- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
External evidence of the Late Date of Writing in AD 97.
Historically, until the 7th century, the Church uniformly believed that the book of Revelation was written after the end of Domitian’s reign between AD 95 and AD 96. For the Futurist, the date in which the book of Revelation was written is of little consequence, since the prophecies are understood to be as yet unfulfilled. However, for the Preterist, it is absolutely essential to establish a pre-AD 66 date of writing, since they must argue that the prophecies described therein were, for the most part, fulfilled between AD 66 and AD 70.
Preterism stands or falls upon this early date for John’s revelation. Preterist author, Jonathan Welton, while at the same time strangely implying that the early dating of Revelation has been the historic position, concedes, saying: “If the book was written in AD 96, as many modern teachers claim, then my point of view cannot be valid.” [1]
However, there is no indication that the early Church questioned that the book of Revelation was written at the close of Domitian’s reign in AD 95 – AD 96. This in itself is perhaps one of the greatest arguments against the Preterist case for an early authorship of Revelation. Those closest in time to John and the writing of Revelation, uniformly understood that John wrote the book of Revelation while exiled on the island of Patmos during the time that Domitian was the Emperor of Rome. Below is a time chart demonstrating that the later date, at the close of Domitian’s reign, was universally accepted until well into the Dark Ages.
--
External evidence of the Late Date of Writing in AD 97.
Historically, until the 7th century, the Church uniformly believed that the book of Revelation was written after the end of Domitian’s reign between AD 95 and AD 96. For the Futurist, the date in which the book of Revelation was written is of little consequence, since the prophecies are understood to be as yet unfulfilled. However, for the Preterist, it is absolutely essential to establish a pre-AD 66 date of writing, since they must argue that the prophecies described therein were, for the most part, fulfilled between AD 66 and AD 70.
Preterism stands or falls upon this early date for John’s revelation. Preterist author, Jonathan Welton, while at the same time strangely implying that the early dating of Revelation has been the historic position, concedes, saying: “If the book was written in AD 96, as many modern teachers claim, then my point of view cannot be valid.” [1]
However, there is no indication that the early Church questioned that the book of Revelation was written at the close of Domitian’s reign in AD 95 – AD 96. This in itself is perhaps one of the greatest arguments against the Preterist case for an early authorship of Revelation. Those closest in time to John and the writing of Revelation, uniformly understood that John wrote the book of Revelation while exiled on the island of Patmos during the time that Domitian was the Emperor of Rome. Below is a time chart demonstrating that the later date, at the close of Domitian’s reign, was universally accepted until well into the Dark Ages.
One of the first and most notable Early Church Fathers who mentions the timing of John’s Revelation is Irenaeus (AD 120 – AD 202), who lived in Smyrna, one of the seven churches specifically addressed in the book of Revelation. He was a disciple of Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna), who in turn, was a disciple of John. Irenaeus, in his fifth book “Against Heresies,” speaks against speculations concerning the name of the future Antichrist:
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” [1]
In this statement Irenaeus, speaking against premature speculations as to the identity of the Antichrist, appeals to the lack of any mention of the Antichrist’s name in the book of Revelation. In doing so, he mentions something that seems to have been common knowledge at the time. He said that John had received the apocalyptic vision recently: more specifically, towards the end of Domitian’s reign (AD 81 – AD 96). [2]
Years later in A D 325, Eusebius, the Church historian, confirmed the credibility of Irenaeus’ testimony. Speaking of the persecution under Domitian, he quotes Irenaeus’ words to confirm the timing of John’s exile on Patmos:
“It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” [3]
Eusebius, as a historian, relied heavily upon the testimony of Irenaeus in establishing historical fact, quoting him very frequently. Eusebius is revered as a great Church historian, giving an accurate account of the first centuries of the Church. He faithfully presents the Early Church Fathers’ belief in a future fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies. Preterism was unknown at that time and therefore there was no need to establish an early date for Revelation, or to argue that Nero was the Beast, or deny that the Beast of Revelation is referring to the future Antichrist.
Not surprisingly, the first person on record to have called into question the reliability of Irenaeus’ testimony was Jakob Wettstein in 1752, who was himself a Preterist. [4]
There is another very early Church Father, Hegesippus (AD 110 - AD 190), whom Eusebius also quotes, confirming the AD 96 date for Revelation. Hegesippus even predates Irenaeus by some 30 years. Eusebius constantly made reference to the Memoirs of Hegesippus. At one point he says: “Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views.” [5] Although only a few fragments of his Memoirs remain to this day, Eusebius apparently draws from his Memoirs when he says:
“But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.” [6]
The immediate context of this statement indicates that Hegesippus was at least included in those whom Eusebius referred to when he says: “according to an ancient Christian tradition.” In the immediate context we can see that Eusebius apparently had before him the Memoirs of Hegesippus as he wrote concerning John’s release after Domitian’s reign. Just eight verses earlier, Eusebius indicates that he is drawing upon his Memoirs: “These things are related by Hegesippus.” [7] Then again just two verses before the above quote he says: “These things are related by Hegesippus.” [8] Therefore, it is more than likely that Eusebius was referring to the Memoirs of Hegesippus in the above quote. In any case, Eusebius makes it clear that in his day it was “ancient Christian tradition” that the time of John’s exile was during Domitian’s reign in the AD 90s. Nowhere in any early writings that record the history of those days, is there any indication that John was exiled by Nero in the AD 60s.
In addition to the testimony of Irenaeus and Hegesippus, which are also corroborated by Eusebius, there were other early writings confirming the AD 96 date, as can be seen on the chart above. One other source worthy of note is Victorinius, who wrote the oldest commentary on Revelation in existence, written in AD 258. Commenting on chapter 10 of Revelation, he says the following concerning John’s exile:
“He says, ‘It is necessary to preach again,’ that is, to prophesy, ‘among peoples, tongues, and nations:’ this is because, when John saw this, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to a mine by Caesar Domitian. Therefore, John is seen to have written the Apocalypse there. And when now old, he thought it possible to return after the suffering. Domitian having been killed, all his judgments were undone and John was released from the mine, and thus afterward he handed over this same Apocalypse which he received from the Lord. This is: ‘It is necessary to preach again’.” [9]
Jerome (AD 347 – AD 420) also, in two separate volumes, places the context of John’s visions as having been received during the time of Domitian’s rule:
“For he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future.” [10]
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised a second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.” [11]
Another early Church historian, Sulpitius Severus, a contemporary of Jerome, (AD 360 – AD 420) also bears witness that, in their time, the Domitian date of the book of Revelation was still unquestioned:
“Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.” [12]
Welton sweeps aside all the testimonies presented above indicating the AD 96 date for the writing of the book of Revelation in favor of one solitary statement, written in the introductory page to the book of Revelation in the Syriac Peshitta Version of the Bible, which claims that Nero was the emperor that exiled John to Patmos. Based solely upon this single source as external evidence, he concludes the following:
“Nero Caesar ruled over the Roman Empire from AD 54 to AD 68. Therefore, John had to have been on the island of Patmos during this earlier period. One of the oldest versions of the Bible tells us when Revelation was written! That alone is a very compelling argument.” [13]
Welton gives greater weight to this introductory note in the Syriac version than to all of the early testimonies supporting a later AD 96 date, saying that the Peshitta dates back to the second century. What he fails to see, or chooses not to point out, is that the second century version excluded certain books of the New Testament, including the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation wasn’t included in the Peshitta Version until AD 616. [14] The earliest Aramaic manuscript in existence that contains the book of Revelation is known as the Crawford Aramaic New Testament manuscript, dating back to the twelfth century. [15] Today, we have no way of knowing when the introductory note was added to the Aramaic text of Revelation for the first time. The earliest would be in AD 616 and it could well have been added much later. This late addition to the Peshitta can hardly be said to be a very compelling argument for the early date of writing of the book of Revelation.
Although Welton says that there are other historical documents which tell us that John was exiled during Nero’s reign, he only cites this one solitary example. The fact is that there are no early documents supporting the early date for Revelation. All arguments drawn for support from other sources are dubious at best, and a mere grabbing for straws.
The only period in the history of the Church in which the early date became prominent was from 1850 to 1900. Preterists often cite preachers from that period in support of the Preterist interpretation. However, most scholars at that time were not Preterists and dated the writing of Revelation after the death of Nero on June 9, AD 68, which would not fit the preterist model, since Nero, who committed suicide in AD 68, is understood by them to be the Beast described in Revelation and also it would put the writing of Revelation in the middle of their three and a half year period of Jerusalem’s destruction.
Another external indication that favors the later AD 96 date for the book of Revelation is that Domitian was known to exile Christians, as opposed to executing them, as was the case with Nero. Peter and Paul were executed by Nero, whereas Christians under the reign of Domitian were commonly exiled. Eusebius speaks of Domitian’s practice of banishing Christians:
“And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.” [16]
Domitian’s practice of banishment is also corroborated by a reliable secular historian, although John is not mentioned by name. Dio Cassius (AD 155 – AD 235), a Roman historian who was also admitted to the Roman senate in AD 180 and was placed over Pergamum and Smyrna, wrote an eighty volume Roman History. Three times in his work he makes reference to Domitian’s practice of exiling prisoners. He also mentions the release of exiles immediately after his death. [17] So, even secular history of that day corroborates the early Church’s account, placing the time of John’s exile to the island of Patmos under Domitian’s rule.
Therefore, we can clearly see that all external evidence uniformly supports the later date of AD 96 for the writing of the book of Revelation. Indeed, there is nothing even worthy of consideration that can be presented in favor of an early, AD 66 date. An annotation in the introduction to a late Syrian translation of the book of Revelation, which is a twelfth century manuscript copy, can hardly be considered to be of any value for determining the date in which Revelation was written. Most scholars would agree that there is no evidence for the early date of writing even worthy of consideration in all of Church history. For brevity I will only cite B.W. Johnson’s conclusion: “It is thus seen that the array of testimony to the date of Domitian’s reign is so strong as to leave no doubt, except where persons are compelled by their theories of interpretation to assume that John wrote in the reign of Nero.” [18]
We can now turn our attention to the internal evidences within the contents of the book of Revelation itself which argue for a later date of writing.
Internal Evidence that Revelation was written in AD 96.
The internal interpretive evidence in support for the post-AD 70 futuristic fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation will be demonstrated in the next article. Here we will be considering the circumstantial evidence for the late AD 96 date of writing.
The church of Smyrna didn’t exist in AD 70.
One of the seven churches Jesus addressed in the first three chapters of Revelation was the church of Smyrna (Rev 2:8-11). Polycarp, writing to the Philippians in AD 110, states that those living in Smyrna during the ministry of Paul had not yet heard the gospel:
“For he (Paul) boasts of you (Philippians) in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we, of Smyrna, had not yet known Him.” [19]
This statement made by Polycarp in AD 110 is corroborated in the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul since Smyrna is mentioned neither in Acts nor in the epistles. After Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, he was released and continued his missionary journeys for a few months until the following year when Rome was burned in AD 64. During his time of freedom, he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus. He was imprisoned a second time in Rome and finally beheaded in AD 66. During his final imprisonment he wrote 2 Timothy. However, in none of his epistles does he make mention of Smyrna. The lack of any mention of Smyrna confirms what Polycarp said. Therefore, the church of Smyrna to whom Jesus spoke in Revelation didn’t even exist in AD 70, and therefore the book of Revelation is not applicable to the time between AD 66 and AD 70.
The Church of Laodicea was flourishing in the AD 60s, but Spiritually Impoverished in Revelation 3.
Paul mentions the church of Laodicea in the epistle of Colossians which was written around AD 62 (Col. 2:1-2; 4:13,16). At that time, it appears to have been a healthy, thriving church. However, when Jesus addresses the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:14-22, He rebukes them for their apathy. He gives them the most lengthy and severe rebuke of all the seven churches. Apart from reaffirming His love and faithfulness towards them, He doesn’t have anything positive to say to them. It is unlikely that the church in Laodicea would have undergone such a drastic spiritual decline in just a couple of years.
Also, Jesus speaks of them as being rich and prosperous and in need of nothing. Laodicea was devastated by an earthquake in AD 60, which left them impoverished and in ruins. [20] The devastation was so great that it took them 30 years to rebuild. [21] It is highly unlikely that the church in Laodicea was experiencing great wealth and prosperity in the AD 60s while their city was still in ruins.
Therefore, we have seen that the early date of writing of the book of Revelation not only lacks any significant external evidence, but also we can see from the internal circumstantial evidence that the Letters to the seven churches had to have been written later than the AD 60s, since the church of Smyrna didn’t yet exist and the church of Laodicea was still a spiritually thriving church in the AD 60s.
There is no concrete objective evidence whatsoever which the Preterists can reasonably present in support of the early date of writing - either internally or externally. For a more in-depth presentation of the arguments for a late AD 95 – AD 96 date for the writing of Revelation, I highly recommend Mark Hitchcock’s dissertation: “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation. [22]
In the following article we will consider what Preterists present as interpretive evidences within the book of Revelation itself. Obviously, interpretive evidence is by its very nature subjective and depends upon the perspective of the interpreter. From the very outset it should be kept in mind that their interpretations have no credence whatsoever, since their subjective interpretations fly in the face of all objective internal and external evidence indicating a late date of writing twenty-five years after their AD 66 – AD 70 timeframe for the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation.
This blog is an excerpt from my book: “Last Days – Past or Present?”
[1] Welton, Jonathan (2013-11-01). Raptureless: An Optimistic Guide to the End of the World - Revised Edition Including The Art of Revelation (Kindle Location 4446). BookBaby. Kindle Edition.
[2] Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, section 3.
[3] Irenaeus not only pinpoints the timing of John’s visions on Patmos to AD 95 - 96. He also makes it clear that the Beast of Revelation was understood to be the Antichrist and that, he was yet to come and his identity was yet unknown to the Church in his time.
[4] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 1, section 5.
[5] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 28. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
[6] Eusebius, Book 4, Chapter 22, section 1.
[7] Eusebius, Book 3 Chapter 20. section 10.
[8] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 19.
[9] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 20, section 8.
[10] St. Victorinus, Commentary on Revelation, Chapter 10.
[11] Jerome, Against Jovinianus, book one, §26.
[12] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 9, section 6,7.
[13] Sulpitius Severus, The Sacred History, Book 2, Chapter 31.
[14] Welton, Jonathan (2013-11-01). Raptureless: An Optimistic Guide to the End of the World - Revised Edition Including The Art of Revelation (Kindle Locations 4458-4459). BookBaby. Kindle Edition.
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta.
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Aramaic_New_Testament_manuscript.
[17] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 18, section 5.
[18] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 54. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
[19] Johnson, B.W. A Vision of the Ages, p. 19.
[20] Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 11.
[21] Tacitus Annals 14:27:1.
[22] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 187. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
[23] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” [1]
In this statement Irenaeus, speaking against premature speculations as to the identity of the Antichrist, appeals to the lack of any mention of the Antichrist’s name in the book of Revelation. In doing so, he mentions something that seems to have been common knowledge at the time. He said that John had received the apocalyptic vision recently: more specifically, towards the end of Domitian’s reign (AD 81 – AD 96). [2]
Years later in A D 325, Eusebius, the Church historian, confirmed the credibility of Irenaeus’ testimony. Speaking of the persecution under Domitian, he quotes Irenaeus’ words to confirm the timing of John’s exile on Patmos:
“It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” [3]
Eusebius, as a historian, relied heavily upon the testimony of Irenaeus in establishing historical fact, quoting him very frequently. Eusebius is revered as a great Church historian, giving an accurate account of the first centuries of the Church. He faithfully presents the Early Church Fathers’ belief in a future fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies. Preterism was unknown at that time and therefore there was no need to establish an early date for Revelation, or to argue that Nero was the Beast, or deny that the Beast of Revelation is referring to the future Antichrist.
Not surprisingly, the first person on record to have called into question the reliability of Irenaeus’ testimony was Jakob Wettstein in 1752, who was himself a Preterist. [4]
There is another very early Church Father, Hegesippus (AD 110 - AD 190), whom Eusebius also quotes, confirming the AD 96 date for Revelation. Hegesippus even predates Irenaeus by some 30 years. Eusebius constantly made reference to the Memoirs of Hegesippus. At one point he says: “Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views.” [5] Although only a few fragments of his Memoirs remain to this day, Eusebius apparently draws from his Memoirs when he says:
“But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.” [6]
The immediate context of this statement indicates that Hegesippus was at least included in those whom Eusebius referred to when he says: “according to an ancient Christian tradition.” In the immediate context we can see that Eusebius apparently had before him the Memoirs of Hegesippus as he wrote concerning John’s release after Domitian’s reign. Just eight verses earlier, Eusebius indicates that he is drawing upon his Memoirs: “These things are related by Hegesippus.” [7] Then again just two verses before the above quote he says: “These things are related by Hegesippus.” [8] Therefore, it is more than likely that Eusebius was referring to the Memoirs of Hegesippus in the above quote. In any case, Eusebius makes it clear that in his day it was “ancient Christian tradition” that the time of John’s exile was during Domitian’s reign in the AD 90s. Nowhere in any early writings that record the history of those days, is there any indication that John was exiled by Nero in the AD 60s.
In addition to the testimony of Irenaeus and Hegesippus, which are also corroborated by Eusebius, there were other early writings confirming the AD 96 date, as can be seen on the chart above. One other source worthy of note is Victorinius, who wrote the oldest commentary on Revelation in existence, written in AD 258. Commenting on chapter 10 of Revelation, he says the following concerning John’s exile:
“He says, ‘It is necessary to preach again,’ that is, to prophesy, ‘among peoples, tongues, and nations:’ this is because, when John saw this, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to a mine by Caesar Domitian. Therefore, John is seen to have written the Apocalypse there. And when now old, he thought it possible to return after the suffering. Domitian having been killed, all his judgments were undone and John was released from the mine, and thus afterward he handed over this same Apocalypse which he received from the Lord. This is: ‘It is necessary to preach again’.” [9]
Jerome (AD 347 – AD 420) also, in two separate volumes, places the context of John’s visions as having been received during the time of Domitian’s rule:
“For he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future.” [10]
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised a second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.” [11]
Another early Church historian, Sulpitius Severus, a contemporary of Jerome, (AD 360 – AD 420) also bears witness that, in their time, the Domitian date of the book of Revelation was still unquestioned:
“Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.” [12]
Welton sweeps aside all the testimonies presented above indicating the AD 96 date for the writing of the book of Revelation in favor of one solitary statement, written in the introductory page to the book of Revelation in the Syriac Peshitta Version of the Bible, which claims that Nero was the emperor that exiled John to Patmos. Based solely upon this single source as external evidence, he concludes the following:
“Nero Caesar ruled over the Roman Empire from AD 54 to AD 68. Therefore, John had to have been on the island of Patmos during this earlier period. One of the oldest versions of the Bible tells us when Revelation was written! That alone is a very compelling argument.” [13]
Welton gives greater weight to this introductory note in the Syriac version than to all of the early testimonies supporting a later AD 96 date, saying that the Peshitta dates back to the second century. What he fails to see, or chooses not to point out, is that the second century version excluded certain books of the New Testament, including the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation wasn’t included in the Peshitta Version until AD 616. [14] The earliest Aramaic manuscript in existence that contains the book of Revelation is known as the Crawford Aramaic New Testament manuscript, dating back to the twelfth century. [15] Today, we have no way of knowing when the introductory note was added to the Aramaic text of Revelation for the first time. The earliest would be in AD 616 and it could well have been added much later. This late addition to the Peshitta can hardly be said to be a very compelling argument for the early date of writing of the book of Revelation.
Although Welton says that there are other historical documents which tell us that John was exiled during Nero’s reign, he only cites this one solitary example. The fact is that there are no early documents supporting the early date for Revelation. All arguments drawn for support from other sources are dubious at best, and a mere grabbing for straws.
The only period in the history of the Church in which the early date became prominent was from 1850 to 1900. Preterists often cite preachers from that period in support of the Preterist interpretation. However, most scholars at that time were not Preterists and dated the writing of Revelation after the death of Nero on June 9, AD 68, which would not fit the preterist model, since Nero, who committed suicide in AD 68, is understood by them to be the Beast described in Revelation and also it would put the writing of Revelation in the middle of their three and a half year period of Jerusalem’s destruction.
Another external indication that favors the later AD 96 date for the book of Revelation is that Domitian was known to exile Christians, as opposed to executing them, as was the case with Nero. Peter and Paul were executed by Nero, whereas Christians under the reign of Domitian were commonly exiled. Eusebius speaks of Domitian’s practice of banishing Christians:
“And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.” [16]
Domitian’s practice of banishment is also corroborated by a reliable secular historian, although John is not mentioned by name. Dio Cassius (AD 155 – AD 235), a Roman historian who was also admitted to the Roman senate in AD 180 and was placed over Pergamum and Smyrna, wrote an eighty volume Roman History. Three times in his work he makes reference to Domitian’s practice of exiling prisoners. He also mentions the release of exiles immediately after his death. [17] So, even secular history of that day corroborates the early Church’s account, placing the time of John’s exile to the island of Patmos under Domitian’s rule.
Therefore, we can clearly see that all external evidence uniformly supports the later date of AD 96 for the writing of the book of Revelation. Indeed, there is nothing even worthy of consideration that can be presented in favor of an early, AD 66 date. An annotation in the introduction to a late Syrian translation of the book of Revelation, which is a twelfth century manuscript copy, can hardly be considered to be of any value for determining the date in which Revelation was written. Most scholars would agree that there is no evidence for the early date of writing even worthy of consideration in all of Church history. For brevity I will only cite B.W. Johnson’s conclusion: “It is thus seen that the array of testimony to the date of Domitian’s reign is so strong as to leave no doubt, except where persons are compelled by their theories of interpretation to assume that John wrote in the reign of Nero.” [18]
We can now turn our attention to the internal evidences within the contents of the book of Revelation itself which argue for a later date of writing.
Internal Evidence that Revelation was written in AD 96.
The internal interpretive evidence in support for the post-AD 70 futuristic fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation will be demonstrated in the next article. Here we will be considering the circumstantial evidence for the late AD 96 date of writing.
The church of Smyrna didn’t exist in AD 70.
One of the seven churches Jesus addressed in the first three chapters of Revelation was the church of Smyrna (Rev 2:8-11). Polycarp, writing to the Philippians in AD 110, states that those living in Smyrna during the ministry of Paul had not yet heard the gospel:
“For he (Paul) boasts of you (Philippians) in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we, of Smyrna, had not yet known Him.” [19]
This statement made by Polycarp in AD 110 is corroborated in the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul since Smyrna is mentioned neither in Acts nor in the epistles. After Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, he was released and continued his missionary journeys for a few months until the following year when Rome was burned in AD 64. During his time of freedom, he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus. He was imprisoned a second time in Rome and finally beheaded in AD 66. During his final imprisonment he wrote 2 Timothy. However, in none of his epistles does he make mention of Smyrna. The lack of any mention of Smyrna confirms what Polycarp said. Therefore, the church of Smyrna to whom Jesus spoke in Revelation didn’t even exist in AD 70, and therefore the book of Revelation is not applicable to the time between AD 66 and AD 70.
The Church of Laodicea was flourishing in the AD 60s, but Spiritually Impoverished in Revelation 3.
Paul mentions the church of Laodicea in the epistle of Colossians which was written around AD 62 (Col. 2:1-2; 4:13,16). At that time, it appears to have been a healthy, thriving church. However, when Jesus addresses the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:14-22, He rebukes them for their apathy. He gives them the most lengthy and severe rebuke of all the seven churches. Apart from reaffirming His love and faithfulness towards them, He doesn’t have anything positive to say to them. It is unlikely that the church in Laodicea would have undergone such a drastic spiritual decline in just a couple of years.
Also, Jesus speaks of them as being rich and prosperous and in need of nothing. Laodicea was devastated by an earthquake in AD 60, which left them impoverished and in ruins. [20] The devastation was so great that it took them 30 years to rebuild. [21] It is highly unlikely that the church in Laodicea was experiencing great wealth and prosperity in the AD 60s while their city was still in ruins.
Therefore, we have seen that the early date of writing of the book of Revelation not only lacks any significant external evidence, but also we can see from the internal circumstantial evidence that the Letters to the seven churches had to have been written later than the AD 60s, since the church of Smyrna didn’t yet exist and the church of Laodicea was still a spiritually thriving church in the AD 60s.
There is no concrete objective evidence whatsoever which the Preterists can reasonably present in support of the early date of writing - either internally or externally. For a more in-depth presentation of the arguments for a late AD 95 – AD 96 date for the writing of Revelation, I highly recommend Mark Hitchcock’s dissertation: “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation. [22]
In the following article we will consider what Preterists present as interpretive evidences within the book of Revelation itself. Obviously, interpretive evidence is by its very nature subjective and depends upon the perspective of the interpreter. From the very outset it should be kept in mind that their interpretations have no credence whatsoever, since their subjective interpretations fly in the face of all objective internal and external evidence indicating a late date of writing twenty-five years after their AD 66 – AD 70 timeframe for the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation.
This blog is an excerpt from my book: “Last Days – Past or Present?”
[1] Welton, Jonathan (2013-11-01). Raptureless: An Optimistic Guide to the End of the World - Revised Edition Including The Art of Revelation (Kindle Location 4446). BookBaby. Kindle Edition.
[2] Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, section 3.
[3] Irenaeus not only pinpoints the timing of John’s visions on Patmos to AD 95 - 96. He also makes it clear that the Beast of Revelation was understood to be the Antichrist and that, he was yet to come and his identity was yet unknown to the Church in his time.
[4] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 1, section 5.
[5] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 28. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
[6] Eusebius, Book 4, Chapter 22, section 1.
[7] Eusebius, Book 3 Chapter 20. section 10.
[8] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 19.
[9] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 20, section 8.
[10] St. Victorinus, Commentary on Revelation, Chapter 10.
[11] Jerome, Against Jovinianus, book one, §26.
[12] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 9, section 6,7.
[13] Sulpitius Severus, The Sacred History, Book 2, Chapter 31.
[14] Welton, Jonathan (2013-11-01). Raptureless: An Optimistic Guide to the End of the World - Revised Edition Including The Art of Revelation (Kindle Locations 4458-4459). BookBaby. Kindle Edition.
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta.
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Aramaic_New_Testament_manuscript.
[17] Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 18, section 5.
[18] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 54. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
[19] Johnson, B.W. A Vision of the Ages, p. 19.
[20] Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 11.
[21] Tacitus Annals 14:27:1.
[22] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. p. 187. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
[23] Hitchcock, Mark. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
- Published on
00:00
00:00
%The Six So-called Gay Clobber Texts
by George Sidney Hurd
The six most cited texts from the Bible which either prohibit or negatively refer to same-sex intercourse are often disparagingly referred to as the “clobber texts.” Many today who self-identify as either Gay or in some way affiliated with the LGBTQIA+ community, either reject the Bible and Christianity outright, or else dismiss the “clobber” passages as insignificant, since they are so few in number. In the previous blog I considered the fallacies of that argument.
However, there is a rapidly growing movement within the church which seeks to reinterpret these texts so as to make them affirm, rather than condemn, same-sex intercourse as long as it is practiced within a committed monogamous relationship. They argue that the prohibitions were primarily directed against sexual excess and that the biblical authors didn’t even contemplate the possibility of same-sex marriage.
However, there are problems with this argument. In the first place, there is nothing new under the sun. Contrary to what they argue, while it is true that most same-sex activity was promiscuous in that culture, there are, nevertheless, examples of same-sex marriages in ancient literature. Proportionately, they were in all probability no different from the present-day situation, since surveys show that 99.5% of homosexual relationships today are not monogamous. Of the very few that are, many have made mutual agreements which allow for casual sex with other partners outside of their marriage.
In the second place, to argue that the biblical authors would have affirmed present day same-sex monogamous relationships if they had only lived in our postmodern culture ignores or denies the fact that the human authors were inspired of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Scriptures are therefore infallible and able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15-16; Psa 119:160 cf. Jn 17:17). Jesus told His disciples that the Holy Spirit would reveal to the Apostles things to come (Jn 16:13). Wouldn’t we expect that God who inspired the human authors would have at least prompted them to use words which would allow for a cultural shift towards same-sex marriage, if indeed He sanctions it? On the contrary, every time same-sex relations are mentioned in Scripture they are presented negatively.
What about Jesus? Being God incarnate and knowing what is in men’s hearts, wouldn’t He have foreseen our times and at least prepared the way for same-sex marriage rather than consistently reinforcing God’s original design of marriage between one man and one woman and saying that any sexual relations outside of that monogamous male/female union was porneia? (Matt 19:4-6,9). He consistently presented marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman (Matt 15:4-6;10:37; Luke 18:20, etc.).
Do the revisionist interpretations presented by Gay advocates like Matthew Vines and his Reformation Project manage to convincingly convert what have been traditionally understood to be blanket prohibitions of same-sex relations in these six primary texts into affirmations of same-sex intercourse as long as it is restricted to partners within a lifelong monogamous relationship? Having sought to objectively consider their arguments, I have concluded that they fail on all points, as I hope to briefly demonstrate in this blog. The following is a condensed consideration of each of the six primary passages.
1) Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-38)
In Genesis 18 the Lord told Abraham that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “very grave.” In fact it was so prevalent that there were not even ten righteous found among them (Gen 18:20-21,32). What was this sin that was said to be so serious as to require their destruction? The most common argument presented by Gay advocates is that God destroyed them primarily due to their lack of hospitality. This they do by citing one of the several sins listed in Ezekiel 16. However, reading the full passage, we see that their lack of hospitality was just one of several sins in a downward spiral which finally led to the sin or abomination which actually resulted in their destruction. This can be seen by reading the whole passage:
“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezek 16:49-50)
Here we see a downward progression, finally leading to them committing abomination, just as we have seen repeated in great civilizations throughout history, such as the Roman Empire. The cities of the plain were fertile and by far the most prosperous of the region. Just as with the downward progression presented in Romans 1, we see that, rather than being thankful, their foolish hearts were darkened, being lifted up with pride (Rom 1:21-22). Their wealth led to idleness and the pursuit of self-gratification to the point where they finally committed abomination before the Lord.
What was the abomination they committed that made it necessary for God to intervene and destroy them? Clearly, it was not a lack of hospitality. In the first place, not giving to the poor is a sin of omission, not a sin of commission. In the second place, we see that it was committing the abomination that resulted in their destruction, not the prior sins mentioned.
Some point out that many things were referred to as being an abomination in the Levitical Law, ranging from wearing mixed fabrics, to breaking the sabbath or having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period. However, these were amoral ceremonial restrictions intended to set Israel apart from the nations around them, and they were only binding upon the nation of Israel. For example, the death penalty was prescribed for any Jew who willfully broke the sabbath, but such laws were not binding upon the nations around them. Not even Abraham had to observe those restrictions since the Law had not yet been given.
When we look at the abominations for which even the nations around them are said to be judged by God, the list becomes reduced to child sacrifice and sexual sins such as incest, homosexuality and bestiality (Lev 18:24-25).
So, what was the abomination that they committed which resulted in God destroying them? Some would say that it was for having sex with angels, but there are a couple of reasons why that was not the abomination. In the first place, it would have only been attempted rape, since they were not permitted to carry out their intentions. In the second place, both Lot and the men of the city thought that the angels were men, so in their minds they were seeking to have sex with two men, rather than angels.
In the third place, the abomination was not only committed on that single occasion in the city of Sodom; it was something also being practiced in the surrounding cities which were destroyed along with Sodom. Peter makes it clear that their abominable acts were sexual perversions which they had been practicing for some time prior to their destruction. Peter says:
“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct (ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφῆς, aselgeia anastrophes) of the wicked...” (2 Peter 2:6-7)
Obviously, considering that Lot went so far as to offer them his own virgin daughters, the reference to him being righteous is only true in comparison to the depths of depravity to which the inhabitants of Sodom had sunk. Here we can see by the words “filthy conduct” that it wasn’t some isolated incident of attempted gang-rape, but their filthiness had become a lifestyle. The Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon defines aselgeia as, “behavior completely lacking in moral restraint, usually with the implication of sexual licentiousness - 'licentious behavior, extreme immorality.’” Certainly, Peter’s choice of words speaks of something beyond mere inhospitality or even an isolated attempt at gang-rape.
Likewise, Jude says that, not only Sodom and Gomorrah, but also the surrounding cities, had “given themselves over” to sexual immorality, going after “strange flesh (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, sarkos heteros)” (Jude 1:7). The term “strange flesh” literally means “flesh of a different kind” and would include any sexual union apart from the one-flesh (σάρκα μίαν, sarka mian) union between one man and one woman, as ordained by God since creation (Gen 2:24 LXX). Rather than being satisfied with the natural use of their bodies in a one-flesh union between one man and one woman, they became inflamed with lust for flesh-unions other than that ordained of God, and they suffered the consequences when God destroyed their flesh in judgment.
The parallel between the downward spiral in Ezekiel 16, finally leading to the abomination which we see described in 2Peter and Jude as having been sexual perversion with different flesh, resulting in their physical destruction, seems to be the same downward spiral described in Romans 1, degenerating to the point of homosexuality and finally the penalty which they received as a result:
“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom 1:24-27)
So, all things considered, it becomes evident that the reason the metropolis of Sodom was destroyed was not for a lack of hospitality or for a failed attempt at gang-raping the two angels, but rather it was destroyed because they had given themselves over to vile passions, women with women and men with men, and they received the due penalty for their abominable practices. As God says in Ezekiel 16, “they committed abomination before me, therefore (for that reason), in judgment I removed them from the land of the living.” It is evident that they committed an abomination which was punishable by death even though they were among the Gentile nations. When the Law against homosexuality was given later to the nation of Israel in Leviticus, they were warned against committing the same abominations as the nations around them and were told that, if they did, they would suffer the same judgment (Lev 18:24-29). I consider this subject with more detail in my blog: “Who Destroyed Sodom and Why.”
2 and 3) “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman”
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. 24 'Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.” (Lev 18:22-25)
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev 20:13)
These passages so clearly prohibit any form of same-sex coitus that their universal application was never questioned prior to the present Postmodern sexual revolution. The various attempts to make it somehow allow for homosexual intercourse remind me of the mental gymnastics the Calvinists have resorted to in order to deny that Jesus Christ is indeed the Savior of the whole world, rather than just the elect few.
Some argue that the text must have been altered prior to the translation of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) between the 1st and the 3rd century B C. However, there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to back up that claim. Others argue that it only prohibits same-sex intercourse in the context of cultic idol worship in which men had sex with male prostitutes. From there they argue that the prohibition does not apply to committed same-sex monogamous relationships today.
However, the list of sexual prohibitions in these two chapters is not limited to homosexual intercourse only, but it also prohibits sex with members of the immediate family as well as sex with animals. Few would argue that it is acceptable to practice these other vile acts as long as you love each other and don’t do it as part of cultic idol worship. Though it seems bazaar, some today even justify having sex with their pets by getting married to them. [i] Using the same argument which says that this passage only prohibits sex acts outside of a committed monogamous relationship, one could actually affirm monogamous incest or bestiality.
Another argument often presented is that we are no longer under the Old Covenant Law, so these prohibitions no longer apply to us. Some Gay Revisionists, such as Matthew Vines, present both arguments together. However, few would say that male prostitution, incest, or bestiality are acceptable lifestyles now that we are no longer under the Law. While the ceremonial aspects of the Law are no longer applicable to us today, every one of the moral prohibitions contained in the Law are reaffirmed under the New Covenant of grace.
While I will be considering this passage with more detail later, in 1Timothy Paul explains that the Law still stands to convict the sinner of his need for grace, and he specifically includes the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality. He said:
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites (αρσενοκοιταις, arsenokoitais) for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Tim 1:8-10)
That Paul is here reaffirming the prohibition of same-sex coitus is undeniable since he forms one word from the exact same two words found in both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, of the Greek LXX, which is the translation he would have been using to teach the Greek speaking Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews. In Leviticus the two words used are arsen, “male” and koite, “bed.” It is from the word koite that we derive our word “coitus” or “sexual intercourse.” Paul united the two words, forming the single word arsenokoites, which means, a man laying in bed with a male. He used the same term in 1Corinthians 6:9, which we will also be considering later. I illustrate below how Paul formed the word from the Greek LXX of the Leviticus texts:
The six most cited texts from the Bible which either prohibit or negatively refer to same-sex intercourse are often disparagingly referred to as the “clobber texts.” Many today who self-identify as either Gay or in some way affiliated with the LGBTQIA+ community, either reject the Bible and Christianity outright, or else dismiss the “clobber” passages as insignificant, since they are so few in number. In the previous blog I considered the fallacies of that argument.
However, there is a rapidly growing movement within the church which seeks to reinterpret these texts so as to make them affirm, rather than condemn, same-sex intercourse as long as it is practiced within a committed monogamous relationship. They argue that the prohibitions were primarily directed against sexual excess and that the biblical authors didn’t even contemplate the possibility of same-sex marriage.
However, there are problems with this argument. In the first place, there is nothing new under the sun. Contrary to what they argue, while it is true that most same-sex activity was promiscuous in that culture, there are, nevertheless, examples of same-sex marriages in ancient literature. Proportionately, they were in all probability no different from the present-day situation, since surveys show that 99.5% of homosexual relationships today are not monogamous. Of the very few that are, many have made mutual agreements which allow for casual sex with other partners outside of their marriage.
In the second place, to argue that the biblical authors would have affirmed present day same-sex monogamous relationships if they had only lived in our postmodern culture ignores or denies the fact that the human authors were inspired of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Scriptures are therefore infallible and able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15-16; Psa 119:160 cf. Jn 17:17). Jesus told His disciples that the Holy Spirit would reveal to the Apostles things to come (Jn 16:13). Wouldn’t we expect that God who inspired the human authors would have at least prompted them to use words which would allow for a cultural shift towards same-sex marriage, if indeed He sanctions it? On the contrary, every time same-sex relations are mentioned in Scripture they are presented negatively.
What about Jesus? Being God incarnate and knowing what is in men’s hearts, wouldn’t He have foreseen our times and at least prepared the way for same-sex marriage rather than consistently reinforcing God’s original design of marriage between one man and one woman and saying that any sexual relations outside of that monogamous male/female union was porneia? (Matt 19:4-6,9). He consistently presented marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman (Matt 15:4-6;10:37; Luke 18:20, etc.).
Do the revisionist interpretations presented by Gay advocates like Matthew Vines and his Reformation Project manage to convincingly convert what have been traditionally understood to be blanket prohibitions of same-sex relations in these six primary texts into affirmations of same-sex intercourse as long as it is restricted to partners within a lifelong monogamous relationship? Having sought to objectively consider their arguments, I have concluded that they fail on all points, as I hope to briefly demonstrate in this blog. The following is a condensed consideration of each of the six primary passages.
1) Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-38)
In Genesis 18 the Lord told Abraham that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “very grave.” In fact it was so prevalent that there were not even ten righteous found among them (Gen 18:20-21,32). What was this sin that was said to be so serious as to require their destruction? The most common argument presented by Gay advocates is that God destroyed them primarily due to their lack of hospitality. This they do by citing one of the several sins listed in Ezekiel 16. However, reading the full passage, we see that their lack of hospitality was just one of several sins in a downward spiral which finally led to the sin or abomination which actually resulted in their destruction. This can be seen by reading the whole passage:
“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezek 16:49-50)
Here we see a downward progression, finally leading to them committing abomination, just as we have seen repeated in great civilizations throughout history, such as the Roman Empire. The cities of the plain were fertile and by far the most prosperous of the region. Just as with the downward progression presented in Romans 1, we see that, rather than being thankful, their foolish hearts were darkened, being lifted up with pride (Rom 1:21-22). Their wealth led to idleness and the pursuit of self-gratification to the point where they finally committed abomination before the Lord.
What was the abomination they committed that made it necessary for God to intervene and destroy them? Clearly, it was not a lack of hospitality. In the first place, not giving to the poor is a sin of omission, not a sin of commission. In the second place, we see that it was committing the abomination that resulted in their destruction, not the prior sins mentioned.
Some point out that many things were referred to as being an abomination in the Levitical Law, ranging from wearing mixed fabrics, to breaking the sabbath or having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period. However, these were amoral ceremonial restrictions intended to set Israel apart from the nations around them, and they were only binding upon the nation of Israel. For example, the death penalty was prescribed for any Jew who willfully broke the sabbath, but such laws were not binding upon the nations around them. Not even Abraham had to observe those restrictions since the Law had not yet been given.
When we look at the abominations for which even the nations around them are said to be judged by God, the list becomes reduced to child sacrifice and sexual sins such as incest, homosexuality and bestiality (Lev 18:24-25).
So, what was the abomination that they committed which resulted in God destroying them? Some would say that it was for having sex with angels, but there are a couple of reasons why that was not the abomination. In the first place, it would have only been attempted rape, since they were not permitted to carry out their intentions. In the second place, both Lot and the men of the city thought that the angels were men, so in their minds they were seeking to have sex with two men, rather than angels.
In the third place, the abomination was not only committed on that single occasion in the city of Sodom; it was something also being practiced in the surrounding cities which were destroyed along with Sodom. Peter makes it clear that their abominable acts were sexual perversions which they had been practicing for some time prior to their destruction. Peter says:
“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct (ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφῆς, aselgeia anastrophes) of the wicked...” (2 Peter 2:6-7)
Obviously, considering that Lot went so far as to offer them his own virgin daughters, the reference to him being righteous is only true in comparison to the depths of depravity to which the inhabitants of Sodom had sunk. Here we can see by the words “filthy conduct” that it wasn’t some isolated incident of attempted gang-rape, but their filthiness had become a lifestyle. The Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon defines aselgeia as, “behavior completely lacking in moral restraint, usually with the implication of sexual licentiousness - 'licentious behavior, extreme immorality.’” Certainly, Peter’s choice of words speaks of something beyond mere inhospitality or even an isolated attempt at gang-rape.
Likewise, Jude says that, not only Sodom and Gomorrah, but also the surrounding cities, had “given themselves over” to sexual immorality, going after “strange flesh (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, sarkos heteros)” (Jude 1:7). The term “strange flesh” literally means “flesh of a different kind” and would include any sexual union apart from the one-flesh (σάρκα μίαν, sarka mian) union between one man and one woman, as ordained by God since creation (Gen 2:24 LXX). Rather than being satisfied with the natural use of their bodies in a one-flesh union between one man and one woman, they became inflamed with lust for flesh-unions other than that ordained of God, and they suffered the consequences when God destroyed their flesh in judgment.
The parallel between the downward spiral in Ezekiel 16, finally leading to the abomination which we see described in 2Peter and Jude as having been sexual perversion with different flesh, resulting in their physical destruction, seems to be the same downward spiral described in Romans 1, degenerating to the point of homosexuality and finally the penalty which they received as a result:
“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom 1:24-27)
So, all things considered, it becomes evident that the reason the metropolis of Sodom was destroyed was not for a lack of hospitality or for a failed attempt at gang-raping the two angels, but rather it was destroyed because they had given themselves over to vile passions, women with women and men with men, and they received the due penalty for their abominable practices. As God says in Ezekiel 16, “they committed abomination before me, therefore (for that reason), in judgment I removed them from the land of the living.” It is evident that they committed an abomination which was punishable by death even though they were among the Gentile nations. When the Law against homosexuality was given later to the nation of Israel in Leviticus, they were warned against committing the same abominations as the nations around them and were told that, if they did, they would suffer the same judgment (Lev 18:24-29). I consider this subject with more detail in my blog: “Who Destroyed Sodom and Why.”
2 and 3) “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman”
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. 24 'Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.” (Lev 18:22-25)
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev 20:13)
These passages so clearly prohibit any form of same-sex coitus that their universal application was never questioned prior to the present Postmodern sexual revolution. The various attempts to make it somehow allow for homosexual intercourse remind me of the mental gymnastics the Calvinists have resorted to in order to deny that Jesus Christ is indeed the Savior of the whole world, rather than just the elect few.
Some argue that the text must have been altered prior to the translation of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) between the 1st and the 3rd century B C. However, there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to back up that claim. Others argue that it only prohibits same-sex intercourse in the context of cultic idol worship in which men had sex with male prostitutes. From there they argue that the prohibition does not apply to committed same-sex monogamous relationships today.
However, the list of sexual prohibitions in these two chapters is not limited to homosexual intercourse only, but it also prohibits sex with members of the immediate family as well as sex with animals. Few would argue that it is acceptable to practice these other vile acts as long as you love each other and don’t do it as part of cultic idol worship. Though it seems bazaar, some today even justify having sex with their pets by getting married to them. [i] Using the same argument which says that this passage only prohibits sex acts outside of a committed monogamous relationship, one could actually affirm monogamous incest or bestiality.
Another argument often presented is that we are no longer under the Old Covenant Law, so these prohibitions no longer apply to us. Some Gay Revisionists, such as Matthew Vines, present both arguments together. However, few would say that male prostitution, incest, or bestiality are acceptable lifestyles now that we are no longer under the Law. While the ceremonial aspects of the Law are no longer applicable to us today, every one of the moral prohibitions contained in the Law are reaffirmed under the New Covenant of grace.
While I will be considering this passage with more detail later, in 1Timothy Paul explains that the Law still stands to convict the sinner of his need for grace, and he specifically includes the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality. He said:
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites (αρσενοκοιταις, arsenokoitais) for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Tim 1:8-10)
That Paul is here reaffirming the prohibition of same-sex coitus is undeniable since he forms one word from the exact same two words found in both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, of the Greek LXX, which is the translation he would have been using to teach the Greek speaking Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews. In Leviticus the two words used are arsen, “male” and koite, “bed.” It is from the word koite that we derive our word “coitus” or “sexual intercourse.” Paul united the two words, forming the single word arsenokoites, which means, a man laying in bed with a male. He used the same term in 1Corinthians 6:9, which we will also be considering later. I illustrate below how Paul formed the word from the Greek LXX of the Leviticus texts:
Matthew Vines argues that the definition of this word should not be determined based upon its literal meaning. He said that, even as our word “understand” cannot be understood as literally standing under something, neither should we insist upon a literal meaning of arsenokoites. Some use the word “butterfly” to demonstrate that compounded words often have a meaning far removed from the literal meaning of original words since a butterfly isn’t literally butter that flies. However, it is totally illogical to think that Paul would have coined a term that meant something totally different from the actual meaning of the two words he joined together.
Strangely, Matthew Vines and others actually attempt to argue that in later Greek literature arsenokoites had more to do with finances than sex. He said, “Although arsenokoites was used quite rarely in Greek literature after Paul, some of the few uses that have survived indicate it most often referred to economic exploitation, not same-sex behavior.”
When I looked up the sources presented to prove that the word arsenokoites was used to refer to economics, I noticed that they only quoted portions of the texts cited. Whenever I see "..." in quotes, I become curious to see what they are leaving out, so I decided to look at the larger context. When I did, it became obvious that the sources partially quoted by them to give the impression that arsenokoites only referred to economics actually address primarily moral issues. For example, they cite the following partial quote from the Sibylline Oracle.
“...Do not steal seed; Accursed through many generations he who took it unto scattering of life. Indulge not vile lusts (arsenokoites), slander not, nor kill...”
They argue that since arsenokoites is used here in proximity with the prohibition against stealing seed, it must refer to economic exploitation. However, when I looked up the whole section to see why they only cited a short clip, I found the following:
“And those who have regard for marriages and keep themselves far from adulteries, to them rich gifts, eternal hope, he'll give. For every human soul is God's free gift, and 'tis not right men stain it with vile deeds… Maintain thy virgin purity, and guard love among all. Deal measures that are just; for beautiful is measure full to all… Do not steal seed; Accursed through many generations he who took it unto scattering of life. Indulge not vile lusts (arsenokoites), slander not, nor kill… Disable not thy mind with wine nor drink excessively. Eat not blood, and abstain from things offered to idols.”
So, upon reading the larger context it becomes evident that the author is addressing several moral issues including arsenokoites, rather than the passage dealing primarily with economic matters. The only other source they quoted in order to establish that arsenokoites was an economic term was from the Acts of John. They quoted the following portion:
“…Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite (arsenokoites), thief, and as many as are of that band, ye shall come at last, as your works do lead you, unto unquenchable fire.” [3]
Quoting this small clip, it could leave one under the impression that the author is dealing primarily with financial matters such as theft and extortion. However, again, upon looking at the whole passage, it becomes evident that the author is dealing with various sexual issues as well. Here is a fuller quote of the passage:
“Thou also that art puffed up because of the shapeliness of thy body, and art of an high look, shalt see the end of the promise thereof in the grave; and thou that rejoicest in adultery, know that both law and nature avenge it upon thee, and before these, conscience; and thou, adulteress, that art an adversary of the law, knowest not whither thou shalt come in the end. And thou that sharest not with the needy, but hast monies laid up, when thou departest out of this body and hast need of some mercy when thou burnest in fire, shalt have none to pity thee; and thou the wrathful and passionate, know that thy manner of life is like the brute beasts; and thou, drunkard and quarreller, learn that thou losest thy senses by being enslaved to a shameful and dirty desire…Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite (arsenokoites), thief, and as many as are of that band, ye shall come at last, as your works do lead you, unto unquenchable fire.”
Clearly, these partial quotes do not demonstrate that arsenokoites meant anything different in later Greek literature than the meaning obviously intended by Paul when he coined the term from Leviticus. And even if the meaning had drifted from its literal meaning with time, it should be obvious to all that in 1Timothy 1 Paul was referring back to the Levitical law prohibiting same-sex coitus.
Therefore, in spite of their extensive nuanced attempts to make the prohibitions of Leviticus inapplicable to same-sex intercourse within a monogamous relationship, it is a straightforward prohibition against any man lying with a male as with a woman. It is a blanket statement which does not leave room for exceptions, any more than the prohibition against bestiality does.
4) Same-Sex Intercourse and Romans 1:26-27
“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom 1:26-27)
This passage seems to be just as straightforward as what we saw in Leviticus, except that it also specifically includes same-sex relations among women. How do the Gay Revisionists get around the obvious implications of this passage? To begin with, they argue that the present notion of same-sex orientation is a contemporary development and therefore would have been a concept unknown to Paul.
However, as we have already seen, this undermines the divine inspiration of Scripture. If the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul conditions which would prevail in the future, why would He not also inspire Paul to include the exception clauses that the Gay Revisionists need in order to make their case? In fact, Paul as well as Jesus, alluded to the contemporary situation, but that would be the subject of another blog. Here I will just cite one thing which was revealed to Paul concerning our contemporary sexual revolution. Paul said:
“Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires (ἐπιθυμίας, epithumias), because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Tim 4:2-4)
Paul foresaw the time when men would no longer endure sound doctrine. Wanting to fulfill their own “desires” (epithumias), they will turn away from the plain truth of Scripture and will seek out teachers who will tell them only what they want to hear, turning from the truth to fables. Strong’s defines epithumia as: “a longing, especially for that which is forbidden.”
While the word epithumia is, by definition, applicable to one’s illicit desire for those of the same sex, Gay activists have cloaked epithumia in politically correct terms such as “same-sex attraction” or “same sex orientation.” Therefore, many today see same-sex orientation as a neutral term, when in fact the Scriptures simply call it “lust.”
For example, in Romans 1:24, when Paul says: “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (ἐπιθυμίας, epithumias) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves,” he was referring to what Gay Revisionists today refer to as simply “same-sex orientation.” Using the same tactics, pedophiles are now organizing and demanding equal rights and society’s acceptance of their sexual relations with “consenting” prepuberty children. [4]
The meaning of “Nature” (phusis)
Paul says in verse 26 that God gave them over to their own vile passions, and then proceeds to explain what is meant by vile passions. He says that they changed the natural (φυσικὴν, phusikein) use of their bodies for that which is against nature (παρὰ φύσιν). The word phusis and its cognates are from phuo which means “to bring forth or produce.” The fundamental underlying definition of phusis is “that which nature has produced,” as opposed to that which is brought about by artificial means or contrary to nature. [5] For example, Paul speaks of the natural branches, as opposed to that which was grafted in contrary to nature (Rom 11:24).
How do the Gay Revisionists get around the obvious implications that same-sex coitus is a perversion of nature? They often argue that phusis can mean “custom,” and therefore say that Romans 1 is only referring to the customs prevalent in Paul’s day. To make their point, they cite 1 Corinthians 11:14 which says: “Does not even nature (φύσις, phusis) itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” However, Paul here is not appealing merely to a present trend. Just as with the prohibition against cross-dressing (Deut 22:5), while it is true that what a man wore then is different from what a man would wear now, it is always unnatural for one to take on the appearance of the opposite sex. Paul is saying that it is against nature and shameful for a man to appear as a woman, no matter how that may translate into one’s cultural setting. Actually, Paul is referring to the same confusion of sexes in 1Corinthians 11:14 as he was in Romans 1:26. For a man to take on the role of a woman, or vice-versa, is against nature, not simply against a custom.
Some argue that Romans 1:26-27 is simply a prohibition against pederasty and male prostitution. However, it only needs to be pointed out that Paul first mentions women and then says that the men likewise practiced same-sex intercourse. This means that lesbianism was also being referred to, but lesbians do not practice pederasty. Pederasty is by definition sexual activity between a man and a boy or youth. Also, when he speaks of “arsen with arsen” (male with male), he is clearly referring back to Leviticus, much as he does when he uses the word arsenokoites.
There is much more that could be presented in favor of the traditional understanding of Romans 1:26-27, but without elaborating further, it should be evident to any unbiased student of the Word that this passage cannot be reasonably construed as condoning homosexual activity in any form or circumstance.
5) Neither Effeminates nor Homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11)
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (μαλακοι malakoi), nor homosexuals (ἀρσενοκοῖται, arsenokoitai), 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such WERE some of you; BUT you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9-11)
Paul’s reference here to both malakoi and arsenokoites side by side have been traditionally understood to refer to the passive and aggressive partners in a homosexual relationship. For that reason, some translations, such as the ESV, combine the two words, simply saying “men who practice homosexuality.”
We have already considered Paul’s intended meaning of arsenokoites when he coined the word, and some of the fallacies of the Revisionist arguments for understanding it as being merely an economic term. Gay Revisionists likewise attempt to redefine the Greek word malakoi, traditionally understood to be referring in this context to the passive male sex-partner, pointing out that the word often simply means “soft,” and that it commonly refers to a male with feminine traits, without any sexual connotations in Greek literature. However, all reasonable doubt as to its meaning in this passage is removed when it is paired up with arsenokoites, as we see here in 1Corinthians 6:9. Also, nowhere in Scripture do we see any indication that a man would be excluded from the kingdom simply because he has feminine traits.
While Matthew Vines attempts to make these words apply to something other than homosexual activity as we saw earlier in his attempts to associate arsenokoites with economic exploitation, it nevertheless becomes obvious that he isn’t convinced by his own arguments because he concedes, saying:
“While malakoi and arsenokoitai could encompass forms of same-sex behavior, the behavior they might describe bears little resemblance to the modern relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians.” [6]
Here Vines demonstrates to us that, no matter how clearly the text comes out against homosexual activity, the trump card of Gay Revisionists is always to say that it doesn’t apply to our Postmodern generation. However, considering that all Scripture was given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who inhabits eternity, all His words are profitable for instruction in righteousness, no matter what generation we live in (2Tim 3:15-17; Mt 4:4; Jn 17:17).
They argue that, if only Moses and Paul had understood as we do today that some are born with same-sex attraction, rather than seeing it as a perversion of nature, they would have made explicit provision for committed life-long same-sex relationships. They argue that it is unjust to impose a life of celibacy upon those who were born as homosexuals and for that reason cannot change their sexual orientation.
However, all attempts to scientifically demonstrate that some were born as homosexuals have actually indicated the opposite. Furthermore, to claim that homosexual orientation is an irreversible life-long condition is to deny the transforming power of the gospel. In the passage we are considering, after warning in verses 9 and 10 that those who continue in the sins listed will not inherit the kingdom, Paul says in verse 11: “Such WERE some of you; BUT you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
So, we see that when we become a new creature in Christ, we are cleansed, receiving a new heart and a new identity. Instead of saying, “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” “once a prostitute, always a prostitute,” or “once a homosexual always a homosexual,” we need to embrace our new identity in Christ. If you are in Christ, you are a new creation, the old has passed away and the new has come (2Cor 5:17). You are now the righteousness of God in Christ (2Cor 5:21). As long as we confess the lie, contrary to the truth as it is in Jesus, saying, “I was born a sinner, I will always be a sinner,” we will remain under the power of our old identity. But when we live according to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, sin loses its power and can no longer reign over our mortal bodies. As Paul says:
“Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts (επιθυμιαις, epithumiais). 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” (Rom 6:11-13)
As Paul warns, those who continue obeying their lusts and practicing the sins he mentions, which include both aggressive and passive homosexual activity, will not inherit the kingdom of God. While the sons of the kingdom are reigning with Christ, they will be undergoing correction and purification in eonian fire during the kingdom age (Matt 25:41,45). Rather than claiming our sin as our identity, as many do when they self-identify as homosexuals or alcoholics, we must lay hold of our new identity in Christ. I have found it to be true that if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed (Jn 8:36).
6) The Prohibition of Same-sex Intercourse reaffirmed in the New Testament
While Paul makes it very clear that those of us who are in Christ have died to the Law in order that we might live unto Christ, he also makes it clear that the Law still stands to convict unrepentant sinners of their sinful condition.
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites (ἀρσενοκοίταις, arsenokoitais) for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” (1 Tim 1:8-11).
Since we already saw what Paul meant by the compound word arsenokoites, I will not expand more upon this passage, other than to emphasize that Paul here reaffirms the Levitical prohibition of same sex intercourse without any exemption clauses or loopholes that the Gay advocates need in order to justify contemporary forms of homosexual activity. There are no statements in all of Scripture affirming the homosexual lifestyle. On the contrary, every reference to it is negative. Homosexuals are called upon to repent and believe the Gospel in order that they might be justified and cleansed from their sinful desires, just as are compulsive adulterers, thieves, and liars. On the other side of true repentance and faith there is freedom and transformation through the new life in Christ.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93animal_marriage
[2] Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (p. 124). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[3] Sibyllene Oracle Book 2.70-77
[4] The Acts of John 35-36
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pedophile_advocacy_organizations
[6] Thayer's Greek Lexicon, NT:5449
[7] Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (p. 130). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Strangely, Matthew Vines and others actually attempt to argue that in later Greek literature arsenokoites had more to do with finances than sex. He said, “Although arsenokoites was used quite rarely in Greek literature after Paul, some of the few uses that have survived indicate it most often referred to economic exploitation, not same-sex behavior.”
