properly one’s own, private, particular, individual – they understood Jesus’ words to be that He alone was a child of God the Father. They understood the connotation because all Jews called themselves children of God, but Jesus singled Himself out as being a one, special, particular son of God of which class they could never enter into – equality with God.

If the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for Him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what He does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defense of His claim to equality with the Father. The Jews were the best interpreters of their own language, and as Jesus did not deny the correctness of their interpretations, it follows that He meant to be so understood.

Therefore, we have clear cut evidence from Jesus’ own mouth that He not only claimed to be God in the flesh, but that His opponents understood full well that claim. Thus, the claim that Jesus never claimed to be God is demonstrated as a lie.

..

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

..

There are two main lines of argumentation here against the reading that Jesus is here claiming to be the Great “I AM” of Exodus 3:13-15: first, that there is supposed to be a pronoun “he” after “I AM” which is supposedly implied by the text. Second, that Jesus here means that He is the Messiah, not God in the flesh.

1.  The Greek text does NOT have any words in the third person (he, she, it…) at all, not even one. Both ego eimi (I AM) are in the first person, and there is nothing in the text that gives us any indication that “he” is implied by the text…anywhere. Those who claim that the text implies “he” know nothing about Greek or its grammar. Then why, do some ask, do some translations insert “he” in the text? The translation boards’ explanation is that they added it in order to have the sentence make sense to the English reader – which is a very poor explanation and excuse.

2.  In argument against the “I AM” statement of Christ meaning God in Exodus 3, some have put forward the blind beggar’s response in John 9:9 (“I am”), saying that surely this beggar was not claiming to be God in the flesh. Therefore, neither was Jesus in this and other verses, they claim. However, yet once again, Jesus did not make “I AM” a technical term like He did with “eternal life” (when it stands for one having covenant relationship with God); He simply used the same title for Himself that Yahweh did as a way of direct claim to deity.

When those who use this form of argumentation do so, they ignore Biblical principles of interpretation, particularly that of semantics and the context forming the intended meanings of words from the way they are used. It is obvious that the once blind beggar is not claiming to be God in the flesh, just as it is obvious to all who do not hold to biased Unitarianism that here Jesus does claim identity with God in using the “I AM” of Himself (as well as in other texts).

3.  As it comes to the argument that Jesus means that we must believe that He is the Messiah, rather than that He is Yahweh God in the flesh – since other passages demonstrate that the Messiah would indeed be God in the flesh, the meaning that Jesus is God in the flesh is the same. Those who try that bait switch tactic shoot themselves in the foot. Further evidence of this is found in John’s last words (of chapter 20) in his gospel, in which he reiterates what Jesus says in this verse:

..

John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

..

Again, the title “Son of God” is a direct claim to deity and equality with God, which the Jews recognized and was the reason that they fought so hard to put Him to death for what they perceived as blasphemy.

John here says that only by believing that Jesus was “the Son of God” (that is, divine in nature [John 1:1-3] ever much as Yahweh God was divine) can one have eternal life in His name.

..

John 8:58-59 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself from their eyes and went out of the temple.

..

1.  Here Jesus makes a direct claim to being Yahweh God in the flesh, and the Jews understood full well His claim, because they took up stones to stone Him to death for what they perceived as blasphemy (making Himself equal with God).

2.  Antichrists today, such as the unitarian groups, say that Jesus was not claiming to be God, and that He was not claiming to exist before Abraham did – both of which are lies. First, Jesus uses the “I AM” statement, which literally means “I exist.” The contrast here between genesthai (the entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete; the Jews heard Jesus say these words in the context in which He did, and understood perfectly that He was not just saying “I am,” but that He was saying “I have always existed.”

3.  If Jesus had simply been stating “I am” the Messiah, or some other non-divine statement, then the Jews would not have picked up stones to kill Him for blasphemy – yet they did, which is prima facie evidence that they understood Him to say that He was God.