When I looked up the sources presented to prove that the word arsenokoites was used to refer to economics, I noticed that they only quoted portions of the texts cited. Whenever I see "..." in quotes, I become curious to see what they are leaving out, so I decided to look at the larger context. When I did, it became obvious that the sources partially quoted by them to give the impression that arsenokoites only referred to economics actually address primarily moral issues. For example, they cite the following partial quote from the Sibylline Oracle.
“...Do not steal seed; Accursed through many generations he who took it unto scattering of life. Indulge not vile lusts (arsenokoites), slander not, nor kill...”
They argue that since arsenokoites is used here in proximity with the prohibition against stealing seed, it must refer to economic exploitation. However, when I looked up the whole section to see why they only cited a short clip, I found the following:
“And those who have regard for marriages and keep themselves far from adulteries, to them rich gifts, eternal hope, he'll give. For every human soul is God's free gift, and 'tis not right men stain it with vile deeds… Maintain thy virgin purity, and guard love among all. Deal measures that are just; for beautiful is measure full to all… Do not steal seed; Accursed through many generations he who took it unto scattering of life. Indulge not vile lusts (arsenokoites), slander not, nor kill… Disable not thy mind with wine nor drink excessively. Eat not blood, and abstain from things offered to idols.”
So, upon reading the larger context it becomes evident that the author is addressing several moral issues including arsenokoites, rather than the passage dealing primarily with economic matters. The only other source they quoted in order to establish that arsenokoites was an economic term was from the Acts of John. They quoted the following portion:
“…Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite (arsenokoites), thief, and as many as are of that band, ye shall come at last, as your works do lead you, unto unquenchable fire.” [3]
Quoting this small clip, it could leave one under the impression that the author is dealing primarily with financial matters such as theft and extortion. However, again, upon looking at the whole passage, it becomes evident that the author is dealing with various sexual issues as well. Here is a fuller quote of the passage:
“Thou also that art puffed up because of the shapeliness of thy body, and art of an high look, shalt see the end of the promise thereof in the grave; and thou that rejoicest in adultery, know that both law and nature avenge it upon thee, and before these, conscience; and thou, adulteress, that art an adversary of the law, knowest not whither thou shalt come in the end. And thou that sharest not with the needy, but hast monies laid up, when thou departest out of this body and hast need of some mercy when thou burnest in fire, shalt have none to pity thee; and thou the wrathful and passionate, know that thy manner of life is like the brute beasts; and thou, drunkard and quarreller, learn that thou losest thy senses by being enslaved to a shameful and dirty desire…Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite (arsenokoites), thief, and as many as are of that band, ye shall come at last, as your works do lead you, unto unquenchable fire.”
Clearly, these partial quotes do not demonstrate that arsenokoites meant anything different in later Greek literature than the meaning obviously intended by Paul when he coined the term from Leviticus. And even if the meaning had drifted from its literal meaning with time, it should be obvious to all that in 1Timothy 1 Paul was referring back to the Levitical law prohibiting same-sex coitus.
Therefore, in spite of their extensive nuanced attempts to make the prohibitions of Leviticus inapplicable to same-sex intercourse within a monogamous relationship, it is a straightforward prohibition against any man lying with a male as with a woman. It is a blanket statement which does not leave room for exceptions, any more than the prohibition against bestiality does.
4) Same-Sex Intercourse and Romans 1:26-27
“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom 1:26-27)
This passage seems to be just as straightforward as what we saw in Leviticus, except that it also specifically includes same-sex relations among women. How do the Gay Revisionists get around the obvious implications of this passage? To begin with, they argue that the present notion of same-sex orientation is a contemporary development and therefore would have been a concept unknown to Paul.
However, as we have already seen, this undermines the divine inspiration of Scripture. If the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul conditions which would prevail in the future, why would He not also inspire Paul to include the exception clauses that the Gay Revisionists need in order to make their case? In fact, Paul as well as Jesus, alluded to the contemporary situation, but that would be the subject of another blog. Here I will just cite one thing which was revealed to Paul concerning our contemporary sexual revolution. Paul said:
“Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires (ἐπιθυμίας, epithumias), because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Tim 4:2-4)
Paul foresaw the time when men would no longer endure sound doctrine. Wanting to fulfill their own “desires” (epithumias), they will turn away from the plain truth of Scripture and will seek out teachers who will tell them only what they want to hear, turning from the truth to fables. Strong’s defines epithumia as: “a longing, especially for that which is forbidden.”
While the word epithumia is, by definition, applicable to one’s illicit desire for those of the same sex, Gay activists have cloaked epithumia in politically correct terms such as “same-sex attraction” or “same sex orientation.” Therefore, many today see same-sex orientation as a neutral term, when in fact the Scriptures simply call it “lust.”
For example, in Romans 1:24, when Paul says: “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (ἐπιθυμίας, epithumias) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves,” he was referring to what Gay Revisionists today refer to as simply “same-sex orientation.” Using the same tactics, pedophiles are now organizing and demanding equal rights and society’s acceptance of their sexual relations with “consenting” prepuberty children. [4]
The meaning of “Nature” (phusis)
Paul says in verse 26 that God gave them over to their own vile passions, and then proceeds to explain what is meant by vile passions. He says that they changed the natural (φυσικὴν, phusikein) use of their bodies for that which is against nature (παρὰ φύσιν). The word phusis and its cognates are from phuo which means “to bring forth or produce.” The fundamental underlying definition of phusis is “that which nature has produced,” as opposed to that which is brought about by artificial means or contrary to nature. [5] For example, Paul speaks of the natural branches, as opposed to that which was grafted in contrary to nature (Rom 11:24).
How do the Gay Revisionists get around the obvious implications that same-sex coitus is a perversion of nature? They often argue that phusis can mean “custom,” and therefore say that Romans 1 is only referring to the customs prevalent in Paul’s day. To make their point, they cite 1 Corinthians 11:14 which says: “Does not even nature (φύσις, phusis) itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” However, Paul here is not appealing merely to a present trend. Just as with the prohibition against cross-dressing (Deut 22:5), while it is true that what a man wore then is different from what a man would wear now, it is always unnatural for one to take on the appearance of the opposite sex. Paul is saying that it is against nature and shameful for a man to appear as a woman, no matter how that may translate into one’s cultural setting. Actually, Paul is referring to the same confusion of sexes in 1Corinthians 11:14 as he was in Romans 1:26. For a man to take on the role of a woman, or vice-versa, is against nature, not simply against a custom.
Some argue that Romans 1:26-27 is simply a prohibition against pederasty and male prostitution. However, it only needs to be pointed out that Paul first mentions women and then says that the men likewise practiced same-sex intercourse. This means that lesbianism was also being referred to, but lesbians do not practice pederasty. Pederasty is by definition sexual activity between a man and a boy or youth. Also, when he speaks of “arsen with arsen” (male with male), he is clearly referring back to Leviticus, much as he does when he uses the word arsenokoites.
There is much more that could be presented in favor of the traditional understanding of Romans 1:26-27, but without elaborating further, it should be evident to any unbiased student of the Word that this passage cannot be reasonably construed as condoning homosexual activity in any form or circumstance.
5) Neither Effeminates nor Homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11)
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (μαλακοι malakoi), nor homosexuals (ἀρσενοκοῖται, arsenokoitai), 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such WERE some of you; BUT you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9-11)
Paul’s reference here to both malakoi and arsenokoites side by side have been traditionally understood to refer to the passive and aggressive partners in a homosexual relationship. For that reason, some translations, such as the ESV, combine the two words, simply saying “men who practice homosexuality.”
We have already considered Paul’s intended meaning of arsenokoites when he coined the word, and some of the fallacies of the Revisionist arguments for understanding it as being merely an economic term. Gay Revisionists likewise attempt to redefine the Greek word malakoi, traditionally understood to be referring in this context to the passive male sex-partner, pointing out that the word often simply means “soft,” and that it commonly refers to a male with feminine traits, without any sexual connotations in Greek literature. However, all reasonable doubt as to its meaning in this passage is removed when it is paired up with arsenokoites, as we see here in 1Corinthians 6:9. Also, nowhere in Scripture do we see any indication that a man would be excluded from the kingdom simply because he has feminine traits.
While Matthew Vines attempts to make these words apply to something other than homosexual activity as we saw earlier in his attempts to associate arsenokoites with economic exploitation, it nevertheless becomes obvious that he isn’t convinced by his own arguments because he concedes, saying:
“While malakoi and arsenokoitai could encompass forms of same-sex behavior, the behavior they might describe bears little resemblance to the modern relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians.” [6]
Here Vines demonstrates to us that, no matter how clearly the text comes out against homosexual activity, the trump card of Gay Revisionists is always to say that it doesn’t apply to our Postmodern generation. However, considering that all Scripture was given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who inhabits eternity, all His words are profitable for instruction in righteousness, no matter what generation we live in (2Tim 3:15-17; Mt 4:4; Jn 17:17).
They argue that, if only Moses and Paul had understood as we do today that some are born with same-sex attraction, rather than seeing it as a perversion of nature, they would have made explicit provision for committed life-long same-sex relationships. They argue that it is unjust to impose a life of celibacy upon those who were born as homosexuals and for that reason cannot change their sexual orientation.
However, all attempts to scientifically demonstrate that some were born as homosexuals have actually indicated the opposite. Furthermore, to claim that homosexual orientation is an irreversible life-long condition is to deny the transforming power of the gospel. In the passage we are considering, after warning in verses 9 and 10 that those who continue in the sins listed will not inherit the kingdom, Paul says in verse 11: “Such WERE some of you; BUT you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
So, we see that when we become a new creature in Christ, we are cleansed, receiving a new heart and a new identity. Instead of saying, “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” “once a prostitute, always a prostitute,” or “once a homosexual always a homosexual,” we need to embrace our new identity in Christ. If you are in Christ, you are a new creation, the old has passed away and the new has come (2Cor 5:17). You are now the righteousness of God in Christ (2Cor 5:21). As long as we confess the lie, contrary to the truth as it is in Jesus, saying, “I was born a sinner, I will always be a sinner,” we will remain under the power of our old identity. But when we live according to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, sin loses its power and can no longer reign over our mortal bodies. As Paul says:
“Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts (επιθυμιαις, epithumiais). 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” (Rom 6:11-13)
As Paul warns, those who continue obeying their lusts and practicing the sins he mentions, which include both aggressive and passive homosexual activity, will not inherit the kingdom of God. While the sons of the kingdom are reigning with Christ, they will be undergoing correction and purification in eonian fire during the kingdom age (Matt 25:41,45). Rather than claiming our sin as our identity, as many do when they self-identify as homosexuals or alcoholics, we must lay hold of our new identity in Christ. I have found it to be true that if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed (Jn 8:36).
6) The Prohibition of Same-sex Intercourse reaffirmed in the New Testament
While Paul makes it very clear that those of us who are in Christ have died to the Law in order that we might live unto Christ, he also makes it clear that the Law still stands to convict unrepentant sinners of their sinful condition.
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites (ἀρσενοκοίταις, arsenokoitais) for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” (1 Tim 1:8-11).
Since we already saw what Paul meant by the compound word arsenokoites, I will not expand more upon this passage, other than to emphasize that Paul here reaffirms the Levitical prohibition of same sex intercourse without any exemption clauses or loopholes that the Gay advocates need in order to justify contemporary forms of homosexual activity. There are no statements in all of Scripture affirming the homosexual lifestyle. On the contrary, every reference to it is negative. Homosexuals are called upon to repent and believe the Gospel in order that they might be justified and cleansed from their sinful desires, just as are compulsive adulterers, thieves, and liars. On the other side of true repentance and faith there is freedom and transformation through the new life in Christ.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93animal_marriage
[2] Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (p. 124). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[3] Sibyllene Oracle Book 2.70-77
[4] The Acts of John 35-36
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pedophile_advocacy_organizations
[6] Thayer's Greek Lexicon, NT:5449
[7] Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (p. 130). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
1Does the Bible affirm the Homosexual Lifestyle?
by George Sidney Hurd
Can the Bible be interpreted in such a way so as to affirm, rather than condemn, the Gay lifestyle? Only a generation ago Christians of all denominations would have almost unanimously responded to this question in the negative. However, we have witnessed a major culture shift within the past few years, especially among millennials. A poll conducted in 2021 by the Pew Research Center indicated that presently 70% of Catholics and 36% of Evangelicals now affirm the homosexual lifestyle. [1]
Is this recent shift based upon a careful reexamination of the Scriptures on the subject, as some like Matthew Vines would have us believe in his book “God and the Gay Christian,” or is it in fact a suppression of the truth of Scripture in order to justify a sinful lifestyle? How do the Gay advocates explain the numerous passages which have traditionally been understood to be unequivocally condemning of all homosexual activity of any kind? In the following two blogs I will be briefly considering the arguments presented by Vines and others to the effect that God actually approves of homosexual activity as long as it is limited to a committed, monogamous relationship.
Before considering the six primary texts which present homosexuality in a negative light, in this blog I would first like to respond to three superficial arguments commonly presented: 1) The Bible only forbids homosexuality a few times, so it must not be that important, 2) Jesus never condemned homosexual activity, so neither should we, and 3) The term “homosexual” was only recently invented and is therefore unbiblical.
1) The Bible only forbids homosexuality a few times.
I have commonly heard the whole teaching of Scripture against homosexuality swept aside by comments like: “There are only 7 verses out of 31,102 verses in the entire Bible which speak against homosexuality, so it is obviously not that important to God.” Although there are actually more than 7 verses which speak against homosexual activity in the Bible, it is true that not much attention is given to the subject in Scripture.
However, this is a totally fallacious argument. How many times must God forbid something for us to obey? Bestiality is only mentioned 3 times. Does that mean that bestiality is okay? Certainly not! The reason why these activities were not frequently mentioned is because they were regarded by the Jews as abominable acts and rarely practiced. The only times they are mentioned in the Law of Moses is in the form of a prohibition against imitating the abominable practices of the Gentile nations around them (Lev 18:22-29).
Believers are being forced to address this subject more today because Gay activists have become more aggressive in promoting homosexuality in our society and even within our churches. However, as a child growing up in the church in the 1950s, I cannot remember the subject ever having been brought up anywhere. I don’t recall even being aware that there was such a thing as same-sex attraction until I did time in a correctional institution at 12 years of age. The only reason we address the subject more today is because it has become more prevalent in our society.
So, the reason why homosexual activity was not frequently addressed in the Scriptures, is not because it wasn’t an abomination before God, but simply because it was not commonly practiced among the Jews of that time. If homosexual activity had been as common as illicit heterosexual activity, it would no doubt have been mentioned just as frequently as adultery was.
2) Jesus never condemned homosexual activity.
Perhaps the most commonly repeated statement is: “Jesus never condemned homosexual activity so neither should we.” However, that is an argument from silence and in no way indicates that He approved of homosexuality. To argue, for example, that because Jesus only said that looking at a woman to lust after her was adultery, without also condemning same-sex desire, he thereby affirmed homosexual desires, is non-sequitur reasoning.
Again, the primary reason why there is no record of Him explicitly addressing the subject is because homosexuality was so clearly understood to be an abominable practice among the Jews from what is stated in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, and it was so unheard of among them, that the subject never needed to be addressed by Him.
No doubt, if someone were to have brought up the subject, He would have responded saying something like, “Have you never read in the Scriptures?” or “you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures,” just as He did on other occasions. Neither did He speak directly against incest or pedophilia, but very few would argue that He therefore condoned those practices. So, His silence on the subject should not be construed as an affirmation of homosexual behavior, since He consistently affirmed the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures (Matt 5:17-18; Matt 4:4).
However, while Jesus did not make use of the same terms specific to homosexuality that Paul did, He was not entirely silent on the subject. He indicated that, out of the heart of men proceed fornications (Matt 15:19). The word “fornications” (πορνειαι, porneiai) is in the plural form, which would include all forms of fornication. The term porneia is a general term, including all forms of illicit sex. In Kittlel’s exhaustive 10 volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, he demonstrates from secular Greek sources that porneia included homosexual activity. In fact, the substantive πορνos (pornos) means “male prostitute.” Male prostitution (LXX πορνευων, porneuon), was also something specifically condemned in the Old Testament (Deut 23:17; 1Kings 14:24; 15:12).
Additionally, when asked about divorce, Jesus reminded them of God’s original design of a one-flesh lifelong relationship between a male and a female:
“And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ, arsen kai thelu),' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (γυνή gune, lit. “woman”) and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate… 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (πορνείᾳ, porneia) and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt 19:4-6,9)
Jesus here says that, in the beginning God made them male and female, and for that reason a man is to unite with a woman in a lifelong one-flesh union. Man with man or woman with woman is a violation of God’s established order in nature (Rom 1:26-27). The man-woman union in holy matrimony was designed to be complementary in a way not possible in a homosexual relationship. In Genesis 2:18 the word “help meet” in Hebrew is neged ezer. Neged simply means “a mate or counterpart.” The husband-wife relationship is, by divine design, between two who are different emotionally and physiologically and yet complement or complete one another.
Apart from the fact that it is not possible for a homosexual union to fulfill God’s injunction to multiply and fill the earth, the needs of a man, both emotionally and sexually, were intended to be fulfilled by a woman and vice versa. God’s design in marriage is between male and female, husband and wife. I have heard dominant homosexuals refer to their passive mate as their "wife." But the Greek language does not allow for that, since the word for "wife" (γυνή) is gender specific, also meaning "woman."
The female vagina was perfectly designed to receive the male penis, but the rectum was not designed for penetration, and the health consequences of violating God’s natural design are many and severe. Anal sex ruptures the membranes, propagating blood transmissible diseases such as AIDS, Hepatitis B and C, as well as syphilis and other venereal diseases. The risk of anal cancer is 20 times higher than average among HIV negative homosexual/bisexual men and 40 times higher in those who are HIV positive. [2]
So, when Jesus reaffirmed the male/female one-flesh design fixed at creation, He made it clear that the only God ordained sexual union was the male female union between a man and his wife (gune “woman”). He also said that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (πορνείᾳ, porneia), and marries another, commits adultery. We have already seen that porneia covers the whole spectrum of sexual sins, from adultery to homosexuality. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that Jesus was entirely silent on the subject of same-sex relations.
3) The term “homosexual” was only recently invented and is therefore unbiblical
Gay advocates point out that the word “homosexual” didn’t appear in any version of the English Bible until the first edition of the RSV came out in 1946. Since then, most modern translations have also rendered ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites) as “homosexual.” What is the justification of the translators for this recent change of terms?
Prior to 1869, when the word “homosexual” was first coined by the Hungarian author Karl Kertbeny, the English language did not have a precise equivalent to terms used in Scripture such as arsenokoites and malokos. I will be examining the precise biblical meaning of terms such as these in the next blog. But in brief, modern biblical scholarship agrees that the term “homosexual” better expresses the actual meaning of the original words which prohibit relations between persons of the same sex than the words previously used such as “sodomites” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.”
I believe that it would be more precise to define arsenokoites as “a practicing homosexual” since “homosexual” alone could give one the impression that they are sinning just by having homosexual thoughts and desires. One is not an adulterer or a murderer simply because they are tempted with thoughts of adultery or murder. In the same way, we need to distinguish between the temptation to commit a homosexual act, which is not sin until one surrenders their will to it, and one who has actually given himself over to the homosexual lifestyle.
Neither should we categorize someone as an arsenokoites or a malokos just because they struggle and fall from time to time. We all succumb to temptation in certain areas of our lives, but what makes the difference is that we do not embrace or justify our sin. As Solomon said: “Although a righteous person may fall seven times, he gets up again.” That is what marks the difference between a righteous man or woman, and a practicing homosexual or adulterer, etc.
In the next blog we will be considering briefly the six primary passages of Scripture which address the subject of homosexuality (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10). Do the revisionist arguments presented by the Gay advocates merit a redefinition of the historic position of the Church on the subject of homosexuality? While it is easy to feel overwhelmed wading through their extensive and nuanced argumentations which are primarily derived from secular sources, I hope to demonstrate that the Bible speaks clearly on the subject when we simply compare Scripture with Scripture and allow the Scriptures to define their own terms.
Since I have people who are very close to me whom I love very much who have identified themselves as Gay, over the past few years I have poured over volumes written by Gay revisionists in an attempt to understand how they justify their homosexual lifestyle. However, without wanting to be judgmental, I can’t help but conclude that they are simply unwilling to acknowledge the plain truths revealed in Scripture because they don’t affirm their sinful lifestyle. I am reminded of the words of Paul in Romans 1 where he speaks of those “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them” (Rom 1:18-19).
[1] https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-homosexuality/
[2]https://cancer-network.org/cancer-information/Gay-men-and-cancer/anal-cancer-hiv-and-Gaybisexual-men
Can the Bible be interpreted in such a way so as to affirm, rather than condemn, the Gay lifestyle? Only a generation ago Christians of all denominations would have almost unanimously responded to this question in the negative. However, we have witnessed a major culture shift within the past few years, especially among millennials. A poll conducted in 2021 by the Pew Research Center indicated that presently 70% of Catholics and 36% of Evangelicals now affirm the homosexual lifestyle. [1]
Is this recent shift based upon a careful reexamination of the Scriptures on the subject, as some like Matthew Vines would have us believe in his book “God and the Gay Christian,” or is it in fact a suppression of the truth of Scripture in order to justify a sinful lifestyle? How do the Gay advocates explain the numerous passages which have traditionally been understood to be unequivocally condemning of all homosexual activity of any kind? In the following two blogs I will be briefly considering the arguments presented by Vines and others to the effect that God actually approves of homosexual activity as long as it is limited to a committed, monogamous relationship.
Before considering the six primary texts which present homosexuality in a negative light, in this blog I would first like to respond to three superficial arguments commonly presented: 1) The Bible only forbids homosexuality a few times, so it must not be that important, 2) Jesus never condemned homosexual activity, so neither should we, and 3) The term “homosexual” was only recently invented and is therefore unbiblical.
1) The Bible only forbids homosexuality a few times.
I have commonly heard the whole teaching of Scripture against homosexuality swept aside by comments like: “There are only 7 verses out of 31,102 verses in the entire Bible which speak against homosexuality, so it is obviously not that important to God.” Although there are actually more than 7 verses which speak against homosexual activity in the Bible, it is true that not much attention is given to the subject in Scripture.
However, this is a totally fallacious argument. How many times must God forbid something for us to obey? Bestiality is only mentioned 3 times. Does that mean that bestiality is okay? Certainly not! The reason why these activities were not frequently mentioned is because they were regarded by the Jews as abominable acts and rarely practiced. The only times they are mentioned in the Law of Moses is in the form of a prohibition against imitating the abominable practices of the Gentile nations around them (Lev 18:22-29).
Believers are being forced to address this subject more today because Gay activists have become more aggressive in promoting homosexuality in our society and even within our churches. However, as a child growing up in the church in the 1950s, I cannot remember the subject ever having been brought up anywhere. I don’t recall even being aware that there was such a thing as same-sex attraction until I did time in a correctional institution at 12 years of age. The only reason we address the subject more today is because it has become more prevalent in our society.
So, the reason why homosexual activity was not frequently addressed in the Scriptures, is not because it wasn’t an abomination before God, but simply because it was not commonly practiced among the Jews of that time. If homosexual activity had been as common as illicit heterosexual activity, it would no doubt have been mentioned just as frequently as adultery was.
2) Jesus never condemned homosexual activity.
Perhaps the most commonly repeated statement is: “Jesus never condemned homosexual activity so neither should we.” However, that is an argument from silence and in no way indicates that He approved of homosexuality. To argue, for example, that because Jesus only said that looking at a woman to lust after her was adultery, without also condemning same-sex desire, he thereby affirmed homosexual desires, is non-sequitur reasoning.
Again, the primary reason why there is no record of Him explicitly addressing the subject is because homosexuality was so clearly understood to be an abominable practice among the Jews from what is stated in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, and it was so unheard of among them, that the subject never needed to be addressed by Him.
No doubt, if someone were to have brought up the subject, He would have responded saying something like, “Have you never read in the Scriptures?” or “you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures,” just as He did on other occasions. Neither did He speak directly against incest or pedophilia, but very few would argue that He therefore condoned those practices. So, His silence on the subject should not be construed as an affirmation of homosexual behavior, since He consistently affirmed the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures (Matt 5:17-18; Matt 4:4).
However, while Jesus did not make use of the same terms specific to homosexuality that Paul did, He was not entirely silent on the subject. He indicated that, out of the heart of men proceed fornications (Matt 15:19). The word “fornications” (πορνειαι, porneiai) is in the plural form, which would include all forms of fornication. The term porneia is a general term, including all forms of illicit sex. In Kittlel’s exhaustive 10 volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, he demonstrates from secular Greek sources that porneia included homosexual activity. In fact, the substantive πορνos (pornos) means “male prostitute.” Male prostitution (LXX πορνευων, porneuon), was also something specifically condemned in the Old Testament (Deut 23:17; 1Kings 14:24; 15:12).
Additionally, when asked about divorce, Jesus reminded them of God’s original design of a one-flesh lifelong relationship between a male and a female:
“And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ, arsen kai thelu),' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (γυνή gune, lit. “woman”) and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate… 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (πορνείᾳ, porneia) and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt 19:4-6,9)
Jesus here says that, in the beginning God made them male and female, and for that reason a man is to unite with a woman in a lifelong one-flesh union. Man with man or woman with woman is a violation of God’s established order in nature (Rom 1:26-27). The man-woman union in holy matrimony was designed to be complementary in a way not possible in a homosexual relationship. In Genesis 2:18 the word “help meet” in Hebrew is neged ezer. Neged simply means “a mate or counterpart.” The husband-wife relationship is, by divine design, between two who are different emotionally and physiologically and yet complement or complete one another.
Apart from the fact that it is not possible for a homosexual union to fulfill God’s injunction to multiply and fill the earth, the needs of a man, both emotionally and sexually, were intended to be fulfilled by a woman and vice versa. God’s design in marriage is between male and female, husband and wife. I have heard dominant homosexuals refer to their passive mate as their "wife." But the Greek language does not allow for that, since the word for "wife" (γυνή) is gender specific, also meaning "woman."
The female vagina was perfectly designed to receive the male penis, but the rectum was not designed for penetration, and the health consequences of violating God’s natural design are many and severe. Anal sex ruptures the membranes, propagating blood transmissible diseases such as AIDS, Hepatitis B and C, as well as syphilis and other venereal diseases. The risk of anal cancer is 20 times higher than average among HIV negative homosexual/bisexual men and 40 times higher in those who are HIV positive. [2]
So, when Jesus reaffirmed the male/female one-flesh design fixed at creation, He made it clear that the only God ordained sexual union was the male female union between a man and his wife (gune “woman”). He also said that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (πορνείᾳ, porneia), and marries another, commits adultery. We have already seen that porneia covers the whole spectrum of sexual sins, from adultery to homosexuality. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that Jesus was entirely silent on the subject of same-sex relations.
3) The term “homosexual” was only recently invented and is therefore unbiblical
Gay advocates point out that the word “homosexual” didn’t appear in any version of the English Bible until the first edition of the RSV came out in 1946. Since then, most modern translations have also rendered ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites) as “homosexual.” What is the justification of the translators for this recent change of terms?
Prior to 1869, when the word “homosexual” was first coined by the Hungarian author Karl Kertbeny, the English language did not have a precise equivalent to terms used in Scripture such as arsenokoites and malokos. I will be examining the precise biblical meaning of terms such as these in the next blog. But in brief, modern biblical scholarship agrees that the term “homosexual” better expresses the actual meaning of the original words which prohibit relations between persons of the same sex than the words previously used such as “sodomites” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.”
I believe that it would be more precise to define arsenokoites as “a practicing homosexual” since “homosexual” alone could give one the impression that they are sinning just by having homosexual thoughts and desires. One is not an adulterer or a murderer simply because they are tempted with thoughts of adultery or murder. In the same way, we need to distinguish between the temptation to commit a homosexual act, which is not sin until one surrenders their will to it, and one who has actually given himself over to the homosexual lifestyle.
Neither should we categorize someone as an arsenokoites or a malokos just because they struggle and fall from time to time. We all succumb to temptation in certain areas of our lives, but what makes the difference is that we do not embrace or justify our sin. As Solomon said: “Although a righteous person may fall seven times, he gets up again.” That is what marks the difference between a righteous man or woman, and a practicing homosexual or adulterer, etc.
In the next blog we will be considering briefly the six primary passages of Scripture which address the subject of homosexuality (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10). Do the revisionist arguments presented by the Gay advocates merit a redefinition of the historic position of the Church on the subject of homosexuality? While it is easy to feel overwhelmed wading through their extensive and nuanced argumentations which are primarily derived from secular sources, I hope to demonstrate that the Bible speaks clearly on the subject when we simply compare Scripture with Scripture and allow the Scriptures to define their own terms.
Since I have people who are very close to me whom I love very much who have identified themselves as Gay, over the past few years I have poured over volumes written by Gay revisionists in an attempt to understand how they justify their homosexual lifestyle. However, without wanting to be judgmental, I can’t help but conclude that they are simply unwilling to acknowledge the plain truths revealed in Scripture because they don’t affirm their sinful lifestyle. I am reminded of the words of Paul in Romans 1 where he speaks of those “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them” (Rom 1:18-19).
[1] https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-homosexuality/
[2]https://cancer-network.org/cancer-information/Gay-men-and-cancer/anal-cancer-hiv-and-Gaybisexual-men
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
How can God’s unconditional love for all be seen to be in harmony with His hatred?
(The following is an excerpt from the book, The Triumph of Mercy).
With the exception of a few dissenters, the Church of the Dark Ages lost sight of the Scriptural revelation of God as a God of Love. The fear of a vindictive, hateful god ruled the day. The masses were fed a steady diet of sermons picturing God as an angry vengeful god who must be placated by sacrifices and offerings to the Church. Graphic paintings and dramatizations of Dante’s hell served the Church well to fill the coffers and maintain the masses in fearful subjection.
The great reformer Martin Luther was tormented as a young man by fear of a hateful, vindictive, God and the torments of hell. While riding horseback he was almost struck by lightning and, understanding it to be a manifestation of the wrath of God, he swore he would become a monk. However, in spite of all his sacrifices and disciplined life, he always felt unworthy and fearful of God and an eternal flaming hell.
His transforming revelation came while he was doing penances as a monk, going up the steps to a cathedral on his knees. As he engaged in this exercise, his understanding was enlightened to the truth of Romans 1:17: “The just shall live by faith.” At that moment he discovered the truth of justification by grace through faith in the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This revelation would set in motion what we know today as the Reformation Movement.
However, in spite of the fact that he had discovered God’s love and forgiveness, in many ways he remained fettered by the Augustinian Dark Ages concept of God. Although he had experienced the transforming power of the love of God in his own life, because of his remaining roots in the traditional doctrines of the Church, he still maintained that God hated the majority of mankind. We can observe this in his writings. He said:
“The love and hate of God towards men are immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made; [so] all things take place in us of necessity, according as He has from eternity loved or not loved... Faith and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God” [i]
According to Luther, and even some Christians to this very day, God has an eternal hatred towards the majority of mankind. And what’s worse, they say that He will never get over it – it is immutable. He will forever hate. Sadly, many Christians are uncompromising in their insistence that God is eternal hate and eternal wrath. They choose to compromise and contradict the love of God in order to protect their image of a hateful, angry God. However, as we have already seen, it is God’s love that never ceases and not His hatred and wrath:
“Love never ends…” (1Cor 13:8 ESV)
“For I will not contend forever, nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, and the souls which I have made.” (Isa 57:16)
“For the Lord will not cast off forever. 32 Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. 33 For He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33)
God is love. Love never ceases. Love does not willingly cause grief as hatred does. It is compassionate and only afflicts for the purpose of correction – for removing the evil which is the object of holy paternal hatred. The Lord will not cast off forever, as would be the case if His hatred were eternal and directed against the individual and not against the sin.
God is love, and therefore He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men. Because He is love, He will not always be angry but will bring about reconciliation for all. Note that the children of men and the souls which I have made, refers to all mankind and not just the elect. The Calvinists would say that He will eternally torment the children of men whom He has created, not only willingly, but for His own pleasure. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
“Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only… The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (emphasis mine).” [ii]
According to them, God who is love, chose to redeem the elect only. This contradiction of divine character defies imagination. That is why they call it “the unsearchable counsel of His own will.” For the rest (90%), God was pleased to withhold mercy, reserving them for eternal torture for His own pleasure, and that is said to result in “the praise of His glorious justice.”? This outdoes all the pagan gods such as Zeus, Dagon or Molech. At least they didn’t claim to be love.
Based upon the overall testimony of Scripture, I believe that God is love and therefore does not willingly afflict the children of men. I also firmly believe that we can say, based upon the Scriptures, that God loves the sinner while hating the sin. However, there are those who insist that God indeed hates the sinner and they even have texts which seem to back up their affirmation. There are three passages which refer to God’s hatred towards certain individuals. They are the following:
“The Lord tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.” (Ps 11:5)
“These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.” (Prov 6:16-19)
“As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” (Rom 9:13, cf. Mal 1:2-3)
How are we to understand these statements in the light of God’s nature as revealed throughout the Scriptures? Here we see clearly declared God’s hatred towards sinners. Hatred, in its strongest sense, would be antonymous with love. The two are mutually exclusive. Does God really hate the sinner as we understand hatred? No. We can clearly see in numerous passages that God also loves the sinner. That is what redemption is all about. Paul makes it clear that God loves us even as sinners:
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:8)
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that through Him we might have eternal life. To say that God hated us, as we understand hatred, would make it impossible for Him to love us, sending His only begotten Son to reconcile us to Himself.
Furthermore, Jesus tells us that we are like our Father in heaven when we love our enemies instead of hating them:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matt 5:43-45)
How are we to reconcile these passages declaring that God hates the sinner with the abundance of Scriptures that clearly declare God’s love for all? There are two considerations which harmonize the two seemingly antonymous statements: 1) The meaning of the word hate in the original text and 2) The temporary nature of His hatred.
Hate Defined
The Hebrew word for hatred in the Old Testament passages is śā·nē. Vines Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words, reveals that there are two different senses in which the word is employed:
“Sā·nē represents an emotion ranging from intense ‘hatred’ to the much weaker ‘set against’ and is used of persons and things (including ideas, words, inanimate objects).” [iii]
God’s hatred towards sinners is obviously in the milder sense of being “set against” an individual because of their sin and rebellion. Understanding it in this sense, we can readily identify with this emotion even towards our own children when they defy us or misbehave.
With this understanding in mind, let us personalize this hatred, expressing it towards our own children when they are disobedient. Applying the seven things the Lord hates in Proverbs 6 we could say: “I set myself against my child and do not tolerate it when he misbehaves. I will not tolerate it when he looks at me with defiance, when he lies, when he bullies his little brothers and sisters or causes them to fight among themselves, etc.”
If they were children of a stranger, we would actually be less likely to intervene in such a way, since they are not our responsibility. Understanding the Hebrew word śā·nē in this sense, we see that it is actually an intervention of love towards another and not pure hatred, which would of itself exclude love. It is the act of setting oneself against someone, opposing them in order to correct their behavior. This is God’s purpose in all of His corrective punishments – He opposes us, setting Himself against us in order to separate us from evil:
“For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6)
As to the statement, “God loves the sinner while hating the sin,” traditionalists would say that one cannot separate the sin from the sinner. However, that is precisely what God does in discipline:
“The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 18 ‘Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to Me; they are all bronze, tin, iron, and lead, in the midst of a furnace; they have become dross from silver. 19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Because you have all become dross, therefore behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 20 As men gather silver, bronze, iron, lead, and tin into the midst of a furnace, to blow fire on it, to melt it; so I will gather you in My anger and in My fury, and I will leave you there and melt you. 21 Yes, I will gather you and blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and you shall be melted in its midst. 22 As silver is melted in the midst of a furnace, so shall you be melted in its midst; then you shall know that I, the Lord, have poured out My fury on you… Therefore I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; and I have recompensed their deeds on their own heads,’ says the Lord God.” (Ezek 22:17-23,31)
Here we see that God’s hatred and even His wrath against His beloved Israel is in the form of the purifying fires of affliction. God sets Himself against His people and throws them into the fire as silver, bronze, or lead. But the furnace of fire is in order to separate the dross or scum from their lives. The end result is that they come forth from the furnace pure and separate from sin. Just as a loving father disciplines his son, His hatred is actually His love acting against the sin in their lives. The end result is the peaceable fruit of righteousness, as we can see further along in Ezekiel 36:
“For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezek 36:24-26)
The end result of God’s opposition towards Israel is that they become cleansed of all their filthiness and are given a new heart. The same could be said concerning his affliction of any of the children of men whom He has created. He does not willingly afflict nor grieve them. What He does, He does only for their own benefit. Therefore, we can see that God’s hatred, correctly defined, refers to God’s dealing with His wayward, rebellious children, and is in no way incompatible with love.
We have also seen from God’s dealings with Israel that it is indeed possible to separate the sinner from the sin. That is precisely the purpose for the furnace of fire. Hell is not a place designed for meaningless torment for God’s pleasure and the praise of His glorious justice, as the traditionalists claim, but is rather a purifying furnace. In His time, His corrective opposition will have done its work in each individual, and the lake of fire, having served its purpose, will cease to exist along with the last enemy, the second death.
This brings us to the second consideration, which reveals that God’s hatred, rightly understood, is not incompatible with His loving nature.
The Temporal Nature of God’s Hatred
It is God’s love that never ceases. We have seen that His anger, wrath and even His abandonment are temporal and for our correction. He will not cast off forever (Lam 3:31-33). All death – even the second death, the last enemy – will finally be done away with, having served its purpose.
The hatred of God will also cease when sin is finally and eternally separated from the last sinner, and when every knee will have bowed and all will have become subject to Him. There is no such thing as an eternal dualism in the plan of God for the ages. He will not always be angry, eternally lashing 90% of His creatures in an eternal torture chamber which He was pleased to create for the praise of the glory of His justice. That is an invention of Greek mythology and a hangover from the Dark Ages that has been read into Christian theology, having been inspired by demons.
We can see from Scriptures that God will overcome those He “hates” by the power of His infinite love. Rather than eternally tormenting His enemies, He reconciles them to himself by the blood of His cross:
“Say to God, ‘how awesome are Your works! Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You; they shall sing praises to Your name’.” (Ps 66:3-4)
“and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:20)
“Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:28)
Therefore, when all become subject to Christ, having been reconciled to God through His own blood shed upon the cross, Christ will then subject Himself to the Father, and from that point on, God shall eternally be all in all. All His anger, hatred, and wrath, which were His holy loving nature acting against sin, will no longer have an environment in which to manifest. We, however, will retain the knowledge of His hatred of evil – something that Adam and Eve had no comprehension of.
Also, His grace, mercy, compassion, and longsuffering will cease to manifest, since the only environment in which they could become evident was in the context of man’s fall and his sinful condition. Our comprehension of good and evil with its awful consequences, followed by God’s grace and mercy, made freely available by His sacrifice of love on the cross, will be retained in our hearts as an invaluable and eternal treasure of the experiential knowledge of God’s love – something Adam and Eve in their primitive state of innocence had no way of imagining.
Entering the eternal state, when God shall be all in all, we will finally understand the manifold wisdom of God in creation. We will understand why He created Lucifer, why he set before man the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, knowing beforehand that they would fall. We will also see before us the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world for the reconciliation of all creation – and the calling out of an elect people to be the firstfruits of His new creation in Christ, the preordained Last Adam. We will also see how we, the Church, the assembly of the elect, were chosen to be ambassadors of reconciliation for the rest of creation. We will finally see the last knee bow in humble loving submission to Christ, at which time Christ will deliver all to the Father and then, for all eternity, God will be all in all.
All found their origin in Him (Col 1:16 lit. “in Him”), they exist by Him, and they will finally return to Him, and He will then be all in all. “For of (ek) Him and through (dia) Him and to (eis) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36).
The Relative Nature of Godly Hatred
We further see that the hatred we are told by Jesus we must have in order to be His disciples is not absolute, in the sense that we as sinners often manifest hatred towards God and our fellow man. The people Jesus commands us to hate are the very ones we are elsewhere commanded to love:
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
We are commanded to love and honor our parents (Matt 19:19; Eph 6:2). We are to love our wives even as Christ loves the Church (Eph 5:25). We are to exercise brotherly love, loving our neighbors as ourselves (Rom 12:10). If we were to understand hate in its absolute sense, as do our traditional brethren, then we would be confronted with a blatant contradiction.
However, Matthew’s account interprets what Jesus meant when He told us we must hate others in order to be His disciples:
“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (Matt 10:37)
Matthew’s rendering of Jesus’ words should make it very clear what He meant by hate. When we love someone with all our hearts, our lives revolve around that person, and all we want to do is please him. It is good and right that we should love our parents, our mates, our children and brothers. It is even right that we should love ourselves in the way that God loves us. However, our first love is to be reserved for God as we also see commanded by Jesus:
“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31)
Here we see that our love for our fellow man is commanded, but it must be subordinate to our first love – our love for God. Therefore, when someone we love would have us do something against the One we love the most, we must set ourselves against that individual, even though we love them as well, in order to do the will of God - our first love. Here again we see the word hate used in the sense of “setting oneself against” the individual who would impose his will upon us in opposition to the will of God.
We also see the same idea expressed concerning God’s hatred towards Esau:
“As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” (Rom 9:13, cf. Mal 1:2-3)
Paul explains that God’s hatred was not based upon something Esau had done during his lifetime but rather was solely based upon His sovereign election (Rom 9:11). He chose Jacob over Esau before they had even been born in order that they both might fulfill a specific purpose. Just as He hardened Pharaoh in order to fulfill a specific temporal purpose in His plan for Israel, God chose Jacob over Esau.
However, as we have already seen, election is not to the eternal exclusion of the non-elect; rather, they are chosen to be light for the reconciliation of the rest of creation. Paul, in response to those who would question the Lord’s justice in choosing some and passing over others, says that God, in the outworking of His own purposes, has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens (Rom 9:18). However, we see that, in the overall plan of God for the ages, He has determined to ultimately have mercy on all without exception:
“For God has committed them [iv] all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all…. 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:32,36) [v]
We can also see that the hatred God showed toward Esau—in choosing Jacob instead—is not different in nature from the hatred Jesus said we must have toward those we are also commanded to love. It is evident that Esau was also loved and favored, even though, temporally speaking, not to the degree Jacob was. We see God’s favor and love for Esau demonstrated when the time came for Israel, Jacob’s descendants, to enter the land of Canaan:
“And the Lord spoke to me, saying: 3 ‘You have skirted this mountain long enough; turn northward. 4 And command the people, saying, ‘You are about to pass through the territory of your brethren, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. Therefore watch yourselves carefully. 5 Do not meddle with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as one footstep, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.” (Dt 2:2-5)
Obviously, if God had hated Esau in the way we often do as sinners, He wouldn’t have given him any possession as an inheritance. Therefore, God’s hatred must be understood in the light of His eternal nature. God is love. Therefore, all that He does is ultimately rooted and grounded in His love. His hatred, anger, wrath, and rejection are all part of His loving response to the evil within us. This response disciplines us, even casting some into the lake of fire, so that everyone may ultimately partake of the peaceable fruit of righteousness. God does not hate individuals in the way that we, as sinners, hate those who wrong us. His hatred is His opposition to our sinful actions, and it becomes favor as soon as the sin has been separated from the object of His love.
[i] Martin Luther: The Bondage of the Will, pp. 226, 228-229.
[ii] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 3 — Articles 6 and 7.
[iii] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
[iv] “them” is not in the original Greek text, but was added by the translators.
[v] Our English word “things” does not have an equivalent in Greek. Neither does the neuter form in Greek always indicate objects as in English. When the translators insert “things” in contexts that are evidently referring primarily to persons and not inanimate objects I take the liberty to cross it out in order to keep the focus where it belongs.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
--
In the previous blog we saw that God loves simply because He is love – not because of something He sees in the objects of His love. In fact, He unconditionally loves all, including His enemies, and we are enjoined by Christ to likewise love our enemies in order that we may be children of our Father in heaven (Matt 5:44-48).
Therefore, those of us who believe in the whole testimony of the Scriptures, must seek to understand how these clear declarations concerning the unconditional nature of God’s love complement, rather than contradict, other statements in Scripture which place conditions upon God’s unconditional love. How can God’s love be understood as unconditional while at the same time being conditional? Jesus Himself, while teaching that God loves all unconditionally, on more than one occasion presented His love as being conditioned upon our response to His love. Here are the main examples:
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (Jn 14:21)
“for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God.” (Jn 16:27)
“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.” (Jn 14:23-24)
All of the above statements indicate that there is a certain conditionality to God’s love. Many a casual reader would say that they are two distinct and irreconcilable truth-claims and conclude that Jesus was simply contradicting Himself. Others either ignore the unconditional passages, claiming that God only loves those who fulfill certain conditions, while those of the other extreme ignore the conditions altogether, claiming that God’s love is entirely one sided and that our lack of reciprocation does not in any way affect our relationship with God.
However, if we believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and that the entirety of His Word is truth (2Tim 3:16; Psa 119:160; Jn 17:17), we will often discover that what at first seems to be paradoxical and even contradictory, can actually be seen to be a complementary truth when rightly understood.
Keeping in mind that God, being love personified, loves all, including His enemies, it becomes evident that Jesus is saying that, while God loves all unconditionally, and nothing we have done or can do will change that, nevertheless, if we want to experience His love in a love relationship with Him, there are conditions.
If you want to positively experience His love as love, you must first love the Son and believe that the Father sent Him (Jn 16:27). In fact, Jesus warned those who were unwilling to recognize Him for who He was, being God the Son incarnate, the Savior of the world, that they would die in their sins unless they believed (Jn 8:24). Does that mean that God did not love them? No! God is love, and His love never ceases, and it is over all His works (Psa 145:9-10). However, they will not know His love until they receive His Son and have the love of God poured out in their hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5).
While God even loves the ungodly, Jesus said that if we want to experience His love in relationship with Him, we must keep His Word. That is what Jude meant when he said that we are to keep ourselves in the love of God, even though nothing nor anyone can ever separate us from His love, ontologically speaking (Jude 21; Rom 8:35-39). God’s love never ceases, but if we don’t obey His Word, we will not experience it as love, but rather it will manifest in the form of discipline or judgments which don’t seem like love to those who are undergoing them (Heb 12:10-11; 1Cor 11:31-32).
I find it helpful to keep in mind the fact that God’s love towards mankind is spoken of as being a paternal love. God is said to be the Father of the whole family, both in heaven and on earth, and He therefore loves all unconditionally, including His enemies (Eph 3:14-15; Mal 2:10; Matt 5:44-45).
Most of us understand paternal love to be unconditional. My parents weren’t perfect, but I always knew that they loved me and wanted the best for me, even during my rebellious years when I shamed their good name and caused them so much grief. I knew that nothing would have gladdened their hearts more than for me to come to myself and return home to them.
The parable of the Prodigal son illustrates beautifully the Father’s heart towards His wayward children. Although the Prodigal son did not appreciate his father’s love for him and didn’t enjoy his father’s love experientially in the far country, the father’s love for him had not diminished in the least. Some of my readers may have been abandoned by their earthly fathers, and others may have even been abandoned by their own mother. But Jesus said that we are evil fathers in comparison to our heavenly Father who is perfect love (Matt 7:9-11). The psalmist said: “When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take care of me” (Ps 27:10). Such is the Father’s love for us. To those of you who have been abandoned by your mother, Isaiah speaks these words:
“Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb?
Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you.” (Isa 49:15)
The amazing thing is that God spoke these words to His people at a time when He was judging them for their abominable deeds, including even sacrificing their own children as burnt offerings to Moloch. While it was necessary for God to judge them severely because they failed to heed His warnings through the prophets, He wanted them to know that His love for them was unconditional – even beyond a mother’s love for her own child!
Did they experience His love in a loving relationship while they were being invaded by their enemies and taken captive? No. But, did God’s love for them diminish during that time? Certainly not! For those of you who have children, I would ask: Were you ever angry with them because of their disobedience? Did you ever discipline them? Did your anger and disciplinary action mean you had stopped loving them? Quite the contrary! If you were not angered and failed to correct their rebellious actions, it would be an indication that you did not really love them (Pr 13:24).
The fact that your child is not enjoying a loving relationship with you while being disciplined by you, does not mean that you do not love him unconditionally. It is the same way in our relationship with God: “whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Heb 12:6 cf. Pr 3:12). Would the child interpret His anger and discipline as loving them? Probably not. But that does not mean that he does not love them, but simply that they are not experiencing His love as love toward them at the moment, but rather as discipline.
Just as with the father in the parable of the Prodigal son, God will at times give people over to their own desires, since they do not desire to retain the knowledge of Him (Rom 1:24-28). But does He ever stop loving them? No. He is even at times said to have indignation towards them because of their obstinate rebellion, and He may give them over to a reprobate mind (lit. “disapproved mind”) and cast them off for a time, but not forever, because He is love, and His love never ceases. He said of rebellious Israel, after assuring them in Isaiah 49 that His love for them is more faithful and enduring than that of a mother:
“With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer.” (Isa 54:8)
So we see that, even in His wrath, His love for us never ceases. Even when He withdraws His presence and lets us suffer the consequences of our own stubborn willfulness, He will never reject anyone forever because His love never ceases. As Jeremiah said to Israel in Lamentations when they were undergoing God’s severe judgments and felt that God had forever abandoned them:
“The Lord will not cast off forever. 32 Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. 33 For He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33, cf. Mic 7:18).
For my Calvinist friends who would argue that this promise only applies to the elect, I would point out that when Jeremiah says, “the children of men,” it speaks of the whole world of humanity and not just the elect of Israel. Here we see that God only casts off the obstinately wicked from His presence for a time in discipline as a last resort: He does not afflict anyone nor grieve them willingly, because He loves us all unconditionally in spite of our rebellion, just as any loving father loves his children, except that He loves us infinitely more than any father ever could.
So, taking into consideration all that we have seen, it becomes apparent that, when Jesus said that “God will love us if…,” or that “He loves us because…,” He does not mean that God stops loving us when we are disobedient – it simply means that we will not experience His love as love in a loving relationship. On the contrary, His disobedient children experience His correction and broken communion rather than His loving embrace. However, as soon as one of His children repents of His sin and rebellion, the Father again receives him with hugs and kisses, because He has always loved us with an everlasting unconditional love.
In the next blog, I will consider the passages which indicate that God hates some, while loving others. Some of our Calvinist brethren understand this as meaning that God only loves the elect and actually hates all those whom He has not sovereignly chosen unto salvation. Such a view must deny or explain away all that we have seen so far in these two blogs concerning the universal scope of God’s unconditional love. Does God really hate in the sense that sinful man shows hatred towards his enemies? That is what we will be considering in the next blog.
--
In the previous blog we saw that God loves simply because He is love – not because of something He sees in the objects of His love. In fact, He unconditionally loves all, including His enemies, and we are enjoined by Christ to likewise love our enemies in order that we may be children of our Father in heaven (Matt 5:44-48).
Therefore, those of us who believe in the whole testimony of the Scriptures, must seek to understand how these clear declarations concerning the unconditional nature of God’s love complement, rather than contradict, other statements in Scripture which place conditions upon God’s unconditional love. How can God’s love be understood as unconditional while at the same time being conditional? Jesus Himself, while teaching that God loves all unconditionally, on more than one occasion presented His love as being conditioned upon our response to His love. Here are the main examples:
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (Jn 14:21)
“for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God.” (Jn 16:27)
“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.” (Jn 14:23-24)
All of the above statements indicate that there is a certain conditionality to God’s love. Many a casual reader would say that they are two distinct and irreconcilable truth-claims and conclude that Jesus was simply contradicting Himself. Others either ignore the unconditional passages, claiming that God only loves those who fulfill certain conditions, while those of the other extreme ignore the conditions altogether, claiming that God’s love is entirely one sided and that our lack of reciprocation does not in any way affect our relationship with God.
However, if we believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and that the entirety of His Word is truth (2Tim 3:16; Psa 119:160; Jn 17:17), we will often discover that what at first seems to be paradoxical and even contradictory, can actually be seen to be a complementary truth when rightly understood.
Keeping in mind that God, being love personified, loves all, including His enemies, it becomes evident that Jesus is saying that, while God loves all unconditionally, and nothing we have done or can do will change that, nevertheless, if we want to experience His love in a love relationship with Him, there are conditions.
If you want to positively experience His love as love, you must first love the Son and believe that the Father sent Him (Jn 16:27). In fact, Jesus warned those who were unwilling to recognize Him for who He was, being God the Son incarnate, the Savior of the world, that they would die in their sins unless they believed (Jn 8:24). Does that mean that God did not love them? No! God is love, and His love never ceases, and it is over all His works (Psa 145:9-10). However, they will not know His love until they receive His Son and have the love of God poured out in their hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5).
While God even loves the ungodly, Jesus said that if we want to experience His love in relationship with Him, we must keep His Word. That is what Jude meant when he said that we are to keep ourselves in the love of God, even though nothing nor anyone can ever separate us from His love, ontologically speaking (Jude 21; Rom 8:35-39). God’s love never ceases, but if we don’t obey His Word, we will not experience it as love, but rather it will manifest in the form of discipline or judgments which don’t seem like love to those who are undergoing them (Heb 12:10-11; 1Cor 11:31-32).
I find it helpful to keep in mind the fact that God’s love towards mankind is spoken of as being a paternal love. God is said to be the Father of the whole family, both in heaven and on earth, and He therefore loves all unconditionally, including His enemies (Eph 3:14-15; Mal 2:10; Matt 5:44-45).
Most of us understand paternal love to be unconditional. My parents weren’t perfect, but I always knew that they loved me and wanted the best for me, even during my rebellious years when I shamed their good name and caused them so much grief. I knew that nothing would have gladdened their hearts more than for me to come to myself and return home to them.
The parable of the Prodigal son illustrates beautifully the Father’s heart towards His wayward children. Although the Prodigal son did not appreciate his father’s love for him and didn’t enjoy his father’s love experientially in the far country, the father’s love for him had not diminished in the least. Some of my readers may have been abandoned by their earthly fathers, and others may have even been abandoned by their own mother. But Jesus said that we are evil fathers in comparison to our heavenly Father who is perfect love (Matt 7:9-11). The psalmist said: “When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take care of me” (Ps 27:10). Such is the Father’s love for us. To those of you who have been abandoned by your mother, Isaiah speaks these words:
“Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb?
Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you.” (Isa 49:15)
The amazing thing is that God spoke these words to His people at a time when He was judging them for their abominable deeds, including even sacrificing their own children as burnt offerings to Moloch. While it was necessary for God to judge them severely because they failed to heed His warnings through the prophets, He wanted them to know that His love for them was unconditional – even beyond a mother’s love for her own child!
Did they experience His love in a loving relationship while they were being invaded by their enemies and taken captive? No. But, did God’s love for them diminish during that time? Certainly not! For those of you who have children, I would ask: Were you ever angry with them because of their disobedience? Did you ever discipline them? Did your anger and disciplinary action mean you had stopped loving them? Quite the contrary! If you were not angered and failed to correct their rebellious actions, it would be an indication that you did not really love them (Pr 13:24).
The fact that your child is not enjoying a loving relationship with you while being disciplined by you, does not mean that you do not love him unconditionally. It is the same way in our relationship with God: “whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Heb 12:6 cf. Pr 3:12). Would the child interpret His anger and discipline as loving them? Probably not. But that does not mean that he does not love them, but simply that they are not experiencing His love as love toward them at the moment, but rather as discipline.
Just as with the father in the parable of the Prodigal son, God will at times give people over to their own desires, since they do not desire to retain the knowledge of Him (Rom 1:24-28). But does He ever stop loving them? No. He is even at times said to have indignation towards them because of their obstinate rebellion, and He may give them over to a reprobate mind (lit. “disapproved mind”) and cast them off for a time, but not forever, because He is love, and His love never ceases. He said of rebellious Israel, after assuring them in Isaiah 49 that His love for them is more faithful and enduring than that of a mother:
“With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer.” (Isa 54:8)
So we see that, even in His wrath, His love for us never ceases. Even when He withdraws His presence and lets us suffer the consequences of our own stubborn willfulness, He will never reject anyone forever because His love never ceases. As Jeremiah said to Israel in Lamentations when they were undergoing God’s severe judgments and felt that God had forever abandoned them:
“The Lord will not cast off forever. 32 Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. 33 For He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33, cf. Mic 7:18).
For my Calvinist friends who would argue that this promise only applies to the elect, I would point out that when Jeremiah says, “the children of men,” it speaks of the whole world of humanity and not just the elect of Israel. Here we see that God only casts off the obstinately wicked from His presence for a time in discipline as a last resort: He does not afflict anyone nor grieve them willingly, because He loves us all unconditionally in spite of our rebellion, just as any loving father loves his children, except that He loves us infinitely more than any father ever could.
So, taking into consideration all that we have seen, it becomes apparent that, when Jesus said that “God will love us if…,” or that “He loves us because…,” He does not mean that God stops loving us when we are disobedient – it simply means that we will not experience His love as love in a loving relationship. On the contrary, His disobedient children experience His correction and broken communion rather than His loving embrace. However, as soon as one of His children repents of His sin and rebellion, the Father again receives him with hugs and kisses, because He has always loved us with an everlasting unconditional love.