4.  Some claim that Jesus only existed in the plan of God in eternity past, and that His “I AM” statements (along with John 1:1) addresses that existence as only in the mind of God; that nonsense is here dispelled with, in that something does not exist if it is only a figment of one’s imagination. Jesus does not here mean that He existed merely in the mind of God, but that He has existed eternally in eternity past…not just a spec of existence right before God created the creation in God’s mind and plan, but throughout eternity past as a divine personality. In other words, there is no sound logic to the claim made by unitarians that Jesus here says other than what He does say.

Furthermore, such people who make claims like this, fail to take the entirety of the context into consideration (because if they did, then their claims would backfire on them and invalidate their false doctrine). Again, speaking of the Jews’ reaction to what Jesus said, they understood full well what Jesus had just claimed, better than you or I can because they knew their language, rules of grammar, idioms, semantics of their day, etc…far better than those who claim that the Jews apparently misunderstood what Jesus said when He claimed that He was God.

Such people have a very low opinion of the veracity of Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s ability to be infallible in what He moved the writers of Scripture to say.

..

John 10:30-33* “I and the Father are one and the same in essence.” Then the Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works have I done among you from the Father; for which one of them are you going to stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, “We are not going to stone You because of a good work that You have done, but because You, a man, blaspheme in claiming that You are God.”

..

Firstly, “one” (eis) is in the neuter, not the masculine. In the masculine it would mean a cardinal number, but in the neuter it carries the meaning of “one and the same” or, in this case, “one person.” It implies unity of essence, not merely unity in cause, will, or in power. Jesus is not here simply claiming that He and God are one in work or plan, but that He and the Father are one and the same person in essence and nature. He is saying that He is God in Yahweh.

Secondly, the fact that Jesus’ words here (“I and the Father are one”) was a claim of His deity and equality with God in nature and power, and the Jews understood full well that claim as evidenced by their reactions – they picked up stones to kill Him for what they considered blasphemy (which they had done before after other similar instances). When Jesus said that He and the Father were one, the Jews understood Him to be claiming equality with God, and – indeed – to being God in the flesh…they even voice their clear understanding of what He claimed.

Thirdly, when Jesus starts His discourse in answer to what they were about to do, He was not correcting their clear understanding of His claim – He was rebuking them because of their unbelief in His claim because He knew that they were acting out of hatred against Him. They did not simply not believe because they couldn’t – they chose not to believe in Him because they did not want to lose their positions of power.

Fourth, later in His discourse Jesus says, “He whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world,” He was further claiming pre-existence with God, another claim of deity but from another direction or point of view, as it were.

The Jew’s reactions are called upon by Jesus in verse 36, affirming that the statement “I and the Father are one and the same in essence” is a claim to deity, when He says, “because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” Here, Jesus equates (as well they understood) that being one with the Father made Him the one and only unique Son of God, equal with the Father in essence. As we have examined earlier, the title “Son of God” is a direct claim to being equal with God, and hence, Yahweh God in the flesh.

3.  Jesus indirectly claims to be Yahweh God in the flesh:

Matthew 12:6 But I tell you, one who is greater than the temple is here.

..

The temple of God was God’s dwelling place on earth. The ONLY one who could be greater than God’s temple, was Yahweh Himself. The priests in the temple, performing the daily venues of temple worship (worship in the temple, not that they were actually worshipping the temple), shows that the temple was not subservient to the sabbath.

This is an ablative comparison between the greater-ness of God over His temple, another indirect claim that Jesus made regarding Himself as being Yahweh in the flesh – “One who is greater than the temple is here,” speaking of Himself. Speaking of Himself as the God of the temple…which is made more evident in verse 8…

..

Matthew 12:8* “Because the Lord of the Sabbath is the Son of Man.”

..

What does “Lord of the Sabbath” mean? It means that the Lord Christ was over the Sabbath, and as commencing over the Sabbath, He was not amendable to it. Jesus says that the Son of Man is the Lord over the Sabbath, but God is the one who instituted it and handed down to Moses the rule of law regarding the Sabbath. He created the Sabbath, and therefore has the right (the only right) to hand down any rule of law having to do with the Sabbath. Here, again, Jesus demonstrates that He is God in the flesh, because only God is above the Sabbath that He ordained for men.

Yet Jesus also says that He is greater than the temple, because this second temple had not the ark of the covenant whereupon God’s presence rested – yet He Himself was the presence of God in their day but they refused to acknowledge that fact because of their bias and greed for power in their present religious system.