In the next blog, I will consider the passages which indicate that God hates some, while loving others. Some of our Calvinist brethren understand this as meaning that God only loves the elect and actually hates all those whom He has not sovereignly chosen unto salvation. Such a view must deny or explain away all that we have seen so far in these two blogs concerning the universal scope of God’s unconditional love. Does God really hate in the sense that sinful man shows hatred towards his enemies? That is what we will be considering in the next blog.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
Do the Scriptures present God’s love as being conditioned upon our behavior, or is it unconditional? Does He love everyone universally, or does He only love those who love Him in return?
John presents love as being the essential attribute of God’s very nature (1Jn 4:8,16). Is His love for all therefore infinite, eternal and indivisible from all His other attributes, or does His love somehow cease in a heartbeat for those who didn’t appropriately correspond to His love while still living?
Those of us who believe in a universal restoration of all have less difficulty embracing the concept of God’s unconditional love. But Traditionalists who believe that those who, for one reason or other, do not positively respond to His love in this life will afterwards be subjected to His wrath forever, are faced with a logical and moral dilemma, and they typically either deny that His love is unconditional or else deny that His love for all is eternal. Some actually become indignant when they hear someone glorying in the love of God towards all.
While admittedly, many have misrepresented God’s love as being permissive and affirming of people living in willful sin, others have overreacted to this extreme by limiting God’s love, just as they often do with God’s grace.
Since I consider this to be such an important subject, being that it determines how we perceive God and relate to Him, in the next couple of blogs I will be considering what the Scriptures actually have to say concerning this vitally important subject.
The Unconditional Love of God
Those who deny that God’s love for us is unconditional often begin by pointing out that the term “unconditional love” never appears, per se, in Scripture. However, they themselves make use of terms such as “unmerited love,” “abounding love” and “sacrificial love,” terms which likewise are not found in the Scriptures, yet all would acknowledge that they are descriptive of God’s love. The real question we must answer is whether or not God’s love is presented as being unconditional in Scripture, and I hope to demonstrate that it most certainly is. In the very declaration of John where he said that God is love, he defines His love as not being conditioned upon anything in us. He said:
“God is love… 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1Jn 4:8,10)
Here we see that God loves simply because He is love, not because the objects of His love fulfilled some preconditions. If love is conditional, what condition did we fulfill in order for God to love us and send His Son to be the propitiating sacrifice for our sins? I would remind those who would argue that this verse only applies to the elect, that He also loved the whole world and made propitiation even for those whom He knew would not correspond to His love this side of the grave (Jn 3:16; 1Jn 2:2). He loved us while we were yet dead in our trespasses and sins. In Romans, Paul is even more emphatic in stating that, in contrast to man’s love, God’s love is unconditional, when He says:
“For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:6-8)
The greatest demonstration of God’s unconditional love was when He sent His Son to die for us, being ungodly sinners. Rather than us fulfilling a precondition in order to merit His love, He showed His love toward us even while we were His enemies (Rom 5:10). Jesus further tells us that if we want to be like our Father in heaven, we must likewise love our enemies. He said:
“You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matt 5:43-48)
Conditional love only loves those who love us in return. But Jesus says that, if we only love in that way, then we are no different than the tax collectors, since even they love those who love them in return. We only become perfected in the love of the Father when we love even our enemies, just as He does. Conditional love says, “I love you because…,” “I will love you if…” or “I will love you as long as…” But unconditional love says, “nothing you can do or say will cause me to stop loving you.” Every human being – indeed, every rational being, has an innate need for unconditional love which only God can supply, yet religion all too often robs us of the assurance of His love for us.
Some Calvinists, when confronted with the undeniably unconditional nature of the Father’s love in this passage, attempt to categorize the love of God, saying, “Yes God has a ‘general love’ for His enemies in that he sends the rain, even upon the unjust, but it is not the ‘effectual or redemptive love,’ which He has towards His elect only.” According to this view, God loves His enemies unconditionally until they draw their last breath, but then His unconditional love somehow becomes unending wrath the moment they die.
They argue that God’s justice requires His eternal wrath. While that is a subject beyond the scope of this blog, God’s attributes are indivisible. His love and His justice have never been in conflict with each other due to the fact that Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on the cross has eternally been an accomplished reality with God. Jesus was the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). His righteousness and peace kissed one another at the cross, reconciling all of creation unto Himself (Psa 85:10; Col 1:16,20). God was demonstrated to have been just in justifying those who previously sinned at the cross when Christ became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (Rom 3:25-26 ). And the gospel is said to be eonian (Rev 14:6). Whatever that means, it certainly means that it continues being good news beyond one’s last breath (1Peter 4:6). The blood of Christ does not have an expiration date (Heb 9:12; 7:25).
God’s love even reaches beyond the grave into Sheol or Hades itself. Since God is love and He is present in all of creation, there is no escaping His love. The psalmists says:
“The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. 10 All Your works shall praise You, O Lord...” (Ps 145:9-10)
“Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell (Sheol), behold, You are there.” (Ps 139:7-8)
Given that God’s tender mercies are over all His works, including Sheol itself, how can anyone continue denying that God’s love is unconditional? As we will see in the next blog, while many are not experiencing God’s love, relationally speaking, His love for them is nevertheless inescapable and never ceases (1Cor 13:8). An old hymn I often find myself singing is “The Love of God.” It is still sung in many churches to this day, but those who believe that hell eternally separates man from the love of God must sing it tongue in cheek. The first stanza reads:
“The love of God is greater far,
Than tongue or pen can ever tell.
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell.
The wandering child is reconciled
By God’s beloved Son.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWnvmKoLWUU
The first line of the hymn is taken from Paul’s prayer for us in Ephesians 3 which says:
“For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named… 17that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height — 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Eph 3:14,17-19)
What Paul is saying is that we need a revelation of His love which exceeds our mental capacity to conceive – a knowing which goes beyond a mere intellectual comprehension to have His love actually being poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). This inevitably results in us being “filled with all the fullness of God,” since God is love. This is glorious! Those who think God’s love is conditional should ask Him to reveal to them just how wide is the expanse of His love; how high it reaches and how low it will go to reach out to the lost. I can assure you that they will never be the same.
In 1982, after my studies in seminary, I experienced this glorious fullness which comes from the love of God having been poured out in one’s heart by His Spirit as described by Paul. At that point in my life, I felt spiritually dry and realized that a mere intellectual knowledge of Scripture could not satisfy my thirst for God. I longed to experience His love and enjoy intimate communion with Him as I did when I first came to know Him. I determined to set aside my theological studies and seek the Lord to restore unto me my first-love.
One night I was lying in bed reading from Andrew Murray’s book “Abiding in Christ” when the Holy Spirit poured out the love of God in my heart in a way much too glorious to express with mere words. I have never been very emotional, but I felt so overwhelmed by His fullness that I could not contain the joy. All I could do was laugh and cry at the top of my voice. I could see as never before that I was one spirit with the Lord and that Christ was my very life. The Scripture came alive to me as never before as the Spirit opened my understanding.
Space will not allow me to go into more detail here, but this open heaven experience continued for some three months, at which time I cried out to God and said: “Lord, I want to make you known as I am knowing you right now.” I have always been painfully shy, and when I did get the courage to share with others what I was experiencing they just looked at me like there was something wrong with me. The Lord responded to me from John 12:24 where Jesus said: “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” He showed me that, just like the grain of wheat, I needed to allow Him to remove things from my life that were keeping His life trapped inside of me, and that I would not feel His presence in the same way I had been experiencing it for a time, but that He would never leave me nor forsake me.
Gradually, the sense of His presence diminished, and I no longer saw clearly as I did in His presence. In the fullness of His presence, sinful habits fell by the wayside, and I felt free from all temptations. However, little by little, as I lost the conscious awareness of His presence, I once again began to struggle with temptations. I pleaded and pleaded with the Lord to restore to me that open heaven experience. I wanted to see as I saw in His presence, but the heavens seemed like brass. Then, one day at work, as I was agonizing over my condition, the Lord spoke to me, simply saying: “Isaiah 42:16,” “Isaiah 42:16.” As soon as I went for my 10:00 break, I opened my Bible to the text He gave me, and this is what it said: “I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.”
I knew in my spirit that the Lord was reassuring me that, even though it wasn’t in His purposes to remove my blindness at that time, He would never forsake me, and that, in His time, He would perfect the good work which He began in me. That glorious experience of God’s unconditional, unfailing love for me has given me the strength and assurance I needed to trust in His love through the many ways in which He has worked death in me over the last 40 years. I share more fully this encounter I had with the Lord in my book: “The True Grace of God.”
I believe with Paul, that we all need to know the width and length and depth and height of His love in an experiential way which goes beyond mere knowledge. We need to be fully convinced of God’s unconditional love towards us, just as Paul says in Romans 8:
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: ‘For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." 37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 8:35-39)
Are you persuaded as Paul that nothing nor anyone in all of creation will ever be able to separate you from the love of God in Christ? If not, get before the Lord and ask Him to open your understanding and pour out His love in your heart by the Holy Spirit. I assure you; you will never be the same.
Some would rob us of this full assurance by saying: “True, no created thing can separate you from the love of God, but sin is not a created thing, and sin can separate you from God’s love forever.” However, it is very obvious that that is not what Paul would have us understand in his all-comprehensive declaration. Throughout the entire epistle up to this point, Paul has been demonstrating how the sin problem has been dealt with once and for all for the believer through Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice. In chapter 8 he begins with “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus and ends with “no separation” from His love. There is no condemnation because we have been justified from all sin through faith in Christ (Rom 5:1).
That Paul didn’t mean to say that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ except for sin in Romans 8:35-39 is evident from what he said just before that in verses 33 and 34. He said:
“Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” (Rom 8:33-34)
Paul here poses the rhetorical question: “Who shall bring a charge (of sin) against God's elect? The obvious answer is no one, since it is God Himself who declared us righteous. He then asks, “Who is he who condemns (because of sin) if Christ Himself has died and rose and intercedes for us, being Himself the propitiation for our sins?” (cf. 1Jn 2:1-2). Again, the answer is that no one nor nothing (not even sin) shall be able to separate us from His love.
Mankind would have never been at enmity with God if we were not sinners, and Jesus says that God loves His enemies, and He loved us while we were yet in our sins. To say that God loved us unconditionally in our sin before being justified, but now loves us conditionally after being justified, goes against everything that Paul has been saying up to this point. Additionally, Peter says that love will cover a multitude of sins (1Peter 4:8). God’s love can cover a multitude of sins because of Christ’s expiatorial sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins, and not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world. Therefore, His love for all is constant and unconditional. Just as with the Prodigal son, the Father is waiting with open arms to receive each and every one of His wayward children the moment they come to themselves and return to Him – even those who despised their inheritance.
Contemporary Misunderstandings of God’s Unconditional Love
Much of the opposition to the truth of God’s unconditional love is due to the way in which many today have misrepresented it, presenting it as if it meant that God’s love was a permissive or all-affirming love. A love that does not hate evil and oppose evildoers is not really love at all, but indifference. A righteous love cannot love evil and injustice. While God loves all unconditionally and therefore will not reject evildoers forever nor will He retain His anger against them forever as traditionally taught, His righteous love is angered by the obstinate rebellion of His people and when we fail to judge sin in our lives He often intervenes with judgments, even at times resulting in one’s premature death (1Cor 11:28-32). Just as any loving father corrects his son and is angered by the child’s rebellion, even so our heavenly Father disciplines His children and even scourges them if necessary in order that we may partake of His holiness (Heb 12:6-11). However, His mercies are new every morning and His love never ends because He doesn’t simply love – He is love.
In the next blog: “What is Conditional about God’s Unconditional Love?” I will be considering passages which many misconstrue as being a denial of God’s unconditional love. How are we to understand passages stating that God actually hates and abhors certain individuals? Do these statements somehow contradict or negate all we have seen so far concerning the unconditional nature of God’s love? Some statements made by Jesus also seem to present God’s love as conditional, such as John 14:21-24 and John 16:27. How are we to understand these passages? That will be the subject of the next blog.
Do the Scriptures present God’s love as being conditioned upon our behavior, or is it unconditional? Does He love everyone universally, or does He only love those who love Him in return?
John presents love as being the essential attribute of God’s very nature (1Jn 4:8,16). Is His love for all therefore infinite, eternal and indivisible from all His other attributes, or does His love somehow cease in a heartbeat for those who didn’t appropriately correspond to His love while still living?
Those of us who believe in a universal restoration of all have less difficulty embracing the concept of God’s unconditional love. But Traditionalists who believe that those who, for one reason or other, do not positively respond to His love in this life will afterwards be subjected to His wrath forever, are faced with a logical and moral dilemma, and they typically either deny that His love is unconditional or else deny that His love for all is eternal. Some actually become indignant when they hear someone glorying in the love of God towards all.
While admittedly, many have misrepresented God’s love as being permissive and affirming of people living in willful sin, others have overreacted to this extreme by limiting God’s love, just as they often do with God’s grace.
Since I consider this to be such an important subject, being that it determines how we perceive God and relate to Him, in the next couple of blogs I will be considering what the Scriptures actually have to say concerning this vitally important subject.
The Unconditional Love of God
Those who deny that God’s love for us is unconditional often begin by pointing out that the term “unconditional love” never appears, per se, in Scripture. However, they themselves make use of terms such as “unmerited love,” “abounding love” and “sacrificial love,” terms which likewise are not found in the Scriptures, yet all would acknowledge that they are descriptive of God’s love. The real question we must answer is whether or not God’s love is presented as being unconditional in Scripture, and I hope to demonstrate that it most certainly is. In the very declaration of John where he said that God is love, he defines His love as not being conditioned upon anything in us. He said:
“God is love… 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1Jn 4:8,10)
Here we see that God loves simply because He is love, not because the objects of His love fulfilled some preconditions. If love is conditional, what condition did we fulfill in order for God to love us and send His Son to be the propitiating sacrifice for our sins? I would remind those who would argue that this verse only applies to the elect, that He also loved the whole world and made propitiation even for those whom He knew would not correspond to His love this side of the grave (Jn 3:16; 1Jn 2:2). He loved us while we were yet dead in our trespasses and sins. In Romans, Paul is even more emphatic in stating that, in contrast to man’s love, God’s love is unconditional, when He says:
“For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:6-8)
The greatest demonstration of God’s unconditional love was when He sent His Son to die for us, being ungodly sinners. Rather than us fulfilling a precondition in order to merit His love, He showed His love toward us even while we were His enemies (Rom 5:10). Jesus further tells us that if we want to be like our Father in heaven, we must likewise love our enemies. He said:
“You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matt 5:43-48)
Conditional love only loves those who love us in return. But Jesus says that, if we only love in that way, then we are no different than the tax collectors, since even they love those who love them in return. We only become perfected in the love of the Father when we love even our enemies, just as He does. Conditional love says, “I love you because…,” “I will love you if…” or “I will love you as long as…” But unconditional love says, “nothing you can do or say will cause me to stop loving you.” Every human being – indeed, every rational being, has an innate need for unconditional love which only God can supply, yet religion all too often robs us of the assurance of His love for us.
Some Calvinists, when confronted with the undeniably unconditional nature of the Father’s love in this passage, attempt to categorize the love of God, saying, “Yes God has a ‘general love’ for His enemies in that he sends the rain, even upon the unjust, but it is not the ‘effectual or redemptive love,’ which He has towards His elect only.” According to this view, God loves His enemies unconditionally until they draw their last breath, but then His unconditional love somehow becomes unending wrath the moment they die.
They argue that God’s justice requires His eternal wrath. While that is a subject beyond the scope of this blog, God’s attributes are indivisible. His love and His justice have never been in conflict with each other due to the fact that Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on the cross has eternally been an accomplished reality with God. Jesus was the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). His righteousness and peace kissed one another at the cross, reconciling all of creation unto Himself (Psa 85:10; Col 1:16,20). God was demonstrated to have been just in justifying those who previously sinned at the cross when Christ became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (Rom 3:25-26 ). And the gospel is said to be eonian (Rev 14:6). Whatever that means, it certainly means that it continues being good news beyond one’s last breath (1Peter 4:6). The blood of Christ does not have an expiration date (Heb 9:12; 7:25).
God’s love even reaches beyond the grave into Sheol or Hades itself. Since God is love and He is present in all of creation, there is no escaping His love. The psalmists says:
“The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. 10 All Your works shall praise You, O Lord...” (Ps 145:9-10)
“Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell (Sheol), behold, You are there.” (Ps 139:7-8)
Given that God’s tender mercies are over all His works, including Sheol itself, how can anyone continue denying that God’s love is unconditional? As we will see in the next blog, while many are not experiencing God’s love, relationally speaking, His love for them is nevertheless inescapable and never ceases (1Cor 13:8). An old hymn I often find myself singing is “The Love of God.” It is still sung in many churches to this day, but those who believe that hell eternally separates man from the love of God must sing it tongue in cheek. The first stanza reads:
“The love of God is greater far,
Than tongue or pen can ever tell.
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell.
The wandering child is reconciled
By God’s beloved Son.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWnvmKoLWUU
The first line of the hymn is taken from Paul’s prayer for us in Ephesians 3 which says:
“For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named… 17that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height — 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Eph 3:14,17-19)
What Paul is saying is that we need a revelation of His love which exceeds our mental capacity to conceive – a knowing which goes beyond a mere intellectual comprehension to have His love actually being poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). This inevitably results in us being “filled with all the fullness of God,” since God is love. This is glorious! Those who think God’s love is conditional should ask Him to reveal to them just how wide is the expanse of His love; how high it reaches and how low it will go to reach out to the lost. I can assure you that they will never be the same.
In 1982, after my studies in seminary, I experienced this glorious fullness which comes from the love of God having been poured out in one’s heart by His Spirit as described by Paul. At that point in my life, I felt spiritually dry and realized that a mere intellectual knowledge of Scripture could not satisfy my thirst for God. I longed to experience His love and enjoy intimate communion with Him as I did when I first came to know Him. I determined to set aside my theological studies and seek the Lord to restore unto me my first-love.
One night I was lying in bed reading from Andrew Murray’s book “Abiding in Christ” when the Holy Spirit poured out the love of God in my heart in a way much too glorious to express with mere words. I have never been very emotional, but I felt so overwhelmed by His fullness that I could not contain the joy. All I could do was laugh and cry at the top of my voice. I could see as never before that I was one spirit with the Lord and that Christ was my very life. The Scripture came alive to me as never before as the Spirit opened my understanding.
Space will not allow me to go into more detail here, but this open heaven experience continued for some three months, at which time I cried out to God and said: “Lord, I want to make you known as I am knowing you right now.” I have always been painfully shy, and when I did get the courage to share with others what I was experiencing they just looked at me like there was something wrong with me. The Lord responded to me from John 12:24 where Jesus said: “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” He showed me that, just like the grain of wheat, I needed to allow Him to remove things from my life that were keeping His life trapped inside of me, and that I would not feel His presence in the same way I had been experiencing it for a time, but that He would never leave me nor forsake me.
Gradually, the sense of His presence diminished, and I no longer saw clearly as I did in His presence. In the fullness of His presence, sinful habits fell by the wayside, and I felt free from all temptations. However, little by little, as I lost the conscious awareness of His presence, I once again began to struggle with temptations. I pleaded and pleaded with the Lord to restore to me that open heaven experience. I wanted to see as I saw in His presence, but the heavens seemed like brass. Then, one day at work, as I was agonizing over my condition, the Lord spoke to me, simply saying: “Isaiah 42:16,” “Isaiah 42:16.” As soon as I went for my 10:00 break, I opened my Bible to the text He gave me, and this is what it said: “I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.”
I knew in my spirit that the Lord was reassuring me that, even though it wasn’t in His purposes to remove my blindness at that time, He would never forsake me, and that, in His time, He would perfect the good work which He began in me. That glorious experience of God’s unconditional, unfailing love for me has given me the strength and assurance I needed to trust in His love through the many ways in which He has worked death in me over the last 40 years. I share more fully this encounter I had with the Lord in my book: “The True Grace of God.”
I believe with Paul, that we all need to know the width and length and depth and height of His love in an experiential way which goes beyond mere knowledge. We need to be fully convinced of God’s unconditional love towards us, just as Paul says in Romans 8:
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: ‘For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." 37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 8:35-39)
Are you persuaded as Paul that nothing nor anyone in all of creation will ever be able to separate you from the love of God in Christ? If not, get before the Lord and ask Him to open your understanding and pour out His love in your heart by the Holy Spirit. I assure you; you will never be the same.
Some would rob us of this full assurance by saying: “True, no created thing can separate you from the love of God, but sin is not a created thing, and sin can separate you from God’s love forever.” However, it is very obvious that that is not what Paul would have us understand in his all-comprehensive declaration. Throughout the entire epistle up to this point, Paul has been demonstrating how the sin problem has been dealt with once and for all for the believer through Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice. In chapter 8 he begins with “no condemnation” for those who are in Christ Jesus and ends with “no separation” from His love. There is no condemnation because we have been justified from all sin through faith in Christ (Rom 5:1).
That Paul didn’t mean to say that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ except for sin in Romans 8:35-39 is evident from what he said just before that in verses 33 and 34. He said:
“Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” (Rom 8:33-34)
Paul here poses the rhetorical question: “Who shall bring a charge (of sin) against God's elect? The obvious answer is no one, since it is God Himself who declared us righteous. He then asks, “Who is he who condemns (because of sin) if Christ Himself has died and rose and intercedes for us, being Himself the propitiation for our sins?” (cf. 1Jn 2:1-2). Again, the answer is that no one nor nothing (not even sin) shall be able to separate us from His love.
Mankind would have never been at enmity with God if we were not sinners, and Jesus says that God loves His enemies, and He loved us while we were yet in our sins. To say that God loved us unconditionally in our sin before being justified, but now loves us conditionally after being justified, goes against everything that Paul has been saying up to this point. Additionally, Peter says that love will cover a multitude of sins (1Peter 4:8). God’s love can cover a multitude of sins because of Christ’s expiatorial sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins, and not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world. Therefore, His love for all is constant and unconditional. Just as with the Prodigal son, the Father is waiting with open arms to receive each and every one of His wayward children the moment they come to themselves and return to Him – even those who despised their inheritance.
Contemporary Misunderstandings of God’s Unconditional Love
Much of the opposition to the truth of God’s unconditional love is due to the way in which many today have misrepresented it, presenting it as if it meant that God’s love was a permissive or all-affirming love. A love that does not hate evil and oppose evildoers is not really love at all, but indifference. A righteous love cannot love evil and injustice. While God loves all unconditionally and therefore will not reject evildoers forever nor will He retain His anger against them forever as traditionally taught, His righteous love is angered by the obstinate rebellion of His people and when we fail to judge sin in our lives He often intervenes with judgments, even at times resulting in one’s premature death (1Cor 11:28-32). Just as any loving father corrects his son and is angered by the child’s rebellion, even so our heavenly Father disciplines His children and even scourges them if necessary in order that we may partake of His holiness (Heb 12:6-11). However, His mercies are new every morning and His love never ends because He doesn’t simply love – He is love.
In the next blog: “What is Conditional about God’s Unconditional Love?” I will be considering passages which many misconstrue as being a denial of God’s unconditional love. How are we to understand passages stating that God actually hates and abhors certain individuals? Do these statements somehow contradict or negate all we have seen so far concerning the unconditional nature of God’s love? Some statements made by Jesus also seem to present God’s love as conditional, such as John 14:21-24 and John 16:27. How are we to understand these passages? That will be the subject of the next blog.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
A Critical Assessment of the Gospel of Inclusion
by George Sidney Hurd
--
What must I do to be saved? The correct answer to this question is by far the most important issue in life. And the simple answer given by the followers of Christ from the very beginning has been, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
In the past, this simple gospel of “only believe” was often compromised by adding works to the equation, thereby invalidating grace (Gal 5:4). However, today, in our all-inclusive Postmodern society, some Evangelicals have sought to be more inclusive and accommodating to the prevalent cultural norms, even when it comes to this most vital question: “What must I do to be saved?”
At one extreme, we see the Pluralists who deny that Jesus is the only way of salvation, saying that He is only one of many paths, all of which lead to God. A somewhat more reserved view is that of the Inclusivists who, while insisting that Christ is the only way to God, argue that it is not necessary for one to explicitly place faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. To them, one can be saved by implicit faith in a general revelation of God without ever having heard and positively responded to the gospel. They reason that one’s faith need not be cognitive as long as it is sincere and reverent. In this manner it becomes possible for one to be saved without having ever even heard of Christ. A sincere Buddhist, Muslim, or even an Atheist, can be saved through the once and for all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary without ever having consciously believed on Him – or even heard of Him, for that matter. These individuals who are said to be Christians without even knowing it are sometimes referred to as “anonymous Christians.”
Inclusivism is a relatively new doctrine which cannot be found within the Church prior to the Enlightenment in the 16th century. The Church has historically believed that one must hear and positively respond to the gospel in order to be saved. It wasn’t until the 20th century that Inclusivism began to be embraced by many, primarily due to the far-reaching influence of C.S. Lewis who was an Evangelical Inclusivist. Also, in an interview with Robert Schuller in 1997, the evangelist Billy Graham expressed that he had come to believe that people of other religions can be saved without ever hearing the gospel. [i] This also contributed to the popularity of Inclusivism in our day.
Under the broad umbrella of Universalism we also see both Pluralists and Inclusivists, as well as biblical Exclusivism, which I hope to demonstrate in this blog to be the actual teaching of Scripture on the subject. The main difference between the Traditional Partialists (those who believe that only some will be saved), and Universalists, is that Universalists believe that ultimately all will be saved and reunited in God, whereas the Partialists do not believe that all will be saved in the end – not even those among them who are Pluralists.
Universalists do not face the same logical and moral dilemma as do the Partialists concerning those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel in order to believe and be saved in this life, since Universalists see no biblical justification for the belief that one’s opportunity to repent and believe the gospel forever ends the moment one’s heart stops beating.
It is imperative that one come to salvation prior to the commencement of the Day of the Lord at Christ’s Second Coming in order to be among the elect firstfruits, taking part in the first resurrection and reigning with Christ during the Millennium (1Cor 5:5; Matt 25:10-13; Rev 20:5-6). That is why we must preach the gospel to the ends of the earth prior to the Second Coming of Christ. That is why I have been serving as a missionary in the Colombian Amazon Jungle for the past 22 years. I consider why it is imperative that we as Universalists preach the gospel in my blog: “Is Universalism a Deterrent to Evangelism?” While Christ is the Savior of all, the greatest reward is for those who believe in this age (1Tim 1:10). Ultimately every knee will have bowed, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Php 2:10-11, c.f. Isa 45:22-24; Ps 22:27). In the final Dispensation of the Fullness of the Times, all in heaven and earth will have been reunited in Him (Eph 1:10). But those who are not saved and sanctified in this life will be hurt by the second death – the death to the flesh and the self-life in the purifying lake of fire (Rev 2:11; 21:8). I consider this subject with more detail in my blog: “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.”
The primary objective of this blog is to counter a new variation of Inclusivism being promoted by some Universalists which teaches that it is not necessary for one to believe in Christ for salvation since everyone was already saved at the cross 2,000 years ago. This teaching was first popularized among Liberal and Progressive Universalists by Carlton Pearson with the publication of his book: “The Gospel of Inclusion: Reaching Beyond Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God and Self,” published in 2007. According to his own testimony, his deconstruction from Evangelical Christianity began when the healing evangelist T.L. Osborn said to him: “Everyone is already saved; they just don’t know it yet.” This began a journey which eventually led him away from the authority of Scripture into New Age Expanded Consciousness and New Thought. The following is a consideration of some of the affirmations made by those who hold to the Gospel of Inclusion.
“Everyone is already saved.”
The advocates of this Gospel of Inclusion say that everyone was saved at the cross 2,000 years ago; they just don’t know it yet. William Paul Young, in his book, “Lies We Believe About God,” entitled each of his chapters with what he considers to be one of the lies we have believed about God. One of his chapters is entitled, “You need to get saved.” According to him and other Universalistic Inclusivists, those of us who say that one must repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved are preaching a false gospel, since everyone was already saved at the cross. He says:
“We don’t offer anyone what has already been given; we simply celebrate the Good News with each one: We have all been included.” [ii]
What is misleading about this statement is that it is a half-truth. It is true that all were included in Christ’s atonement upon the cross, and salvation has been extended to all as a free gift of grace. All were indeed included in Christ’s death and resurrection, and as the Last Adam, all who died in the first Adam will ultimately be justified and made alive in Him (Rom 5:18; 1Cor 15:22).
However, that being said, there is a great difference between the gift of salvation being offered and the gift of salvation being received. There is a difference between provision and appropriation. For example, imagine that a deadly pandemic were to spread across the entire planet which would have eventually killed off the entire population, except that one man’s blood was immune to the virus. He offered his blood, providing a vaccine that would totally reverse the effects of the deadly virus for everyone. The vaccine was freely offered to all, but in order for them to become immune to the virus, each individual had to receive the vaccine.