The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath – Notice that the word Lord is the first word in the Greek sentence which gives strong emphasis to His Lordship. Son of Man is clearly a Messianic title. He had used this same Name in Matthew 9 where He had first forgiven the lame man’s sins and then authenticated His authority to forgive sins by healing him declaring “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” (Mt 9:6). In that passage He left no doubt that He was not just claiming to be God, but that He was in fact God, for no mere man could heal a lame man. So the Pharisees were aware of the significance of His use of the term Son of Man in this passage. He was saying in essence “I am God and I am the Lord of the Sabbath!” And because of Who Jesus is He could determine what the rules for Sabbath observance should be! The implication also is that as the One Who instituted the Sabbath, He knows the correct meaning of the Sabbath…

it would have been impossible for the Pharisees to miss Jesus’ clear declaration of divinity and His declaration as the One having authority over the Sabbath! Why is Jesus making this statement which is found in each synoptic account? Remember He is still addressing the accusation of the Pharisees that His disciples broke the Sabbath law. Since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, He alone has the authority to interpret the law. He is saying that He is Sovereign Ruler over the Sabbath day. He is the Master of this day for He as Creator made it. [preceptaustin.org/ matthew-12-commentary]

Jesus repeatedly ignored all of the Pharisees rules concerning the sabbath observance – not the sabbath laws themselves as originally given by God to Moses, but the Pharisaic rules they burdened people with that arose after the destruction of the temple of God. The sect of the Pharisees arose during what is called the Intertestamental Period (between the last OT book of Malachi, and the first NT book of Matthew), where Scripture does not cover.

Although the documents from this period of time are extrabiblical, they give us a great deal of information on how the Judaism of the first century came about – which was not the Judaism that God handed down to Moses for Israel to follow. During this time period, because Judaism was centered around temple worship but the temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians, a more law-enforced obedience doctrine arose surrounding the concept of the Synagogue, which had not been abandoned once the temple had been rebuilt.

Basically, Jesus asserts that He is the master of the sabbath because He was the one in the past who handed down the sabbath laws to Moses at Mt. Sinai…

“In case the Pharisees mistook his lack of reverence to their rules for ignorance he added: ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Matt 12:8). That is, he will decide what is legal and what fulfills God’s will for the Sabbath. But who has the right to declare the one correct interpretation of God’s law? God alone. Therefore, by claiming to provide the correct interpretation of God’s law, Jesus asserts his deity.” [The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels; Daniel Doriani; JETS 37/3 (September 1994) pg. 343] (emphasis mine)

This is the end of part 1…until next time, God Bless!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are the Seven Seals of Revelation 6-8 Judgments of God? NO! They are not!

A meticulously examined and written study by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

6/6/2023

As usual, my articles begin out of frustration, hearing people on the radio say things that are not true according to Scripture, and this article is no different. While driving home today and listening to the radio program “To Every Man an Answer,” on CSN, both the host and the co-host stated that the “judgments of the seals” blah, blah, blah, and so I just turned the radio off.

This is important, because if we fail to study the Word of God according to a complete Biblical hermeneutic, and just take what others tell us and never question it or actually study the subject matter itself for ourselves, then we will forever spin in circles and never come to the truth of Scripture.

When we look at Revelation, particularly chapters 6-8 where the Seals are talked about, there isn’t one instance where the Seals are talked about as judgments or plagues from God. Not once. The seven trumpets are clearly stated to be judgments, as well as the seven bowls…but the Seals are nowhere said to be judgments. So, when Scripture does not call them judgments or plagues from God, why do people keep calling them judgments? Simply because they are either uneducated, unthinking individuals, or they do not know how to study Scripture, or they simply believe what others have told them without actually studying the topic for themselves.

In order for the Seals to be judgments of God, they would have to be opened after the Tribulation period begins…during the Tribulation period; but the Seals are NOT. Seals 1 through 6 are opened prior to the Tribulation beginning with at least a few years in between each one, with the 6th Seal ending with verses 16-17…

..

Revelation 6:16-17 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

..