In a similar manner, the blood of Christ justifies us, or makes us immune to condemnation and cleanses us from all sin. However, just as those bitten by the serpents in the wilderness had to look at the bronze serpent in faith to be healed, we are not justified without first placing faith in His blood to propitiate us unto God:
“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, THROUGH FAITH, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH in Jesus.” (Rom 3:24-26)
“in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Col 1:14)
It is important to note that justification and forgiveness were provided on the cross when Christ shed His blood for the propitiation of the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2). However, just as one must receive the vaccine in order to become immune, so also one is not justified and forgiven prior to the moment we receive by faith the justification and forgiveness offered, even though it was provided by His blood on the cross 2,000 years ago. When Jesus commissioned us to preach the Gospel, He said:
“He who BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved; but he who does NOT BELIEVE will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
So, we see that the prerequisite to being saved and justified (free from condemnation), is faith. In fact, Jesus said in John 3:18, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Throughout the entire New Testament, we see it repeatedly emphasized that one must appropriate Christ’s provision of salvation by personally placing faith in Him in order to be saved. He must be received by faith in order for one to benefit from His propitiatory sacrifice (Jn 1:12-13; 3:16; 8:24; Rom 3:22; 3:28; 3:30; Gal 2:16; 3:8; 3:24; Eph 2:8; Php 3:9; 2Tim 3:15, etc.).
In accordance with the Great Commission, whenever the gospel is presented in Acts and in the epistles, we see that one must respond in faith to the gospel in order to be saved. When the Philippian jailor asked Paul, “what must I do to be saved?” Paul didn’t respond saying: “You are already saved; you just need to know it.” No. He said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you SHALL BE saved.” Contrarywise, Paul says in 2Thessalonians 2:12 that those who do not believe will be condemned.
Paul said that the Gospel he preached was the “word of faith,” meaning that it must be received by faith in order for one to benefit from it. He continues by explaining what the “word of faith” is:
“…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you WILL BE saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rom 10:9-10)
There is no such thing as an “anonymous Christian.” There are no non-believing Christians. One must believe in the gospel in order to be saved. Paul continues by saying that, in order for one to believe they must first hear the gospel, and for that reason it is imperative that we preach the gospel to those still outside the fold (Rom 10:13-17). Paul begins the chapter saying: “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved” (Rom 10:1). Certainly, Paul did not understand everyone to have already been saved and simply needing to discover that they were unknowingly and involuntarily saved, independent from repentance and faith on their part!
In 1Corinthians 15, Paul makes it clear that one must not only believe in the gospel in order to be saved, but also that it is necessary to have a persevering faith in order to be saved. He said:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain.” (1 Cor 15:1-2)
Paul here says that we are saved by receiving the gospel into our hearts by faith, and anyone who does not continue in the faith had an empty or vain faith which was mere mental assent and not of the heart. He also told the carnal Corinthians to make sure that they were truly in the faith:
“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified.” (2 Cor 13:5)
This is a far cry from the claim of those who hold to the “Gospel of Inclusion,” saying that the “Christ Spirit” already dwells in everyone, and they only need to discover that truth. Paul says that if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him (Rom 8:9). We were without Christ until we received Him by faith, at which time we were born again of the Spirit with Christ’s own resurrection life, thereby becoming one spirit with Him (Eph 2:12 cf. 1Cor 6:17).
Universalistic Inclusivists say that all of humanity is already in Christ. However, Paul says: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation,” clearly indicating that all are not already in Him (2 Cor 5:17). Also, in Romans 16:7, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junias, “who also were in Christ before me,” meaning that they had received the gospel of Christ before him.
“Everyone was already Born Again the moment Christ rose from the Dead.”
Another claim made by many Universalistic Inclusionists is that everyone was born again when Christ arose from the dead. However, since it is nonsensical to say that someone is born again before being born the first time, they usually try to argue that γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (genethe anothen), rendered “born again” in the Authorized Version, should read “born from above” since that is an alternate meaning of anothen.
However, while it is certainly true that the new birth originates from above, the context in which the term is used indicates that it should be understood as “born again,” as can be seen by Nicodemus’ puzzled reply in John 3:4. He asked Jesus: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Nicodemus clearly understood Jesus to be saying that it was necessary for one to be born a second time. He didn’t understand Jesus to be speaking of being born from above.
Jesus went on to explain to him that the second birth was not as the watery birth when we were first born into this world, but rather that it was by the Holy Spirit that our spirit, which was dead to God, must be born again. Jesus said to him:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6)
Jesus equates being born physically of flesh to being born of water, and the new birth of our spirit being brought about by the Holy Spirit. This new birth was made possible by Christ’s resurrection, but we are not born again until we receive Christ. John says:
“He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:11-13)
So, it is only upon receiving Him by faith that one is born of God, becoming children of God (τέκνα Θεοῦ, tecna Theou, lit. “born-ones of God”) in His new creation. Paul says that, prior to receiving Christ by faith, we “were children of wrath, even as the rest” (Eph 2:3), or to use Jesus’ own words, the wrath of God abides upon those who do not believe (Jn 3:36). Therefore, it is a grave error to tell those who have not received Christ that they were already born from above in Christ 2,000 years ago.
“All were saved by the Faithfulness of Jesus.”
Another claim made is that we are not saved by our faith, but rather by the faithfulness of Jesus. Again, this is a half-truth, since no-one could ever be saved unless Jesus had been
obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Phil 2:8-11). However, as with many half-truths, this is a dangerous half-truth, since it leaves the unrepentant sinner under the false impression that he has already been saved without the need for repentance and faith on his part. As we have already seen, Christ’s work on the cross is only applied to us when we personally believe on Him for salvation.
This error is the result of rendering the phrase “the faith of Jesus” (πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, pisteos tou Iesous) as “the faithfulness of Jesus,” rather than rendering pistis as “faith,” which is the normal meaning. I demonstrate why the reading “the faith of Jesus” is the correct rendering, rather than “the faithfulness of Jesus” or “the faith in Jesus” in my blog: “The Faith of Jesus.”
In reality, saving faith is not of ourselves, but rather it is granted unto us to believe by His grace, and the saving faith imparted to us in the day of our visitation when we come to repentance is nothing less than the faith of Jesus, who from the moment of regeneration becomes our very life, our all. His righteousness, wisdom and faith are imparted to us the moment we become one spirit with the Lord when our spirit is regenerated. Once His faith has been imparted to us, it becomes ours, and for that reason it is also often referred to as “our faith,” just as His salvation becomes “our salvation,” His righteousness becomes “our righteousness” and Christ’s life is referred to as “our life” (Php 2:12-13; Jer 23:6 Col 3:3-4). We have become joint heirs with Christ in all things.
So, while it is true that Christ’s faithfulness provided salvation for all, it is necessary that we personally believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, and to tell sinners otherwise is to fail to proclaim the true Gospel, the word of faith.
“There is no Them and Us.”
In the Scriptures we see a clear distinction between the saved and the lost, the elect and the non-elect, the just and the unjust. Universalistic Inclusivism ignores these distinctions, claiming that, since all were included in the atonement, there is no them and us; no distinction between those who are in Christ and those who are without Christ. Don Keathley is representative of them when he says:
“There was never a time when you were not in Christ. That’s where you were created… This will change your world. We need to see every person also created in that position. That eliminates all the them and us… That eliminates all the boasting that says, ‘well I invited Jesus into my life as my personal Savior and you didn’t. I made wise choices on my behalf and if you’re smart, you’ll be like me and do what I have done. And if you don’t, you’re ‘gon ta hail.’” [iii]
Keathley says that everyone was created in Christ from the beginning, and that eliminates all the them and us – it eliminates all the boasting. In contrast, Paul says that not many were chosen; that in this age God primarily chooses the foolish, weak, base and those who are as nothing in their own eyes, so that none should boast. Boasting isn’t eliminated by awakening to the reality that we are all very good as to our essential being, as Inclusionists affirm, but by recognizing that we are foolish, weak, base and as nothing without Him, and that it is only by Him that we came to be in Christ, who is now our righteousness.
The distinction between the saved and the unsaved is so often repeated in Scripture that Inclusivists cannot deny it without making the Word of God void in order to maintain their unbiblical doctrine. Jesus indicated in Luke 13 that initially few would be saved:
“Then one said to Him, ‘Lord, are there few who are saved?’ And He said to them, 24 ‘Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” (Luke 13:23-24)
Especially at the close of this age, during the Great Tribulation, Jesus says that the love of many will grow cold, and only the elect who endure to the end will be saved (Matt 24:9-14). He also said of that time:
“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt 24:24)
“And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.” (Matt 24:21)
Jesus said: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt 22:13). He said of His disciples: “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (Jn 15:19). One cannot insist that everyone is elect, as the Inclusivists claim, without ignoring these and many other such exclusive statements in the Scriptures.
The examples of distinctions being made between the saved and unsaved are too numerous to cite in this blog, so I will just cite a couple more. In 1Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul makes a clear distinction between the unrighteous and those who have been justified. He said:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9-11)
The believers at Corinth were once among the unrighteous or unjust, but they were justified, washed and sanctified upon believing by the Spirit of God. My last example is from 1 John 3 where John distinguishes between those who are born of God and those who are still under the power of the devil:
“No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 NO ONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD PRACTICES SIN, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:6-10 NASU)
John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that there are those who have been born of God, as opposed to those who have not, and for that reason continue living in sin under the power of the god of this age. As Jesus said, we are no longer of this world. We are to be light and salt in the world, marking the difference between the darkness and the light.
In conclusion, the “Gospel of Inclusion” is a deceptive half-truth, making it a heretical false gospel which will keep many on the broad path leading to destruction. Those of us who believe in the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and the final restoration of all, need to take a clear stand, insisting upon the true gospel, the word of faith which we preach.
[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INPyY0QjgpY
[ii] Young, Wm. Paul. Lies We Believe About God. Kindle Edition loc. 917.
[iii] Don Keathley. Unmasking the Gospel. Video 29:10
by George Sidney Hurd
--
What must I do to be saved? The correct answer to this question is by far the most important issue in life. And the simple answer given by the followers of Christ from the very beginning has been, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
In the past, this simple gospel of “only believe” was often compromised by adding works to the equation, thereby invalidating grace (Gal 5:4). However, today, in our all-inclusive Postmodern society, some Evangelicals have sought to be more inclusive and accommodating to the prevalent cultural norms, even when it comes to this most vital question: “What must I do to be saved?”
At one extreme, we see the Pluralists who deny that Jesus is the only way of salvation, saying that He is only one of many paths, all of which lead to God. A somewhat more reserved view is that of the Inclusivists who, while insisting that Christ is the only way to God, argue that it is not necessary for one to explicitly place faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. To them, one can be saved by implicit faith in a general revelation of God without ever having heard and positively responded to the gospel. They reason that one’s faith need not be cognitive as long as it is sincere and reverent. In this manner it becomes possible for one to be saved without having ever even heard of Christ. A sincere Buddhist, Muslim, or even an Atheist, can be saved through the once and for all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary without ever having consciously believed on Him – or even heard of Him, for that matter. These individuals who are said to be Christians without even knowing it are sometimes referred to as “anonymous Christians.”
Inclusivism is a relatively new doctrine which cannot be found within the Church prior to the Enlightenment in the 16th century. The Church has historically believed that one must hear and positively respond to the gospel in order to be saved. It wasn’t until the 20th century that Inclusivism began to be embraced by many, primarily due to the far-reaching influence of C.S. Lewis who was an Evangelical Inclusivist. Also, in an interview with Robert Schuller in 1997, the evangelist Billy Graham expressed that he had come to believe that people of other religions can be saved without ever hearing the gospel. [i] This also contributed to the popularity of Inclusivism in our day.
Under the broad umbrella of Universalism we also see both Pluralists and Inclusivists, as well as biblical Exclusivism, which I hope to demonstrate in this blog to be the actual teaching of Scripture on the subject. The main difference between the Traditional Partialists (those who believe that only some will be saved), and Universalists, is that Universalists believe that ultimately all will be saved and reunited in God, whereas the Partialists do not believe that all will be saved in the end – not even those among them who are Pluralists.
Universalists do not face the same logical and moral dilemma as do the Partialists concerning those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel in order to believe and be saved in this life, since Universalists see no biblical justification for the belief that one’s opportunity to repent and believe the gospel forever ends the moment one’s heart stops beating.
It is imperative that one come to salvation prior to the commencement of the Day of the Lord at Christ’s Second Coming in order to be among the elect firstfruits, taking part in the first resurrection and reigning with Christ during the Millennium (1Cor 5:5; Matt 25:10-13; Rev 20:5-6). That is why we must preach the gospel to the ends of the earth prior to the Second Coming of Christ. That is why I have been serving as a missionary in the Colombian Amazon Jungle for the past 22 years. I consider why it is imperative that we as Universalists preach the gospel in my blog: “Is Universalism a Deterrent to Evangelism?” While Christ is the Savior of all, the greatest reward is for those who believe in this age (1Tim 1:10). Ultimately every knee will have bowed, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Php 2:10-11, c.f. Isa 45:22-24; Ps 22:27). In the final Dispensation of the Fullness of the Times, all in heaven and earth will have been reunited in Him (Eph 1:10). But those who are not saved and sanctified in this life will be hurt by the second death – the death to the flesh and the self-life in the purifying lake of fire (Rev 2:11; 21:8). I consider this subject with more detail in my blog: “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.”
The primary objective of this blog is to counter a new variation of Inclusivism being promoted by some Universalists which teaches that it is not necessary for one to believe in Christ for salvation since everyone was already saved at the cross 2,000 years ago. This teaching was first popularized among Liberal and Progressive Universalists by Carlton Pearson with the publication of his book: “The Gospel of Inclusion: Reaching Beyond Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God and Self,” published in 2007. According to his own testimony, his deconstruction from Evangelical Christianity began when the healing evangelist T.L. Osborn said to him: “Everyone is already saved; they just don’t know it yet.” This began a journey which eventually led him away from the authority of Scripture into New Age Expanded Consciousness and New Thought. The following is a consideration of some of the affirmations made by those who hold to the Gospel of Inclusion.
“Everyone is already saved.”
The advocates of this Gospel of Inclusion say that everyone was saved at the cross 2,000 years ago; they just don’t know it yet. William Paul Young, in his book, “Lies We Believe About God,” entitled each of his chapters with what he considers to be one of the lies we have believed about God. One of his chapters is entitled, “You need to get saved.” According to him and other Universalistic Inclusivists, those of us who say that one must repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved are preaching a false gospel, since everyone was already saved at the cross. He says:
“We don’t offer anyone what has already been given; we simply celebrate the Good News with each one: We have all been included.” [ii]
What is misleading about this statement is that it is a half-truth. It is true that all were included in Christ’s atonement upon the cross, and salvation has been extended to all as a free gift of grace. All were indeed included in Christ’s death and resurrection, and as the Last Adam, all who died in the first Adam will ultimately be justified and made alive in Him (Rom 5:18; 1Cor 15:22).
However, that being said, there is a great difference between the gift of salvation being offered and the gift of salvation being received. There is a difference between provision and appropriation. For example, imagine that a deadly pandemic were to spread across the entire planet which would have eventually killed off the entire population, except that one man’s blood was immune to the virus. He offered his blood, providing a vaccine that would totally reverse the effects of the deadly virus for everyone. The vaccine was freely offered to all, but in order for them to become immune to the virus, each individual had to receive the vaccine.
In a similar manner, the blood of Christ justifies us, or makes us immune to condemnation and cleanses us from all sin. However, just as those bitten by the serpents in the wilderness had to look at the bronze serpent in faith to be healed, we are not justified without first placing faith in His blood to propitiate us unto God:
“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, THROUGH FAITH, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH in Jesus.” (Rom 3:24-26)
“in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Col 1:14)
It is important to note that justification and forgiveness were provided on the cross when Christ shed His blood for the propitiation of the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2). However, just as one must receive the vaccine in order to become immune, so also one is not justified and forgiven prior to the moment we receive by faith the justification and forgiveness offered, even though it was provided by His blood on the cross 2,000 years ago. When Jesus commissioned us to preach the Gospel, He said:
“He who BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved; but he who does NOT BELIEVE will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
So, we see that the prerequisite to being saved and justified (free from condemnation), is faith. In fact, Jesus said in John 3:18, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Throughout the entire New Testament, we see it repeatedly emphasized that one must appropriate Christ’s provision of salvation by personally placing faith in Him in order to be saved. He must be received by faith in order for one to benefit from His propitiatory sacrifice (Jn 1:12-13; 3:16; 8:24; Rom 3:22; 3:28; 3:30; Gal 2:16; 3:8; 3:24; Eph 2:8; Php 3:9; 2Tim 3:15, etc.).
In accordance with the Great Commission, whenever the gospel is presented in Acts and in the epistles, we see that one must respond in faith to the gospel in order to be saved. When the Philippian jailor asked Paul, “what must I do to be saved?” Paul didn’t respond saying: “You are already saved; you just need to know it.” No. He said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you SHALL BE saved.” Contrarywise, Paul says in 2Thessalonians 2:12 that those who do not believe will be condemned.
Paul said that the Gospel he preached was the “word of faith,” meaning that it must be received by faith in order for one to benefit from it. He continues by explaining what the “word of faith” is:
“…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you WILL BE saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rom 10:9-10)
There is no such thing as an “anonymous Christian.” There are no non-believing Christians. One must believe in the gospel in order to be saved. Paul continues by saying that, in order for one to believe they must first hear the gospel, and for that reason it is imperative that we preach the gospel to those still outside the fold (Rom 10:13-17). Paul begins the chapter saying: “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved” (Rom 10:1). Certainly, Paul did not understand everyone to have already been saved and simply needing to discover that they were unknowingly and involuntarily saved, independent from repentance and faith on their part!
In 1Corinthians 15, Paul makes it clear that one must not only believe in the gospel in order to be saved, but also that it is necessary to have a persevering faith in order to be saved. He said:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain.” (1 Cor 15:1-2)
Paul here says that we are saved by receiving the gospel into our hearts by faith, and anyone who does not continue in the faith had an empty or vain faith which was mere mental assent and not of the heart. He also told the carnal Corinthians to make sure that they were truly in the faith:
“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified.” (2 Cor 13:5)
This is a far cry from the claim of those who hold to the “Gospel of Inclusion,” saying that the “Christ Spirit” already dwells in everyone, and they only need to discover that truth. Paul says that if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him (Rom 8:9). We were without Christ until we received Him by faith, at which time we were born again of the Spirit with Christ’s own resurrection life, thereby becoming one spirit with Him (Eph 2:12 cf. 1Cor 6:17).
Universalistic Inclusivists say that all of humanity is already in Christ. However, Paul says: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation,” clearly indicating that all are not already in Him (2 Cor 5:17). Also, in Romans 16:7, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junias, “who also were in Christ before me,” meaning that they had received the gospel of Christ before him.
“Everyone was already Born Again the moment Christ rose from the Dead.”
Another claim made by many Universalistic Inclusionists is that everyone was born again when Christ arose from the dead. However, since it is nonsensical to say that someone is born again before being born the first time, they usually try to argue that γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (genethe anothen), rendered “born again” in the Authorized Version, should read “born from above” since that is an alternate meaning of anothen.
However, while it is certainly true that the new birth originates from above, the context in which the term is used indicates that it should be understood as “born again,” as can be seen by Nicodemus’ puzzled reply in John 3:4. He asked Jesus: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Nicodemus clearly understood Jesus to be saying that it was necessary for one to be born a second time. He didn’t understand Jesus to be speaking of being born from above.
Jesus went on to explain to him that the second birth was not as the watery birth when we were first born into this world, but rather that it was by the Holy Spirit that our spirit, which was dead to God, must be born again. Jesus said to him:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6)
Jesus equates being born physically of flesh to being born of water, and the new birth of our spirit being brought about by the Holy Spirit. This new birth was made possible by Christ’s resurrection, but we are not born again until we receive Christ. John says:
“He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:11-13)
So, it is only upon receiving Him by faith that one is born of God, becoming children of God (τέκνα Θεοῦ, tecna Theou, lit. “born-ones of God”) in His new creation. Paul says that, prior to receiving Christ by faith, we “were children of wrath, even as the rest” (Eph 2:3), or to use Jesus’ own words, the wrath of God abides upon those who do not believe (Jn 3:36). Therefore, it is a grave error to tell those who have not received Christ that they were already born from above in Christ 2,000 years ago.
“All were saved by the Faithfulness of Jesus.”
Another claim made is that we are not saved by our faith, but rather by the faithfulness of Jesus. Again, this is a half-truth, since no-one could ever be saved unless Jesus had been
obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Phil 2:8-11). However, as with many half-truths, this is a dangerous half-truth, since it leaves the unrepentant sinner under the false impression that he has already been saved without the need for repentance and faith on his part. As we have already seen, Christ’s work on the cross is only applied to us when we personally believe on Him for salvation.
This error is the result of rendering the phrase “the faith of Jesus” (πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, pisteos tou Iesous) as “the faithfulness of Jesus,” rather than rendering pistis as “faith,” which is the normal meaning. I demonstrate why the reading “the faith of Jesus” is the correct rendering, rather than “the faithfulness of Jesus” or “the faith in Jesus” in my blog: “The Faith of Jesus.”
In reality, saving faith is not of ourselves, but rather it is granted unto us to believe by His grace, and the saving faith imparted to us in the day of our visitation when we come to repentance is nothing less than the faith of Jesus, who from the moment of regeneration becomes our very life, our all. His righteousness, wisdom and faith are imparted to us the moment we become one spirit with the Lord when our spirit is regenerated. Once His faith has been imparted to us, it becomes ours, and for that reason it is also often referred to as “our faith,” just as His salvation becomes “our salvation,” His righteousness becomes “our righteousness” and Christ’s life is referred to as “our life” (Php 2:12-13; Jer 23:6 Col 3:3-4). We have become joint heirs with Christ in all things.
So, while it is true that Christ’s faithfulness provided salvation for all, it is necessary that we personally believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, and to tell sinners otherwise is to fail to proclaim the true Gospel, the word of faith.
“There is no Them and Us.”
In the Scriptures we see a clear distinction between the saved and the lost, the elect and the non-elect, the just and the unjust. Universalistic Inclusivism ignores these distinctions, claiming that, since all were included in the atonement, there is no them and us; no distinction between those who are in Christ and those who are without Christ. Don Keathley is representative of them when he says:
“There was never a time when you were not in Christ. That’s where you were created… This will change your world. We need to see every person also created in that position. That eliminates all the them and us… That eliminates all the boasting that says, ‘well I invited Jesus into my life as my personal Savior and you didn’t. I made wise choices on my behalf and if you’re smart, you’ll be like me and do what I have done. And if you don’t, you’re ‘gon ta hail.’” [iii]
Keathley says that everyone was created in Christ from the beginning, and that eliminates all the them and us – it eliminates all the boasting. In contrast, Paul says that not many were chosen; that in this age God primarily chooses the foolish, weak, base and those who are as nothing in their own eyes, so that none should boast. Boasting isn’t eliminated by awakening to the reality that we are all very good as to our essential being, as Inclusionists affirm, but by recognizing that we are foolish, weak, base and as nothing without Him, and that it is only by Him that we came to be in Christ, who is now our righteousness.
The distinction between the saved and the unsaved is so often repeated in Scripture that Inclusivists cannot deny it without making the Word of God void in order to maintain their unbiblical doctrine. Jesus indicated in Luke 13 that initially few would be saved:
“Then one said to Him, ‘Lord, are there few who are saved?’ And He said to them, 24 ‘Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” (Luke 13:23-24)
Especially at the close of this age, during the Great Tribulation, Jesus says that the love of many will grow cold, and only the elect who endure to the end will be saved (Matt 24:9-14). He also said of that time:
“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt 24:24)
“And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.” (Matt 24:21)
Jesus said: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt 22:13). He said of His disciples: “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (Jn 15:19). One cannot insist that everyone is elect, as the Inclusivists claim, without ignoring these and many other such exclusive statements in the Scriptures.
The examples of distinctions being made between the saved and unsaved are too numerous to cite in this blog, so I will just cite a couple more. In 1Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul makes a clear distinction between the unrighteous and those who have been justified. He said:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9-11)
The believers at Corinth were once among the unrighteous or unjust, but they were justified, washed and sanctified upon believing by the Spirit of God. My last example is from 1 John 3 where John distinguishes between those who are born of God and those who are still under the power of the devil:
“No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 NO ONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD PRACTICES SIN, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:6-10 NASU)
John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that there are those who have been born of God, as opposed to those who have not, and for that reason continue living in sin under the power of the god of this age. As Jesus said, we are no longer of this world. We are to be light and salt in the world, marking the difference between the darkness and the light.
In conclusion, the “Gospel of Inclusion” is a deceptive half-truth, making it a heretical false gospel which will keep many on the broad path leading to destruction. Those of us who believe in the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and the final restoration of all, need to take a clear stand, insisting upon the true gospel, the word of faith which we preach.
[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INPyY0QjgpY
[ii] Young, Wm. Paul. Lies We Believe About God. Kindle Edition loc. 917.
[iii] Don Keathley. Unmasking the Gospel. Video 29:10
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
--
Throughout the Scriptures we find that there is only one Lord God and yet there are three who are equally called both Lord and God. Based upon this revelation, the Church has historically believed that the one and only true God exists as three persons. To the natural mind this is unacceptable since it is so unlike anything we find in God’s creation. I have actually been accused of believing in a three-headed god by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Some have attempted to illustrate from nature how something can be one and three at the same time. For example, the same water can be liquid, ice or vapor. Man, likewise, is tripartite, made up of body, soul and spirit, and yet he is one man. One egg has a shell, a white and a yoke, yet is one egg, etc. However, while these illustrate how something can be one and at the same time three, they all fall short when it comes to explaining how God can be three and one at the same time. It is folly for the creature to presume to be capable of fully comprehending the Creator. To those who would limit God to their own imagination and finite reason, God says:
“To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal and compare Me, that we should be alike?” (Isa 46:5)
If we would know anything about our infinitely incomprehensible God, we must base our understanding upon the revelation which He has given us in His Word and through the person of His Son who is the eternal Word of God incarnate. Our finite reason alone will lead us to reject anything beyond our limited realm of natural experience and understanding. Sadly, we are often more disposed to accept the declarations of scientists about things beyond our comprehension, such as quantum physics, black holes and dark energy, than we are to accept God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures.
The Trinity revealed in the Old Testament
Some mistakenly think that the Trinity is an exclusively New Testament revelation. To the contrary, while the distinctions are not as pronounced as they are in the New Testament where God’s plan of redemption unfolds with the Father sending the Son to redeem us and afterwards sending the Holy Spirit to inhabit believers, all three persons are nevertheless referred to throughout the Old Testament. One passage in particular which recounts God’s deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt, and also foreshadows God’s redemption of His people through Christ, as well as naming all three persons together, is Isaiah 63. Here I will only quote the portions which name each of the three persons of the Godhead:
“I will mention the lovingkindnesses of Yahweh and the praises of Yahweh…8 He became their Savior… 9 and the Angel of His Presence saved them… 10 But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; so He turned Himself against them as an enemy, and He fought against them… 11 Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them…16 Doubtless You are our Father… You, O Yahweh, are our Father; Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name.” (Isa 63:7-11,16)
Here, in one passage, we see reference to Yahweh or the Angel of His Presence who became their Savior, who, as we saw in the previous blog, “The Christophanies of the Old Testament,” is speaking of the Angel of the Lord or the preincarnate Christ, who is Himself called Yahweh Elohim. Then we see mention of His Holy Spirit whom He put within them, but they grieved His Spirit. Then finally in verse 16 we see reference to God the Father. All three persons of the Godhead are clearly distinguished in this brief passage. Another verse that makes a distinction between the three persons of the Godhead is Isaiah 48:16 which reads:
“Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” (Isa 48:16)
This prophecy looks forward to when the Son would be sent to bring salvation to mankind. It makes a very clear distinction between Christ, the Lord God, and His Spirit. Another passage which contains the trinity is Isaiah 61:1 which says:
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because Yahweh has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor.” (Isa 61:1; cf. Lu 4:18)
By comparing this with Luke 4:18, we see that “Me” is prophetically speaking of Christ. Additionally, it says that the Spirit of the Lord God is on Christ because Yahweh anointed Him with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 10:38). All three persons are distinguished here, just as they are in numerous Old Testament passages. There are several references to God as Father (Ps 89:26; Isa 64:8; Jer 3:4,19, etc.). Therefore, when Jesus referred to God as Father, it wasn’t something unfamiliar to the Jews. Nor were His frequent references to the Holy Spirit as a person being distinct from the Father, since it was the same language they were familiar with from the Old Testament (Joel 2:28-29; Isa 42:1; cf. Jn 15:26; 16:13-15, etc.).
Plurality in Unity
What many are unaware of is that the very passage that declares the oneness of God implies plurality in unity. Deuteronomy 6: 4 declares: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” While this passage emphasizes that there is only one God, at the same time it implies that the one true God is complex in His unity. It literally reads: “Yahweh our Elohim, Yahweh is one.” While Yahweh is singular, Elohim is the plural form of El. Biblical Hebrew had a plural and a dual, so the plural in Hebrew speaks of three or more.
It is argued by Unitarians that the word “one” (Heb. echad) rules out the possibility that Elohim could be understood as expressing plurality in the Godhead. However, echad often refers to a compound unity in Scripture. In Genesis 2:4 it says concerning the union of marriage between a man and a woman, “they shall become one flesh (echad).” In Exodus 24:3 it says that all the children of Israel “spoke with one voice (echad).” In Genesis 34:22 it speaks of two nations becoming “one people (echad).” Contrary to what Unitarians affirm, echad is commonly used to refer to two or more persons as being one.