The “day of…wrath” is the OT way of saying the Tribulation period, they are one and the same event. However, we have to be careful here in the timing of things, as well as pay close attention to the details outlined in these chapters. For example, the 5th Seal heralds dead Christians who were killed BEFORE the Rapture, therefore the Rapture has not yet taken place because if it had, then these folks would not be there for John to see and record, saying, “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of God and for the witness they had given” (vs 9).

The Tribulation saints who will be murdered as these folks will be, do not appear until the next chapter (verses 9-17). Therefore, again, the first five Seals are NOT part of the Tribulation because it has not started yet, not until the “prep time” of the 6th Seal. When we fully and carefully examine the first five Seals, they take place through human hands that start with a catalyst, the first Seal. As a direct result of the first Seal, the others follow…and if you go back and study history, each of the seals from 2 through 4 have a historical pattern that is followed a number of times since the inception of Marxism – the only difference here, is that it falls in a global state.

Seal 2 takes civil peace from the earth, which tells me that after the catalyst of the first Seal, the one world government – commonly called today the “New World Order” – which will be a global Marxist regime, is either addressed by the second Seal or the second Seal speaks of this wicked governmental system right after it begins to take power.

Seal 3 speaks of global inflation to the point that a single loaf of bread that costs you on average today about $3, will then cost you about $80. We observe that in countries where communism begins to take root, because of their policies and utter contempt for the common person, the exact same thing takes place.

Then Seal 4 is opened and a fourth of mankind either dies from starvation (famine) and disease (which follow one another closely), or by people killing one another presumably over food and other basic life necessities, and even by wild animals. When you cannot get food in the supermarket, some people will go out and try to hunt animals for food…but when you have thousands of people out trying to find food in the country side and forests, you will find that animals will also be hunting you.

The first seal is an act of God, and the catalyst that brings a world-wide uproar that finalizes the second through fourth seals, but none of them are “judgments” or “plagues” from God – they are what mankind does to one another in the name of power-hungry greed. The coming New World Order by the UN and its wicked accessories, causes what is revealed by the opening of the second through fourth seals; they are not induced by God. They are not plagues or judgments of God.

Again, at the opening of the 6th Seal the people run and hide trying to get away from God, and they say very prophetically that “the day of…wrath has come,” but the wrath of God that He pours out does not begin until a half-hour after the 7th and final Seal is opened – the 30 minutes of silence in heaven…the deep breath before the awesome exhale blast of God’s coming wrath in the form of plagues.

However, we know that part of the Tribulation has already begun, but the Tribulation and the outpouring of God’s wrath are two entirely different things, and many people fail to make that clear distinction. The Tribulation period begins after the Rapture takes place, sometime after the 5th Seal is opened, between the 5th Seal and verse 9 of the next chapter where the Tribulation martyrs are revealed. What that means, is that the antichrist has come into power, when he is given all of the power of the Marxist rulers of the New World Order, just as Revelation 17:12-13, 17…

..

Revelation 17:12-13, 17 12 And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they hand over their power and authority to the beast…17 for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

..

The UN’s “New World Order” is the precursor to the global one world government that will be given to the antichrist when he comes upon the scene, but it has to be up and running already before he makes his appearance. True to communism’s trait, the whole world will be in turmoil just as countries have been in the same turmoil through communism and communist policies – the UN will have its time and will fail. Then, amidst all of the death, destruction, and chaos, this man will step into the limelight with all of the answers. He will “save the day” and so the ten world leaders who make up the Marxist CEO’s of the New World Order, will hand over all of their power and authority to the man who will be (or who already is at that time) the antichrist.

Contrary to popular uneducated belief, the Tribulation period does NOT begin with the plagues and judgments of God, it begins with the coming to power of the UN and its one world Marxist government. God allows men to do what they will and things will get so bad that millions of people will die before the actual Tribulation period even begins – all at the hands of this coming Marxist global government that Klaus Schwab calls “the Great Reset.”

Remember that in between the seals there is no sense of time. Some people believe the seals are opened one right after the other, but that does not follow logic when we see what is described as each seal is opened. There must be a good stretch of time…years perhaps…between each seal as it is opened in order for the things described in Scripture to take place; this is also the same between the 6th and 7th seals, but we are not given any sense of how long in between each one.