There is actually another word in Hebrew, yachid, which was used to refer to “one” in an absolute sense. The Lord used it when He told Abraham to offer up his “only” son Isaac (Gen 22:2). The word yachid is used 12 times in the Old Testament to refer to “one” in the absolute sense. However, in Deuteronomy 6:4 when it declares “Yahweh your Elohim is one,” the inspired text deliberately uses echad instead of yachid.
It is argued that the substantive Elohim is used in the plural to express majesty rather than plurality. That may be the case in some contexts, but that is clearly not the case when speaking of Yahweh Elohim. The plural elohim, when referring to a solitary majesty, never refers to the individual in plural throughout the sentence, as we see when Elohim is used to refer to Yahweh. For example, in Genesis 1:26 it says:
“Then God (Elohim) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”
Here the verb “let us make,” as well as “our image” and “our likeness” are all in the plural. Some would argue that God was simply speaking to the angels when He said: “Let us make man in Our image.” However, in the next verse it becomes clear that man was not made in the image of angels, but in the image of God Himself. It says:
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen 1:27)
Here we see that we were created in the very image of God and not the image of some other creature, such as an angel (cf. Gen 9:6). In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit, we again see Yahweh Elohim speaking as a plurality of persons:
“Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.” (Gen 3:22)
Not only do we see reference to God as a plurality of persons when His plural title Elohim is used, but we also find the plural being used when God is referred to as Yahweh alone, without the presence of the plural Elohim:
“And the LORD (Yahweh) said, ‘Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.’ 8 So the LORD (Yahweh) scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” (Gen 11:6-8)
Here we see Yahweh is singular, yet there is a plurality within the one Godhead, as can be seen by the plural “let Us go down,” rather than the singular “I will go down.” There is no indication in the context that He is speaking to individuals outside of the Godhead itself. All of these plural grammatical constructions clearly indicate that there is plurality in unity within the Godhead.
The Trinity in the Act of Creation
Genesis begins by saying, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth.” As we continue reading, we discover that Elohim encompasses three persons rather than one solitary being. In the very next verse, we see reference to the Spirit of Elohim who was hovering over the waters. The psalmist says of Yahweh, “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created” (Ps 104:30). Job said: “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). I will later establish that the Holy Spirit is an actual person within the Godhead and not merely God’s active force, but here we can clearly see that the Spirit of God was active in creation.
A mirror image of Genesis 1:1 is John 1:1-3, where we see that the Son of God was not only God, but that He also created all things which exist:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him (διά “by, through”), and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Jn 1:1-3)
We see here that the Word, or the preincarnate Christ, was not only with God in the beginning, but that He was God, and that all things were made by or through Him. We also see in Hebrews 1:2 that God made the eons (τοὺς αἰῶνας “the ages,” i.e. He created time) by or through the Son, which requires that the Son be co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Not only were all things made by Him, but in Colossians we also see that all things were created in Him, rather than simply coming into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo) as commonly taught:
“For by Him (ἔν “in Him”) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through (διά “by, through”) Him and for (εἰς “for, into, unto”) Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him (ἔν “in Him”) all things consist (συνιστάω “to hold together”).” (Col 1:16-17)
Therefore, if the Son of God was already existing in the beginning and created all things including the eons themselves, then He exists outside of time. He must of necessity be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Considering that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and seeing that all three persons of the Godhead are repeatedly said to have created all things, including time itself, it logically follows that God or Elohim is one God who exists in three persons, just as the Church has historically taught.
The Distinct Personhood of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Some Trinitarians avoid referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as “persons,” preferring to speak of them instead as distinct “beings” or “individuals” within the Godhead, since some tend to equate “persons” with finite human beings. However, there is no problem with the term “person” if we understand it as simply referring to a self-aware conscious being with intellect, emotion and will, as opposed to an inanimate force or thing. We were created in the image and likeness of God, and for that reason, I believe it is the most apt term to show the distinction of persons within the Godhead.
Unitarians acknowledge that the Son is a person but deny His deity. They also deny that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father, regarding Him to be nothing more than the active force of God. Modalists acknowledge that both the Son and Holy Spirit are divine but deny that they are actual persons within the Godhead. It should be clear from what we have seen in the previous blogs that the Son of God is fully divine, so our focus here will be to establish the personhood of the Holy Spirit and also the distinct eternal personhood of the Son prior to His incarnation.
The Personhood of the Son
Little needs to be said as to the personhood of the Son in distinction from the Father and the Holy Spirit, since no one doubts that the Son is a person, and the distinction of the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Son is so frequently observed in the Scriptures. I would just like to cite a couple of examples in which the Son is distinguished from God the Father prior to His incarnation. The first one is Hebrews 10:5-7 which I cite from a literal translation, since it preserved the tense of the present participle “coming.” Concerning Christ it reads:
“For this reason, coming (present tense) into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You prepared a body for Me. 6 You did not delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices concerning sins.’ 7 Then I said, ‘Lo, I come, in the heading of the Book it was written concerning Me, to do Your will, O God.’” (Heb 10:5-7 LITV)
Here we see the Son saying when He is about to come into the world, that the Father had prepared a body for Him in order that He might offer Himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. This parallels with the reference to God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). Here we see a distinction of persons within the Godhead prior to the incarnation. We also see a distinction of persons in Philippians where the preincarnate Christ empties Himself, taking on the form of a man:
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being (present participle) in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation (κενόω, “emptied Himself”), taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil 2:5-8)
Here we see the preincarnate Son of God existing in the form of God and being equal with God, actively “emptying Himself” and taking upon Himself the form of a bondservant and coming to earth in human form. The language of this passage throughout clearly presents Christ as being a person who existed in the form of God and was equal with God prior to His incarnation. The incarnation wasn’t something that was done for Him as a passive embryo in the womb of Mary. The preincarnate Christ emptied Himself, taking upon Himself a human nature.
We also see a distinction of persons in that the Father is said to have “sent” the Son and the Son said that He came to do the will of the Father. There is the will of the Father and the will of the Son. There was the Sender and the Sent. Then, at the close of Christ’s earthly ministry, He prays to the Father saying:
“I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (Jn 17:4-5)
Jesus could not have made it any clearer that He was a distinct person from the Father who eternally existed with the Father in glory before creation.
The Personhood of the Holy Spirit
Many have difficulty perceiving the Holy Spirit as a person since He doesn’t appear in bodily form. However, what makes us a person is not our physical body. We continue as a self-conscious soul with intellect, emotions and will after leaving our physical body behind in the grave. The Holy Spirit, just as the Father and Son, is a person in the sense that He is not impersonal. He, just as the Father and the Son, manifests individual intellect, emotion and will, and yet they share the same essence and attributes.
The Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father and the Son. For the sake of space, I will show just one example from the Gospel of John where we see a clear distinction between the three persons of the Trinity.
“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom (neuter) the Father will send in My name, He (masculine) will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (Jn 14:25-26)
Here we see all three persons: The Son who is speaking says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit. Some Unitarians, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny that the Holy Spirit is a person, point out that the pronoun “whom” is neuter. However, in Greek the grammatical gender is not equivalent to sexual gender. The pronoun “whom” (ὅς) is neuter only because it modifies “Spirit (πνεῦμα),” which is a neuter noun. That the Holy Spirit is a person is made clear when it says, “He (masculine, ἐκεῖνος) will teach you all things.” Jesus Himself is also the “Lamb” (ἀρνίον), which is neuter, yet we know He is a person. So, in this passage we see three distinct persons within the Godhead.
That the Holy Spirit is a person and not the impersonal force of God such as electricity, is also evident, seeing that He possesses the attributes that only a person can have: emotions, intellect and will.
Emotions. The Holy Spirit is an emotional being. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc., qualities which could not be attributed to an impersonal force. The Holy Spirit loves us (Rom 15:30). The development of robotics has made great strides, but a robot remains impersonal and therefore is incapable of loving us as the Holy Spirit loves us. The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30). You can shut up your car for months in the garage or you may prefer another car over your own, but you can never grieve it or make it sad because it is not a person as the Holy Spirit is. We can enjoy communion with Him (2Cor 13:14). Communion is close friendship or sharing things in common with another person. You can spend hours working with a computer, but you cannot have communion with it because it is not a person, as the Holy Spirit is.
Intellect. Another characteristic of personhood is intellect. Only a person has genuine intelligence. Computers are programmed with information by intelligent people, but the computer only has artificial intelligence because it is not a person. It doesn’t have a mind which consciously reasons, as a person does. In contrast, the Holy Spirit is omniscient and knows all (1Cor 2:10-11). As the all-knowing God, He speaks to us, communicating to us things we couldn’t have known otherwise (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2). Furthermore, the gifts of the Spirit, such as the gift of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy and discerning of spirits, demonstrate His intelligence (1Cor 12:8-10). In John chapters 14 through 16 we see that the Holy Spirit teaches us, He reminds us of the words of Jesus, He convinces us of sin, He leads us into all truth, He tells us what He hears from the Father and glorifies the Son – all of these being things which only a person can do. Also, we can lie to the Holy Spirit. Peter said to Ananias: “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?... You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3-4). Here, in Peter’s statement, we not only see that the Holy Spirit is a person we can lie to, but we also see that He is God.
Volition. The Holy Spirit has a will (1Cor 12:11). He permits and prohibits things according to His will (Acts 16:6-7,10). Only a person can make decisions or determinations based upon one’s own knowledge and emotions. Those who walk in the Spirit are those who submit their own will to the will of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16-18).
So, considering the fact that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are equally called God and Lord, and seeing that each one of them individually demonstrates all the attributes unique to personhood, and yet they are emphatically said to be one God and not three, the only logical conclusion is that the one and only true God exists in triunity as three persons in one. To me, one of the most concise definitive statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is contained in the Athanasian Creed which says:
“We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.”
--
Throughout the Scriptures we find that there is only one Lord God and yet there are three who are equally called both Lord and God. Based upon this revelation, the Church has historically believed that the one and only true God exists as three persons. To the natural mind this is unacceptable since it is so unlike anything we find in God’s creation. I have actually been accused of believing in a three-headed god by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Some have attempted to illustrate from nature how something can be one and three at the same time. For example, the same water can be liquid, ice or vapor. Man, likewise, is tripartite, made up of body, soul and spirit, and yet he is one man. One egg has a shell, a white and a yoke, yet is one egg, etc. However, while these illustrate how something can be one and at the same time three, they all fall short when it comes to explaining how God can be three and one at the same time. It is folly for the creature to presume to be capable of fully comprehending the Creator. To those who would limit God to their own imagination and finite reason, God says:
“To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal and compare Me, that we should be alike?” (Isa 46:5)
If we would know anything about our infinitely incomprehensible God, we must base our understanding upon the revelation which He has given us in His Word and through the person of His Son who is the eternal Word of God incarnate. Our finite reason alone will lead us to reject anything beyond our limited realm of natural experience and understanding. Sadly, we are often more disposed to accept the declarations of scientists about things beyond our comprehension, such as quantum physics, black holes and dark energy, than we are to accept God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures.
The Trinity revealed in the Old Testament
Some mistakenly think that the Trinity is an exclusively New Testament revelation. To the contrary, while the distinctions are not as pronounced as they are in the New Testament where God’s plan of redemption unfolds with the Father sending the Son to redeem us and afterwards sending the Holy Spirit to inhabit believers, all three persons are nevertheless referred to throughout the Old Testament. One passage in particular which recounts God’s deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt, and also foreshadows God’s redemption of His people through Christ, as well as naming all three persons together, is Isaiah 63. Here I will only quote the portions which name each of the three persons of the Godhead:
“I will mention the lovingkindnesses of Yahweh and the praises of Yahweh…8 He became their Savior… 9 and the Angel of His Presence saved them… 10 But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; so He turned Himself against them as an enemy, and He fought against them… 11 Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them…16 Doubtless You are our Father… You, O Yahweh, are our Father; Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name.” (Isa 63:7-11,16)
Here, in one passage, we see reference to Yahweh or the Angel of His Presence who became their Savior, who, as we saw in the previous blog, “The Christophanies of the Old Testament,” is speaking of the Angel of the Lord or the preincarnate Christ, who is Himself called Yahweh Elohim. Then we see mention of His Holy Spirit whom He put within them, but they grieved His Spirit. Then finally in verse 16 we see reference to God the Father. All three persons of the Godhead are clearly distinguished in this brief passage. Another verse that makes a distinction between the three persons of the Godhead is Isaiah 48:16 which reads:
“Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” (Isa 48:16)
This prophecy looks forward to when the Son would be sent to bring salvation to mankind. It makes a very clear distinction between Christ, the Lord God, and His Spirit. Another passage which contains the trinity is Isaiah 61:1 which says:
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because Yahweh has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor.” (Isa 61:1; cf. Lu 4:18)
By comparing this with Luke 4:18, we see that “Me” is prophetically speaking of Christ. Additionally, it says that the Spirit of the Lord God is on Christ because Yahweh anointed Him with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 10:38). All three persons are distinguished here, just as they are in numerous Old Testament passages. There are several references to God as Father (Ps 89:26; Isa 64:8; Jer 3:4,19, etc.). Therefore, when Jesus referred to God as Father, it wasn’t something unfamiliar to the Jews. Nor were His frequent references to the Holy Spirit as a person being distinct from the Father, since it was the same language they were familiar with from the Old Testament (Joel 2:28-29; Isa 42:1; cf. Jn 15:26; 16:13-15, etc.).
Plurality in Unity
What many are unaware of is that the very passage that declares the oneness of God implies plurality in unity. Deuteronomy 6: 4 declares: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” While this passage emphasizes that there is only one God, at the same time it implies that the one true God is complex in His unity. It literally reads: “Yahweh our Elohim, Yahweh is one.” While Yahweh is singular, Elohim is the plural form of El. Biblical Hebrew had a plural and a dual, so the plural in Hebrew speaks of three or more.
It is argued by Unitarians that the word “one” (Heb. echad) rules out the possibility that Elohim could be understood as expressing plurality in the Godhead. However, echad often refers to a compound unity in Scripture. In Genesis 2:4 it says concerning the union of marriage between a man and a woman, “they shall become one flesh (echad).” In Exodus 24:3 it says that all the children of Israel “spoke with one voice (echad).” In Genesis 34:22 it speaks of two nations becoming “one people (echad).” Contrary to what Unitarians affirm, echad is commonly used to refer to two or more persons as being one.
There is actually another word in Hebrew, yachid, which was used to refer to “one” in an absolute sense. The Lord used it when He told Abraham to offer up his “only” son Isaac (Gen 22:2). The word yachid is used 12 times in the Old Testament to refer to “one” in the absolute sense. However, in Deuteronomy 6:4 when it declares “Yahweh your Elohim is one,” the inspired text deliberately uses echad instead of yachid.
It is argued that the substantive Elohim is used in the plural to express majesty rather than plurality. That may be the case in some contexts, but that is clearly not the case when speaking of Yahweh Elohim. The plural elohim, when referring to a solitary majesty, never refers to the individual in plural throughout the sentence, as we see when Elohim is used to refer to Yahweh. For example, in Genesis 1:26 it says:
“Then God (Elohim) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”
Here the verb “let us make,” as well as “our image” and “our likeness” are all in the plural. Some would argue that God was simply speaking to the angels when He said: “Let us make man in Our image.” However, in the next verse it becomes clear that man was not made in the image of angels, but in the image of God Himself. It says:
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen 1:27)
Here we see that we were created in the very image of God and not the image of some other creature, such as an angel (cf. Gen 9:6). In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit, we again see Yahweh Elohim speaking as a plurality of persons:
“Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.” (Gen 3:22)
Not only do we see reference to God as a plurality of persons when His plural title Elohim is used, but we also find the plural being used when God is referred to as Yahweh alone, without the presence of the plural Elohim:
“And the LORD (Yahweh) said, ‘Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.’ 8 So the LORD (Yahweh) scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” (Gen 11:6-8)
Here we see Yahweh is singular, yet there is a plurality within the one Godhead, as can be seen by the plural “let Us go down,” rather than the singular “I will go down.” There is no indication in the context that He is speaking to individuals outside of the Godhead itself. All of these plural grammatical constructions clearly indicate that there is plurality in unity within the Godhead.
The Trinity in the Act of Creation
Genesis begins by saying, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth.” As we continue reading, we discover that Elohim encompasses three persons rather than one solitary being. In the very next verse, we see reference to the Spirit of Elohim who was hovering over the waters. The psalmist says of Yahweh, “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created” (Ps 104:30). Job said: “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). I will later establish that the Holy Spirit is an actual person within the Godhead and not merely God’s active force, but here we can clearly see that the Spirit of God was active in creation.
A mirror image of Genesis 1:1 is John 1:1-3, where we see that the Son of God was not only God, but that He also created all things which exist:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him (διά “by, through”), and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Jn 1:1-3)
We see here that the Word, or the preincarnate Christ, was not only with God in the beginning, but that He was God, and that all things were made by or through Him. We also see in Hebrews 1:2 that God made the eons (τοὺς αἰῶνας “the ages,” i.e. He created time) by or through the Son, which requires that the Son be co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Not only were all things made by Him, but in Colossians we also see that all things were created in Him, rather than simply coming into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo) as commonly taught:
“For by Him (ἔν “in Him”) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through (διά “by, through”) Him and for (εἰς “for, into, unto”) Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him (ἔν “in Him”) all things consist (συνιστάω “to hold together”).” (Col 1:16-17)
Therefore, if the Son of God was already existing in the beginning and created all things including the eons themselves, then He exists outside of time. He must of necessity be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Considering that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and seeing that all three persons of the Godhead are repeatedly said to have created all things, including time itself, it logically follows that God or Elohim is one God who exists in three persons, just as the Church has historically taught.
The Distinct Personhood of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Some Trinitarians avoid referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as “persons,” preferring to speak of them instead as distinct “beings” or “individuals” within the Godhead, since some tend to equate “persons” with finite human beings. However, there is no problem with the term “person” if we understand it as simply referring to a self-aware conscious being with intellect, emotion and will, as opposed to an inanimate force or thing. We were created in the image and likeness of God, and for that reason, I believe it is the most apt term to show the distinction of persons within the Godhead.
Unitarians acknowledge that the Son is a person but deny His deity. They also deny that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father, regarding Him to be nothing more than the active force of God. Modalists acknowledge that both the Son and Holy Spirit are divine but deny that they are actual persons within the Godhead. It should be clear from what we have seen in the previous blogs that the Son of God is fully divine, so our focus here will be to establish the personhood of the Holy Spirit and also the distinct eternal personhood of the Son prior to His incarnation.
The Personhood of the Son
Little needs to be said as to the personhood of the Son in distinction from the Father and the Holy Spirit, since no one doubts that the Son is a person, and the distinction of the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Son is so frequently observed in the Scriptures. I would just like to cite a couple of examples in which the Son is distinguished from God the Father prior to His incarnation. The first one is Hebrews 10:5-7 which I cite from a literal translation, since it preserved the tense of the present participle “coming.” Concerning Christ it reads:
“For this reason, coming (present tense) into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You prepared a body for Me. 6 You did not delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices concerning sins.’ 7 Then I said, ‘Lo, I come, in the heading of the Book it was written concerning Me, to do Your will, O God.’” (Heb 10:5-7 LITV)
Here we see the Son saying when He is about to come into the world, that the Father had prepared a body for Him in order that He might offer Himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. This parallels with the reference to God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). Here we see a distinction of persons within the Godhead prior to the incarnation. We also see a distinction of persons in Philippians where the preincarnate Christ empties Himself, taking on the form of a man:
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being (present participle) in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation (κενόω, “emptied Himself”), taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil 2:5-8)
Here we see the preincarnate Son of God existing in the form of God and being equal with God, actively “emptying Himself” and taking upon Himself the form of a bondservant and coming to earth in human form. The language of this passage throughout clearly presents Christ as being a person who existed in the form of God and was equal with God prior to His incarnation. The incarnation wasn’t something that was done for Him as a passive embryo in the womb of Mary. The preincarnate Christ emptied Himself, taking upon Himself a human nature.
We also see a distinction of persons in that the Father is said to have “sent” the Son and the Son said that He came to do the will of the Father. There is the will of the Father and the will of the Son. There was the Sender and the Sent. Then, at the close of Christ’s earthly ministry, He prays to the Father saying:
“I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (Jn 17:4-5)
Jesus could not have made it any clearer that He was a distinct person from the Father who eternally existed with the Father in glory before creation.
The Personhood of the Holy Spirit
Many have difficulty perceiving the Holy Spirit as a person since He doesn’t appear in bodily form. However, what makes us a person is not our physical body. We continue as a self-conscious soul with intellect, emotions and will after leaving our physical body behind in the grave. The Holy Spirit, just as the Father and Son, is a person in the sense that He is not impersonal. He, just as the Father and the Son, manifests individual intellect, emotion and will, and yet they share the same essence and attributes.
The Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father and the Son. For the sake of space, I will show just one example from the Gospel of John where we see a clear distinction between the three persons of the Trinity.
“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom (neuter) the Father will send in My name, He (masculine) will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (Jn 14:25-26)
Here we see all three persons: The Son who is speaking says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit. Some Unitarians, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny that the Holy Spirit is a person, point out that the pronoun “whom” is neuter. However, in Greek the grammatical gender is not equivalent to sexual gender. The pronoun “whom” (ὅς) is neuter only because it modifies “Spirit (πνεῦμα),” which is a neuter noun. That the Holy Spirit is a person is made clear when it says, “He (masculine, ἐκεῖνος) will teach you all things.” Jesus Himself is also the “Lamb” (ἀρνίον), which is neuter, yet we know He is a person. So, in this passage we see three distinct persons within the Godhead.
That the Holy Spirit is a person and not the impersonal force of God such as electricity, is also evident, seeing that He possesses the attributes that only a person can have: emotions, intellect and will.
Emotions. The Holy Spirit is an emotional being. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc., qualities which could not be attributed to an impersonal force. The Holy Spirit loves us (Rom 15:30). The development of robotics has made great strides, but a robot remains impersonal and therefore is incapable of loving us as the Holy Spirit loves us. The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30). You can shut up your car for months in the garage or you may prefer another car over your own, but you can never grieve it or make it sad because it is not a person as the Holy Spirit is. We can enjoy communion with Him (2Cor 13:14). Communion is close friendship or sharing things in common with another person. You can spend hours working with a computer, but you cannot have communion with it because it is not a person, as the Holy Spirit is.
Intellect. Another characteristic of personhood is intellect. Only a person has genuine intelligence. Computers are programmed with information by intelligent people, but the computer only has artificial intelligence because it is not a person. It doesn’t have a mind which consciously reasons, as a person does. In contrast, the Holy Spirit is omniscient and knows all (1Cor 2:10-11). As the all-knowing God, He speaks to us, communicating to us things we couldn’t have known otherwise (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2). Furthermore, the gifts of the Spirit, such as the gift of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy and discerning of spirits, demonstrate His intelligence (1Cor 12:8-10). In John chapters 14 through 16 we see that the Holy Spirit teaches us, He reminds us of the words of Jesus, He convinces us of sin, He leads us into all truth, He tells us what He hears from the Father and glorifies the Son – all of these being things which only a person can do. Also, we can lie to the Holy Spirit. Peter said to Ananias: “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?... You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3-4). Here, in Peter’s statement, we not only see that the Holy Spirit is a person we can lie to, but we also see that He is God.
Volition. The Holy Spirit has a will (1Cor 12:11). He permits and prohibits things according to His will (Acts 16:6-7,10). Only a person can make decisions or determinations based upon one’s own knowledge and emotions. Those who walk in the Spirit are those who submit their own will to the will of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16-18).
So, considering the fact that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are equally called God and Lord, and seeing that each one of them individually demonstrates all the attributes unique to personhood, and yet they are emphatically said to be one God and not three, the only logical conclusion is that the one and only true God exists in triunity as three persons in one. To me, one of the most concise definitive statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is contained in the Athanasian Creed which says:
“We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.”
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
What many are unaware of is that Jesus often referred to Himself as the Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Old Testament, and the New Testament authors also directly identified Him as Yahweh multiple times. We often overlook the fact that the very name that the angel told Joseph to give Him identified Him as Yahweh. Jesus in Hebrew means “Yahweh who saves.” Then, in case there were any doubt as to whether or not we should take His name literally, Matthew follows up by saying:
“you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, ‘God with us.’” (Matt 1:21-23; cf. Isa 7:14)
So, His very names, Jesus Immanuel, which were given to Him from above, announced to the world that Yahweh Elohim had come down to dwell among us and save His own people from their sins. As we shall see, He who was miraculously conceived in Mary’s womb of the Holy Spirit was none less that Yahweh Himself, the eternal I AM in the person of the Son who is eternally in the bosom of the Father (Jn 1:18).
Isaiah likewise prophesied concerning His incarnation, applying to Him other names exclusive to Yahweh:
“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6)
In this blog we will be looking at fourteen different statements concerning Jesus in the New Testament which clearly demonstrate that He was none less than Yahweh incarnate. Many overlook these references to Jesus as the Yahweh of the Old Testament since most translations simply translate the tetragram YHWH as “LORD,” something most readers are unaware of. I will be quoting primarily from the NKJV, but I will replace their rendering LORD with Yahweh to assist us in identifying the references to Jesus as Yahweh in the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament.
We see that both Yahweh in the Old Testament, and also Jesus are presented as “the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 22:13 cf. Isa 44:6). In keeping with this reality, I will present the references to Jesus as Yahweh in chronological order from creation to the consummation.
1) Only Yahweh / Jesus is the Creator of All
Yahweh Elohim is not only presented as the only Savior, as we saw in the previous blog, but He is also presented in the Old Testament as the only Creator of heaven and earth. Isaiah says:
“For thus says Yahweh, who created the heavens, who is God (Elohim), who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: ‘I am Yahweh, and there is no other.’” (Isa 45:18)
In Psalm 102 the psalmist worships Yahweh Elohim as the eternal Creator who never changes. He says:
“Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. 27 But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.” (Ps 102:25-27)
The writer of Hebrews directly acknowledges Jesus as Yahweh when he quotes directly from this Psalm preceded by Psalm 45:6, which is also quoted word for word, identifying Jesus as Elohim:
“But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God (Elohim), is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom… 10 And: “You, Lord (Yahweh), in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11 They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; 12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.’” (Heb 1:8,10-12, cf. Psa 45:6-7)
If that affirmation of His deity were not clear enough to silence those who claimed that He was a mere angel, he continues by saying in the next verse: “But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool?’” (Heb 1:13)
This passage in Hebrews clearly affirms that Jesus is the eternal Yahweh Elohim, who is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), and the Creator of all things. As John says:
“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him” (Jn 1:10). That the Father and the Holy Spirit also make up the one Yahweh Elohim and equally participated in creation along with the Son, is a truth that will be considered in another blog.
2) Yahweh sends Yahweh
In the midst of Jerusalem’s judgment and Babylonian captivity, Yahweh promises that He will send the Messiah Yahweh to save them. Notice how this passage speaks of Yahweh who rules on His throne, sending Yahweh to deliver them:
“For thus says Yahweh of hosts: "He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye. 9 For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me. 10 "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst," says Yahweh. 11 "Many nations shall be joined to Yahweh in that day, and they shall become My people (cf. Matt 1:21; Jn 1:11). And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that Yahweh of hosts has sent Me to you.” (Zech 2:8-11)
More than one person in the Godhead is required in order for this prophecy to have been fulfilled. Yahweh who is seated on His throne is both the One who sends and also the One who comes to dwell in their midst in verse ten. He says that many will join themselves to Him on the day of salvation. The Jews in Jesus’ day eagerly anticipated the fulfillment of this promised deliverance, but when Jesus, their Yahweh – Savior presented Himself to them they rejected Him because He did not appear in the manner they expected. The full fulfillment of this Messianic prophecy awaits the Second Coming of Christ when all Israel will cry out, “blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord (Yahweh)” (Matt 23:37-39 cf. Psa 118:26).
3) Yahweh sent John the Baptist to prepare the way for Yahweh / Jesus
In the appointed time of the Father, the word of the Lord came to John the Baptist in the wilderness, and he began to call upon all Israel to repent in preparation for the coming of the long-anticipated Messiah. Matthew 3:3 says:
“For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord (Yahweh); Make His paths straight.’” (Matt 3:3)
He is here quoting from Isaiah 40 which likewise promised the coming Messiah who would deliver them. Again, it is Yahweh Elohim Himself in the person of the Son who comes to earth, and Israel is being called to repentance in preparation for His coming. The verse he quotes in Isaiah 40:3 was the message John preached:
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Yahweh; Make straight in the desert a highway for our God (Elohim).” (Isa 40:3)
Jesus was the very Yahweh whom John had been commissioned to prepare the way for. When John saw Jesus coming towards him, he cried out saying: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me’” (Jn 1:29-30). He was preparing the way for the Lamb of God, Yahweh Elohim, who, although He was born after him, nevertheless existed before him. And the moment he laid eyes upon Jesus he knew that He was the One he was preparing the way for.