What is abundantly clear when we actually pay attention to what we are reading, is that none of the seals are outlined in Scripture as being plagues or judgments from God, particularly when all of the details are tallied.

So, no…the Seals are not plagues or judgments of God. They are not part of the Tribulation period, and the first Seal does not release satan upon the scene…in case you have not noticed, he is already loosed upon the scene. Neither is the first rider Christ, which is ridiculous to even think. No, the first rider is a man, God’s catalyst that brings things that the UN has been working behind the scenes for the past 40 years to the fore-view, and begins the rush towards the New World Order. That man, the catalyst, is a unique person among the global few with the monetary power to be a mover and a shaker, and when God set him upon his mission (without him even knowing that it was God), he flew to it to save the United States from the Marxist-globalists dead set upon ruling the world.

From that point forward, it is all written in history in the prophetic pages of the book of Revelation.

Posted in Bible Teaching | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Do You Receive the Baptism in the Spirit when You First get Saved?

Researched, examined, and written by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

5/19/2023

As usual, this article was spurred into being because I was listening to the radio a few days ago and heard false teaching coming over the air waves, from none other than a Calvary Chapel pastor. He claimed that when a person comes to Christ and gets saved, that person receives the baptism in the Spirit, like its one of the automatic things that take place when a person comes to Jesus for salvation.

This false teaching originates from the false doctrine that Calvinists turn to because they want to claim that they all have the baptism in the Spirit, which emanates from the failure to differentiate between the indwelling Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit – the two are not the same thing. Having said that, it has been known to happen that when a person receives water baptism into Christ and gets saved, that sometimes that person will receive the baptism also, but this does not take place every time a person gets saved.

Scripture tells us that when a person gets saved, he receives the indwelling Holy Spirit…every person receives the indwelling Spirit, that is what makes a person a “new creation” in Christ. The new creation part is a new being that both human and Holy Spirit dwelling together in one person, and the indwelling Holy Spirit is essential for the purposes of God. The indwelling Holy Spirit is also that which marks the saved person out from the rest of humanity as God’s child, the presence of the Spirit in a person’s life marks him out as belonging to God.

However, there are no “signs” of a person receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit, it is a signless event – but receiving the baptism in the Spirit is different, there is a sign that demonstrates that a person has indeed been baptized by the Spirit…

..

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 8:14-18 14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,

Acts 10:44-46 44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,

Acts 19:5-6 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

..

These passages demonstrate a number of things: first, that baptism in the Spirit (which Luke records with the phraseology of being “filled” with the Spirit) does not normally take place upon a salvation event; second, that one normally receives the baptism in the Spirit through someone who already has the baptism of the Spirit when they lay hands upon the unbaptized person. Third, baptism in the Spirit is Scripturally always accompanied by speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. And fourth, that sometimes people will – along with speaking in tongues – prophesy as the Spirit speaks through them.

None of these signs or events take place upon the initial entering of the indwelling Spirit into a person at conversion, they only take place when a person receives the baptism of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit is, as the words directly imply, have to do with the inside of the believer, while the baptism of the Spirit (also as the wording directly implies) has to do with the outside of the believer. Recall Jesus’ words regarding the baptism of the Spirit…

..

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

..

Contrary to the word “filled” used by Luke, Jesus says the baptism of the Spirit is when the Holy Spirit comes “upon you,” not inside you. The saved believer already has the indwelling Spirit, but he does not have the Spirit resting upon him until after he has been baptized by the Spirit, which has to do with the flesh (as well as other things), giving us power to be Christ’s witnesses. Anyone can witness about Christ if they are saved, but only those who have been empowered by the baptism of the Spirit can witness effectively – that is, so as to effectively move a person to receive Christ for salvation.

This nonsense that every believer has been baptized in the Spirit when they were saved is just that, pure nonsense that Scripture does not support. The reason this idea even came up was because Calvin had never received the baptism in the Spirit, and being as high-minded about himself as he was (thinking that he was God’s right-hand man), he reasoned that it was an insult to think that God had not baptized him in the Holy Spirit, so then he must have received the baptism when he considered himself to had become a Christian (which according to Scripture, and Calvin’s own writings about himself, we have no evidence that he ever received salvation in Christ; he only converted from Catholicism, but “conversion” is NOT the same thing as salvation). Therefore, he began teaching that the believer received the baptism in the Holy Spirit the moment he received salvation – and again, this is not taught in Scripture, anywhere.

There is a clear difference between the indwelling Spirit, and the baptism in the Spirit – first of which, is that not every believer receives the baptism in the Spirit according to what Scripture teaches as the evidence of such. In these last days, people have begun teaching that the initial evidence of speaking in tongues is not “the initial evidence,” in other words, you don’t have to speak in tongues when you receive the baptism in the Spirit…and they teach this for the very same reason that Calvin did, because they have never spoken in tongues once in their lives. However, we must remember that Scripture trumps what man teaches – if what a man teaches is not in accordance with what the Scriptures teach on that subject, then it is not truth but a man’s own warped interpretation.

The NT Scriptures teach that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence that a person has received the baptism in the Spirit, therefore Scripture trumps what these pretenders and false teachers say. Until next time…

Blessings!

Posted in Bible Teaching, False Teachings | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will a person go to heaven after getting saved if he does not walk in obedience to God?

Researched, compiled, and written by Dr. Dave A. Schoch, Th.D., NT Theology

5/13/2023

While this question does not come up very often, it is (nevertheless) in many a person’s mind in many circles, but to ask it seems to make people think that one doubts what Scripture teaches; but remember, the only stupid question is the one that no one asks out of fear.

I heard someone ask their pastor once, in a men’s Bible study group; “Pastor, do you think someone can go to heaven without walking in obedience to God?” and the pastor answered, “Yes, I think so.” One thing that I cannot stand, is someone (especially someone in a spiritual leadership position) who has never studied the major doctrines of the Faith in order to know exactly what Scripture does teach on that subject – whatever the subject matter is. I mean…if you do not know the answer, then do not guess because you can steer people wrong and they might end up in eternal fire because you were too lazy to do your job.

So, first of all, the idea in this question that gives way to false doctrine, is that “salvation” means you are on your way to heaven just because you got saved – but most people today do not even know what the term “salvation” pertains to. Scripture tells us exactly what salvation is, and we are not to add to that definition our own nonsense…

..

Matthew 1:21* She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.

2 Peter 1:9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

..

Salvation in the NT is the direct result of the application of the atonement in Christ’s blood to a person’s life, and it follows the same purpose and function of the atonement that God gave to Moses…

..

Leviticus 4:26 And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.

Leviticus 14:31 one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, along with a grain offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for him who is being cleansed.

Leviticus 16:30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.

..

And what was this forgiveness and cleansing of sin for? So that a person could remain abiding in relationship with God, and so that he could enter into God’s presence. It is the same here today under the New Covenant and the atonement in Christ…

..

John 17:3* And this is the purpose for eternal life: so that they can come to know You personally, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

..

When a person gets saved, they are born again – a technical term meaning that the Holy Spirit comes into that person and takes up residence within that person so that he can have an intimate relationship with God. Once a person is born again, as long as they walk in obedience to God, they have eternal life – another technical term used to say that a person is in covenant relationship with God. Notice that Jesus does not say that because they have eternal life, they automatically know God – the Greek here is emphatic; it literally means that because one has eternal life, he can now engage God in personal relationship and come to know Him personally. This is what the atonement is for; this is the purpose of atonement.

If a person gets saved and never engages God in personal relationship, then even though that person got saved, he got saved for nothing…he will still end up in hell:

..

Matthew 7:23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Luke 13:25* After the Master of the house rises up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside, knocking at the door saying, “Lord, open up to us!” He will answer and say to you I do not know you, where have you been?”

Luke 13:27* But He will say, “I tell you, I do not know you, where have you been?” Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity!”

..

The two passages in Luke have been horribly mistranslated in most of our English translations because the translators either did not know enough about Greek grammar to even be translating, or they did it purposely because of their biases in one area of doctrine or another. In any event, I have translated them according to how the grammar affects the meaning of the words. The question Jesus says that He will ask such people, “where have you been?” directly implies that they were not spending quality time with Him in prayer and worship.