Is it any wonder that Thomas cried out, “My Lord and my God” when he found himself face to face with Jesus after His resurrection? This is the very Lamb of God whom John the revelator saw exalted upon the throne with the Father – a preview of the time when all of creation will give to Him all worship, honor and praise – something due to God alone (Rev 5:13).
4) The Rock in the wilderness was Yahweh / Jesus.
Paul says that Jesus was Himself that Rock which sustained the Children of Israel throughout their desert wanderings. He said:
“Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:1-4)
Out of the rock sprang fountains of living water in the desert, satisfying their thirst. Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit declares that Yahweh Elohim Himself was that Rock:
“For I proclaim the name of Yahweh: Ascribe greatness to our God (Elohim). 4 He is the Rock.” (Deut 32:3-4 cf. 8:14-15)
Paul, being familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures, knew full well that He was identifying Christ as Yahweh our Rock.
5) The Children of Israel were Christ’s / Yahweh’s people
The angel said to Joseph that Jesus would save His people from their sins (Matt 1:21). In John chapter 1, after saying that Christ, the Word was God, and that all things which exist were made by Him, says concerning God’s people Israel:
“He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.” (Jn 1:11)
The Jews who heard this would have understood that John was affirming that Jesus was Yahweh Elohim, since Yahweh calls Israel “My people” 189 times in the Old Testament.
6) Yahweh / Jesus saved the Children of Israel from Egypt
We all know that it was Yahweh who saved the Children of Israel from Egypt. However, Jude says that it was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who saved them from Egypt:
“But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)
“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5 NET)
Why did the NET version render it as Jesus instead of Lord as in the King James Version? We know that “the Lord” referred to is Jesus because the previous verse concludes with a warning against those who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Also, there is a variant reading of verse five where many manuscripts, including some of the oldest, read “Jesus” instead of “Lord,” which would make it even more obvious who is being referred to. There are some strong arguments for favoring that reading. For that reason, many translations such as the NET Bible, the Douay-Rheims, the Coptic Version, the Latin Vulgate, and others, read “Jesus” instead of “Lord.” The NET Bible explains why the reading “Jesus” is most likely the correct reading in their footnote [1]
7) The Children of Israel put Yahweh / Christ to the test in the wilderness
When the Children of Israel complained against Yahweh, despising His gracious provision, He sent serpents among the people:
“And the people spoke against God (Elohim) 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 our soul loathes this worthless bread." 6 So Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.” (Num 21:5-6)
Paul, who clearly understood Jesus to be Yahweh incarnate, says that it was Jesus Himself whom they tempted in the wilderness. He said:
“nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents.” (1 Cor 10:9)
As with Jude 5, there are some manuscripts which read “Lord” instead of “Christ.” However, the textual evidence leans very heavily in favor of the reading “Christ.” That is why most translations read “Christ.” Again, I refer you to the NET Bible footnote on 1Cor 10:9. [2]
8) Yahweh / Jesus is the Shepherd.
We are all quite familiar with Psalm 23 which says: “The Lord (Yahweh) is my Shepherd, I shall not want.” However, we often fail to consider that the Lord Jesus Christ identified Himself as that selfsame Shepherd when He said:
“I am (EGO EIMI) the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.” (Jn 10:11, cf. Ex 3:14)
As I will be demonstrating in a subsequent blog, when Jesus uses the construction EGO EIMÍ in certain contexts, it is evident that He is using it as the divine title which speaks of God’s eternal self-existence. This is clearly the case here, since Jesus elsewhere said that no one is good except for God alone (Matt 19:17). Additionally, He doesn’t simply say that He is a good shepherd, but rather that He is the good shepherd.
9) Yahweh / Jesus was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.
Yahweh said that He would be sold for 30 pieces of silver:
“And Yahweh said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’ — that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of Yahweh for the potter.” (Zech 11:13)
This prophecy was fulfilled when Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. As prophesied, Judas afterwards repented and threw the pieces of silver into the temple before the chief priests and elders, and they used the money to buy the potter’s field (Matt 26:14-16; 27:3-5,7). Matthew relates how Zechariah’s prophecy was fulfilled:
“And they took counsel, and bought with it the potter's field, for a place to bury strangers. 8 Wherefore that field is called the field of blood, unto this day. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the Precious One, which they of the children of Israel had stipulated; 10 and I gave them for the potter's field, as Yahweh directed me.” (Matt 27:7-10 MNT)
Here again we see how the authors of the New Testament, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, continually referred to Jesus as being Yahweh.
10) They will look upon Yahweh / Jesus whom they have pierced
In Zechariah Yahweh Elohim says that a day will come when those in Jerusalem will look upon Him – the One whom they pierced:
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” (Zech 12:10)
In the book of Revelation, we see that Jesus is the one whom they pierced, and that this prophecy in Zechariah will be fulfilled at His Second Coming:
“Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.” (Rev 1:7)
So, we see that it was Jesus / Yahweh who was speaking to Zechariah concerning His future coming to deliver Israel and reign over the earth.
11) Those who call on the name of Yahweh / Jesus will be saved
The prophet Joel said that anyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved:
“whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32)
Paul, in Romans 10, directly quotes Joel 2:32, equating calling on the name of Yahweh, with confessing the Lord Jesus with our mouth:
“if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved… 13 For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’” (Rom 10:9,13)
12) Isaiah saw Yahweh / Jesus’ glory
At the time Yahweh anointed Isaiah as a prophet, Isaiah saw Him on His throne in a heavenly vision. He describes it in Isaiah chapter six:
“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!’… 5 So I said: ‘Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts… 9 And He said, "Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' 10 "Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and return and be healed.” (Isa 6:1-5,9,10)
Jesus manifested His glory, performing signs and wonders and the people still did not believe Him. John quotes Isaiah six to explain the reason why they did not believe even though He had manifested His glory in their presence. In doing so, he clearly identified Jesus as Yahweh. He said:
“But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: ‘Lord (Yahweh), who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord (Yahweh) been revealed?’ 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’ 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” (John 12:37-41)
John, consistent with the entire gospel of John, affirms the full divinity of Christ, presenting Him as being the same Yahweh who appeared to Isaiah.
13) Every knee shall bow to Yahweh / Jesus
Closely related to calling upon the name of Yahweh in order to be saved, we see Him swearing by Himself that every knee will bow to Him, and every tongue will take an oath saying that in Him they have their righteousness:
“Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. 23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath. 24 He shall say,
'Surely in Yahweh I have righteousness and strength. To Him men shall come, and all shall be ashamed who are incensed against Him.” (Isa 45:22-24)
In Philippians 2, Paul quotes these same words from Isaiah, applying it to Jesus as Yahweh:
“at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Yahweh), to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11)
It is to the glory of the Father that we honor His Son just as we honor Him (Jn 5:23). We are all to bow before Jesus just as Thomas did, declaring Him our Yahweh Elohim, or our Lord and our God (Jn 20:28-29). This glorifies the Father because He and the Son – although they be two distinct persons, are nevertheless one in essence (Jn 10:30).
14) The First and the Last.
Yahweh Elohim declares the He is the only Redeemer, the First and the Last:
“Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his (Israel’s) Redeemer, Yahweh of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God (Elohim).” (Isa 44:6)
That Jesus is Himself Yahweh Elohim is evident, since He begins and closes the book of Revelation with the declaration that He Himself is the First and the Last:
“Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen.” (Rev 1:17-18 cf. 2:8; 22:12-13)
It is obvious that there can only be one who is “first.” If the Son is not co-eternal with the Father, He could not say of Himself that He is “the first.” Clearly, Jesus, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, being eternally one, are together the one and only Yahweh Elohim, the First and Last.
These are just some of the many parallels in Scripture indicating that Jesus is Himself Yahweh Elohim incarnate. I will be considering other parallels in detail in subsequent blogs. Those who are determined to continue denying the full deity of Christ may be able to find plausible alternate interpretations for some of these parallels, but I hope that the reader would agree with me in saying that most of them are irrefutable affirmations of Christ’s deity.
[1] tc The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel (the NA27 has “the Lord” instead of “Jesus”). However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 88 322 424c 665 915 1241 (1735: “the Lord Jesus”) 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg co eth Or1739mg Cyr Hier Bede), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though P72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate. The NA28 text now also reads Ιησοῦς. For defense of this reading, see Philipp Bartholomä, “Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt: A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5, ” NovT 50 (2008): 143-58.sn The construction our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ in v. 4 follows Granville Sharp’s rule (see note on Lord). The construction strongly implies the deity of Christ. This is followed by a statement that Jesus was involved in the salvation (and later judgment) of the Hebrews. He is thus to be identified with the Lord God, Yahweh. Verse 5, then, simply fleshes out what is implicit in v. 4.
[2] tc Χριστόν (Christon, “Christ”) is attested in the majority of mss, including many important witnesses of the Alexandrian (P46 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) texttypes, and other mss and versions (Ψ latt sy co). On the other hand, some of the important Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον (kurion, “Lord”; א B C P 33 104 1175 al). A few mss (A 81 pc) have θεόν (theon, “God”). The nomina sacra for these readings are quite similar (cMn, kMn, and qMn respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting Christ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with Deut 6:16 or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is rather compelling in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including {Clement of Alexandria} and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 126-27; TCGNT 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9,” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 201-11; contra A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Corinthians [ICC], 205-6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly original. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4, a text in which {Marcion} also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5. In a similar exodus context, some of the more important Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81 pc] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “God” instead of “Christ” in 1
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
Should the understanding that the God of Scripture is one as to essence and nature, yet existing as three distinct Persons, be considered an essential doctrine to the Christian faith? What about the belief that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was fully God and yet also fully man in His incarnation? Is it really that important what we believe concerning this controversial topic?
Some would say no. Among those who call themselves “Universalists” there are those who reason that, since all will be saved in the end anyway, it doesn’t really matter whether or not one is a Trinitarian or a Unitarian – whether our Savior be the Creator of all, or a mere creature. Some are what I would call “Pantheists.” However, not in the sense of believing that all is God, but in that they choose to ignore the subject altogether, saying that no matter what we believe about God it will all pan out in the end anyway.
However, looking to the Scriptures we see that it matters very much what we believe about God and about the Person of Christ. Jesus said:
“For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” (John 5:22-23)
Jesus here says that, if we fail to honor Him in the same way that we honor the Father, we are dishonoring the Father. The only created being that sought honor equal to the Father was Satan. Certainly, Christ is no mere created being, and therefore all honor and praise is due unto Him (Rev 5:11-14). The Apostle John, countering an early form of Gnosticism which denied that the man Jesus was also fully divine (the Christ), didn’t spare any words in denouncing them. He said:
“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1Jn 2:22-23)
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist… 9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” (2Jn 7,9).
In light of these, and many similar passages which we will be considering in this series of blogs, how can we as Biblical Universalists simply look the other way as New Agers introduce their pantheism which presents Christ as just another divine master on a par with Mohammad, Buda or Gandhi? How can we be silent before the Unitarians who deny the Trinity and Christ’s full deity?
My concern, and the primary motive for writing this series of blogs, is that the present revival of the doctrine of Universal Salvation could be derailed, just as the previous Universalist awakening was, if we remain silent. The restoration of the biblical doctrine of Universal Salvation had its beginnings among the Anabaptists and Moravians during the Reformation and flourished under the leadership of men like John Murray and Charles Chauncy in the 18th and 19th century, only to later decline under the influence of men like Hosea Ballou who introduced the doctrine of Unitarianism and denied the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, presenting His death on the cross as nothing more than a demonstration of God’s unconditional love for mankind.
The previous revival of Universalism reached an all-time low in 1961 when the Universalist Church of America finally merged with the Unitarian Church, becoming what is today known as the Unitarian Universalist Association. As of 2006, less than 20% of their members still identified themselves as Christian. [1]
Revival begins when we turn to the Lord and His Word with all our hearts. But when we do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, the glory of the Lord departs and apostacy sets in. If we do not awaken to the truth of the unadulterated gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the proclamation of sound doctrine, what began as a glorious rediscovery of the truth of Biblical Universalism will suffer the same fate as the previous awakening.
It is not necessary for one to be able to expound upon these truths in order to be saved, any more than an infant must identify his parents and understand the birth process in order to be born. However, if the infant grows into a young man and still cannot identify his parents, that would be a problem. It is similar with the new birth. The Holy Spirit convicts and draws us, and at the moment of regeneration we respond in faith, knowing little or nothing concerning the God who gave us new life. Nor did we understand what was necessary in order to make our salvation possible.
However, while it is not necessary to understand the triune nature of God and Christ’s divinity in order to be saved, and indeed many of God’s children still don’t understand these truths even after many years have passed, they are fundamental truths which babes in Christ need to be grounded in from the very beginning. Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations. The very initiatory rite Jesus instructed them to perform when one believes and becomes a disciple, emphasizes the triune nature of God. They were instructed to baptize them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). The very baptismal formula prescribed by Jesus for those who are to be baptized in His name, informs the new believer concerning the triune nature of their God, referring to all three Persons as the singular name.
While it is lamentable that so many of God’s children remain ignorant concerning the nature of God, it is a very serious matter to claim to be a teacher of the Word and actually deny these fundamental truths concerning God’s nature and the person of Christ. As John says, if anyone denies that Jesus is the Christ, i.e., that He is fully man (Jesus) and fully God (the Christ), he is antichrist.
For those who would minimize the importance of God’s triune nature and the full deity of Christ, I would like to consider the following points: 1) A Unitarian God would be incomplete within Himself. 2) Only God can be our Savior. 3) Only God is to receive worship.
A Unitarian God would be Incomplete within Himself
As to His essence, God is seen to be Love (1Jn 4:8,16). The agape love of God is a giving love which does not seek its own – it is not self-centered. By its very nature, love must have another person or persons in order to find expression. Therefore, if God were a solitary being, either His essential nature is not love, or else He would not be complete and self-sufficient within Himself: He would be dependent upon His creation to find completion. Aloneness is incompatible with agape love. But since God is seen to be a triunity He has never been alone, not even before creation. The Son was always the Beloved of the Father, “the Son of His love.” (Eph 1:6; Col 1:13; Jn 3:35; Matt 17:5; 3:17). The Father and the Son, along with the Holy Spirit, enjoyed communion from eternity before creation (Jn 17:4-5).
The Modalistic Unitarians, who believe that God is one solitary Person who plays three different roles, are presented with the same problem, or even worse, since any communion between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would be imaginary. I will be presenting the scriptural evidence for the Trinity in another blog. But just from a logical perspective, it is inconceivable that an eternally self-sufficient God who is love in His essential being should exist in solitude in eternity, requiring creation in order to be able to give expression to His nature. This reciprocation of love and communion between the three Persons in a single divine essence is at times referred to as the perichoresis or the trinitarian communitarian relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity within the single divine essence.
Only God Incarnate can be our Savior
In order to qualify as our Savior, Jesus had to be Yahweh Himself. Yahweh most emphatically stated more than once that besides Him there is no savior.
“I, even I, am the Lord (Yahweh), and besides Me there is no savior.” (Isa 43:11)
“Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me; for there is no savior besides Me.” (Hos 13:4)
“And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.” (Isa 45:21)
As we see here in Isaiah 45:21, Yahweh is both a just God and the only Savior. A just God cannot remain just and simply look the other way when we sin without executing justice (Psa 9:7-8; Heb 2:2-3; Matt 12:36; Rom 3:5-6). The triune God Himself had to make propitiation for the sins of the world in order to be able to justly forgive our transgressions.
Salvation is made possible only because the Judge Himself took the judgment due to His creatures upon Himself. Our Savior could not have been a mere innocent creature bearing the punishment for the guilty. That would have compounded injustice rather than satisfying justice (Deut 24:16). The beauty and justice of our redemption is that Yahweh Elohim Himself took humanity upon Himself and bore the just penalty for the sins of the world in the person of God the Son. Jesus Christ is both our God and Savior. Jesus Christ is Himself our Savior Yahweh Elohim. That is what Peter affirms when he refers to Jesus as both “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” and “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” in the same epistle (2 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 1:1). As Yahweh said before the incarnation, “I am the LORD (Yahweh) your God (Elohim)…there is no savior besides Me” (Hos 13:4).
The Jews of Jesus’ day were familiar with the Scriptures and knew full well that only God can forgive sins committed against His own justice. Their Scriptures are emphatic:
“I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins.” (Isa 43:25; cf. Dan 9:9)
“No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him —
8 For the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever — 15
But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will receive me.” (Ps 49:7-8,15 NASU)
In the light of these passages, we can understand why the Jews inwardly accused Jesus of blasphemy when He said to the paralytic: “your sins are forgiven you” (Mark 2:5-12). They knew something many today who deny the full deity of Christ fail to understand – only God Himself can be our Savior, only He can forgive sins committed against His own justice. And, just as in other occasions when the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, rather than denying His deity, He further affirmed it, first by demonstrating that He knew their inward thoughts which only God can know (1Sam 16:7; cf. Rev 2:23), and then healing the paralytic using these words:
“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise, take up your bed and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins — He said to the paralytic, 11 ‘I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.’” (Mark 2:9-11).
Just in the light of what we have seen here alone, it should be clear to all that the denial of the full deity of Christ is a very serious matter, since it is foundational to the salvation of all mankind. Put simply, either Jesus is Himself God and Savior of all, or He isn’t the Savior at all. The very name Jesus means “Yahweh saves.” That is why Peter could so boldly declare before the Sanhedrin: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Equally important is the true humanity of Christ. In order for Yahweh to atone for our sins He had to come in the likeness of sinful flesh and be tempted in every way as we, yet without sin. And then, as our representative head, He had to be put to death in the flesh, which was the just penalty for Adam’s original sin (Rom 8:3; Heb 4:15; 1Pet 3:18; Rom 6:23). It is only in Jesus Christ that all who died in Adam can be freed from the penalty of Adam’s sin and made alive (1Cor 15:22). Nothing less than Jesus Christ the God/Man could give His own life as a ransom for the sins of the world and then take it back again, raising from the dead, thereby creating a whole new humanity as the resurrected and glorified Last Adam (Jn 10:17-18; Eph 2:15).
Only Yahweh could have done what Jesus Christ did, bringing salvation and a new creation to a fallen world. That is why Jesus warned the Pharisees who refused to acknowledge Him, “if you do not believe that I am (EGO EIMI), you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). We will look at this in more detail in another blog, but EGO EIMI is the very name God told Moses to call Him at the burning bush (Ex 3:14). That the Pharisees understood what He was claiming is evident, given their response when Jesus said: “Before Abraham was, I am (EGO EIMI). They took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy. (Jn 8:58-59).
I believe that Unitarians haven’t duly considered how much the idea of a solitary God diminishes the glory of God’s love. One is left with only two options; either deny that love is His essential nature or else claim that He is not self-sufficient, since He would require creation to be able to give expression to His essential nature which is love.
Also, even more consequential is their belief that Christ was merely a created being whom God sent to die in His place for us, rather than Him coming Himself in the person of His own unique Son who is eternally in the Father’s bosom. This greatly diminishes the demonstration of God’s love when He Himself took the form of man and died for our sins upon the cross. Yahweh didn’t simply send someone to die for us – He came in the person of the Son, our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).
Many are scandalized by the cross because they fail to comprehend the Triune being of God. They picture the Father as an independent being sending His created son to die in order to pay our sin debt which we owed to Him, scourging and crucifying His Son as a go-between for us. That is a gross misunderstanding of the Triune God’s loving sacrifice for us. God the Father was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (2Cor 5:19), and Christ by the Holy Spirit willingly offered Himself up for us all (Heb 9:14). And, it was the Father with the Holy Spirit who raised Him from the dead (Rom 8:11;1Peter 3:18). All three persons of the Trinity participated in our salvation. All three persons equally suffered. There is no greater love than this!
Only God is to receive worship
We find it repeatedly and emphatically stated throughout Scripture that we are to worship only Yahweh Elohim, and that He will not give His glory nor His praise to any other:
“you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Ex 34:14; cf. Matt 4:10)
“I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images.” (Isa 42:8)
It follows that, if Jesus is not God, then we should not worship Him; we should not glorify Him and praise His name. Such worship would be blasphemous idolatry. When Herod received worship as a god, an angel of the Lord struck him and he died, eaten of worms (Acts 12:21-23). For this reason, when the men of Lystra were going to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you” (Acts 14:14-15). Likewise, when Cornelius fell at Peter’s feet to worship him, he said: “Stand up; I myself am also a man” (Acts 10:26).
If Jesus were merely a sinless man, we would certainly expect Him to react the same way. But quite the contrary, when Thomas said to Jesus, “my Lord and my God,” Jesus affirmed the truth of his confession saying: “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Instead of saying to Him, “you are mistaken, I am a man and not God,” He reproached Him for having to see Him face to face before believing that He was his Lord and God.
Some Unitarians say that Jesus Christ was a created angel. We will see why that is impossible later, but here I just want to point out that mere angels do not receive worship, since worship is due to God alone. Two times John was overwhelmed by the splendor of the angel who appeared to him and fell down to worship them. But both times the angel responded saying: “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren… Worship God!” (Rev 19:10; 22:9).
God’s glory is exclusive to Himself. Yet, we see Jesus in His intercessory prayer in the night of His passion praying to the Father saying:
“Now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5)
So, either God in fact shared His glory with another, even before creation, or else Jesus was indeed the Son of God, eternally existing in the bosom of the Father, but willingly leaving His throne of glory, taking the form of a man and being obedient unto death, at which time God raised Him from the dead and exalted Him above all creation.
Combining His prayer to the Father in John 17 with Paul’s description of Christ’s kenosis in Philippians 2, we see that Jesus Christ was always the God of glory who became incarnate as Man, being obedient unto death, only to be restored to the glory He had with the Father from eternity:
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation (He put aside the glory He had with the Father before the world was), taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man (while yet being fully God), He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name (restored Him to the glory He eternally had with the Father), 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (in worship), of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Yahweh), to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:5-11)
As the resurrected and exalted Christ, the Son of God, He is then worshiped by all of the restored creation, receiving the glory, honor and praise that is due to God alone:
“And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: ‘Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever!’ 14 Then the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.” (Rev 5:13-14)
When it says that they worship Him who lives forever and ever, it refers back to Revelation chapter one where Jesus says of Himself: “I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Rev 1:17-18). He also said: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,’ says the Lord, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty’” (Rev 1:8). As we will see in another blog, these are titles exclusive to Yahweh Elohim. There cannot be two “Almighties.” There is only one God who exists in three persons.
So, we see the importance of the deity of Christ in that only God is to be worshipped. If Jesus is not God, then we are breaking the first commandment when we worship Him. If Jesus is not God, then Thomas should have been reprimanded for calling Him “my Lord and my God.” But once we understand that He is both our Lord and our God, then the only response is to bow the knee to Him in worship and adoration, to the glory of God the Father.
I hope that I have been able to briefly demonstrate the importance of acknowledging Jesus Christ as God incarnate. John was so emphatic as to its importance he said that those who deny that Jesus is the Christ are antichrist. In the following blogs I will demonstrate that “the Christ” is none other than Yahweh of the Old Testament, and that Yahweh Elohim is one God who manifests as three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism#cite_note-110
Should the understanding that the God of Scripture is one as to essence and nature, yet existing as three distinct Persons, be considered an essential doctrine to the Christian faith? What about the belief that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was fully God and yet also fully man in His incarnation? Is it really that important what we believe concerning this controversial topic?
Some would say no. Among those who call themselves “Universalists” there are those who reason that, since all will be saved in the end anyway, it doesn’t really matter whether or not one is a Trinitarian or a Unitarian – whether our Savior be the Creator of all, or a mere creature. Some are what I would call “Pantheists.” However, not in the sense of believing that all is God, but in that they choose to ignore the subject altogether, saying that no matter what we believe about God it will all pan out in the end anyway.
However, looking to the Scriptures we see that it matters very much what we believe about God and about the Person of Christ. Jesus said:
“For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” (John 5:22-23)
Jesus here says that, if we fail to honor Him in the same way that we honor the Father, we are dishonoring the Father. The only created being that sought honor equal to the Father was Satan. Certainly, Christ is no mere created being, and therefore all honor and praise is due unto Him (Rev 5:11-14). The Apostle John, countering an early form of Gnosticism which denied that the man Jesus was also fully divine (the Christ), didn’t spare any words in denouncing them. He said:
“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1Jn 2:22-23)
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist… 9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” (2Jn 7,9).
In light of these, and many similar passages which we will be considering in this series of blogs, how can we as Biblical Universalists simply look the other way as New Agers introduce their pantheism which presents Christ as just another divine master on a par with Mohammad, Buda or Gandhi? How can we be silent before the Unitarians who deny the Trinity and Christ’s full deity?
My concern, and the primary motive for writing this series of blogs, is that the present revival of the doctrine of Universal Salvation could be derailed, just as the previous Universalist awakening was, if we remain silent. The restoration of the biblical doctrine of Universal Salvation had its beginnings among the Anabaptists and Moravians during the Reformation and flourished under the leadership of men like John Murray and Charles Chauncy in the 18th and 19th century, only to later decline under the influence of men like Hosea Ballou who introduced the doctrine of Unitarianism and denied the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, presenting His death on the cross as nothing more than a demonstration of God’s unconditional love for mankind.
The previous revival of Universalism reached an all-time low in 1961 when the Universalist Church of America finally merged with the Unitarian Church, becoming what is today known as the Unitarian Universalist Association. As of 2006, less than 20% of their members still identified themselves as Christian. [1]
Revival begins when we turn to the Lord and His Word with all our hearts. But when we do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, the glory of the Lord departs and apostacy sets in. If we do not awaken to the truth of the unadulterated gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the proclamation of sound doctrine, what began as a glorious rediscovery of the truth of Biblical Universalism will suffer the same fate as the previous awakening.
It is not necessary for one to be able to expound upon these truths in order to be saved, any more than an infant must identify his parents and understand the birth process in order to be born. However, if the infant grows into a young man and still cannot identify his parents, that would be a problem. It is similar with the new birth. The Holy Spirit convicts and draws us, and at the moment of regeneration we respond in faith, knowing little or nothing concerning the God who gave us new life. Nor did we understand what was necessary in order to make our salvation possible.
However, while it is not necessary to understand the triune nature of God and Christ’s divinity in order to be saved, and indeed many of God’s children still don’t understand these truths even after many years have passed, they are fundamental truths which babes in Christ need to be grounded in from the very beginning. Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations. The very initiatory rite Jesus instructed them to perform when one believes and becomes a disciple, emphasizes the triune nature of God. They were instructed to baptize them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). The very baptismal formula prescribed by Jesus for those who are to be baptized in His name, informs the new believer concerning the triune nature of their God, referring to all three Persons as the singular name.
While it is lamentable that so many of God’s children remain ignorant concerning the nature of God, it is a very serious matter to claim to be a teacher of the Word and actually deny these fundamental truths concerning God’s nature and the person of Christ. As John says, if anyone denies that Jesus is the Christ, i.e., that He is fully man (Jesus) and fully God (the Christ), he is antichrist.
For those who would minimize the importance of God’s triune nature and the full deity of Christ, I would like to consider the following points: 1) A Unitarian God would be incomplete within Himself. 2) Only God can be our Savior. 3) Only God is to receive worship.
A Unitarian God would be Incomplete within Himself
As to His essence, God is seen to be Love (1Jn 4:8,16). The agape love of God is a giving love which does not seek its own – it is not self-centered. By its very nature, love must have another person or persons in order to find expression. Therefore, if God were a solitary being, either His essential nature is not love, or else He would not be complete and self-sufficient within Himself: He would be dependent upon His creation to find completion. Aloneness is incompatible with agape love. But since God is seen to be a triunity He has never been alone, not even before creation. The Son was always the Beloved of the Father, “the Son of His love.” (Eph 1:6; Col 1:13; Jn 3:35; Matt 17:5; 3:17). The Father and the Son, along with the Holy Spirit, enjoyed communion from eternity before creation (Jn 17:4-5).
The Modalistic Unitarians, who believe that God is one solitary Person who plays three different roles, are presented with the same problem, or even worse, since any communion between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would be imaginary. I will be presenting the scriptural evidence for the Trinity in another blog. But just from a logical perspective, it is inconceivable that an eternally self-sufficient God who is love in His essential being should exist in solitude in eternity, requiring creation in order to be able to give expression to His nature. This reciprocation of love and communion between the three Persons in a single divine essence is at times referred to as the perichoresis or the trinitarian communitarian relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity within the single divine essence.
Only God Incarnate can be our Savior
In order to qualify as our Savior, Jesus had to be Yahweh Himself. Yahweh most emphatically stated more than once that besides Him there is no savior.
“I, even I, am the Lord (Yahweh), and besides Me there is no savior.” (Isa 43:11)
“Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me; for there is no savior besides Me.” (Hos 13:4)
“And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.” (Isa 45:21)
As we see here in Isaiah 45:21, Yahweh is both a just God and the only Savior. A just God cannot remain just and simply look the other way when we sin without executing justice (Psa 9:7-8; Heb 2:2-3; Matt 12:36; Rom 3:5-6). The triune God Himself had to make propitiation for the sins of the world in order to be able to justly forgive our transgressions.