How do you come to know a person? You must spend time with them! Anyone with working brain cells knows this…if you do not spend time with a person then you will only know them superficially as a mere acquaintance. Acquaintance with Jesus will not get you into heaven, you must know Him personally…that is, if you want to go to heaven and not the other place. This is what salvation from sin is all about, it is only the first step in being ‘heaven-ready.’ Contrary to much false teaching in this country today, just getting saved does NOT mean that you are on your way to heaven, it only means that you have been given what you need (you have been qualified) in order to enter into God’s presence so that you can engage Him in personal relationship.

Salvation from sin does not take a person to heaven; it is a personal relationship with God that takes a man to heaven. Nothing else.

Now that we have the Biblical definitions of salvation from sin and eternal life, as well as what their functions and purposes are, we can move forward. What does obedience have to do with salvation, eternal life, or personal relationship with God? Everything!!! Because Yahweh is God, and you are not a god, you do NOT have parity with God – you are still one of His created beings, and as such your first priority in life is walking in obedience to Him. This is why the apostles open many of their epistles with the phrase, “a bond-slave of Jesus Christ…”

A bond-slave is different from being in slavery of men against your will; if you are a bond-slave of someone, that means you have voluntarily made yourself a slave of that person whom you serve – in this case, God and Jesus. The word “slave” means that you are bound to a person for obedience, it means that you have to do whatever your master tells you to do, otherwise you will suffer the repercussions for your rebellion against him. As God’s creation, by the very nature of the God-creation relationship, you are bound to walk in obedience to Him; and that obedience (or failure to obey) is what this whole thing is all about…

..

Malachi 3:18 Then once more you shall see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him.

..

Saved or not, God’s definition of a righteous and wicked person stands. You could have been saved 10 years ago, but if you are not walking in obedience to God, then you got saved for nothing because according to God, you are still a wicked person. The wicked person is the one who does not serve God – the one who does not walk in obedience to Him as their Creator and Master. But does Scripture support this? Yes, it does…

..

John 3:36* Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not obey the Son will never know life, because the wrath of God remains abiding upon him.

..

What does John say here? He says that even if you believe and have eternal life, if you do not walk in obedience to Christ then the wrath of God still remains abiding upon you…and this answers the question. The answer is no, a person who has been saved in the past will not go to heaven if he does not walk in obedience to God. Scripture trumps what men say and teach, and if a person believes that he will go to heaven without walking in obedience to God just because he got saved in the past, then that man believes in false doctrine. False means that it is not true, it is a lie.

“Sure, but that is only one passage,” someone will say. No, there are more; this passage just brings the fact out loud and clear. There is further support…

..

John 5:24* Truly, truly, I say to you; he that continually listens to My word and obeys it, and continuously believes in Him that sent Me, has eternal life, and will not come into judgment but has passed from death into life.

John 8:51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Hebrews 5:9* And being made perfect, Jesus became the source of eternal life for all who walk in obedience to Him,

..

There are many more, but these should suffice. Scripture is clear, walking in obedience to God is one of the most foundational aspects to having a relationship with God – if one is not walking in obedience to God, then one does not have a relationship with God outside of the Creator-creation relationship (and that relationship does not save anyone). This is not only taught repeatedly within the Scriptures, it is also one of the principles of operation of ancient near eastern covenants; one only remains abiding in the covenant as long as he continues to walk in obedience to his agreed upon obligations – and in the New Covenant, obedience to God in the form of the Law of Christ is your obligation.

In failing to walk in obedience to your covenant obligation of obedience, you cut yourself off from covenant relationship with God – and everything that He has made available to you from Him in that covenant. What does God make available to us in the New Covenant in Christ? Nothing much…just everything! Salvation from sin, eternal life, the indwelling Holy Spirit, the imputed righteousness and holiness of Christ, redemption, justification, reconciliation to God, the gifts of the Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit, power and authority in Christ’s name, the kingdom of God, heaven, etc…

To cease walking in obedience to God is to sign your own spiritual death certificate; and no person who is spiritually dead will walk the streets of heaven.

Blessings!

Posted in Bible Teaching, False Teachings | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment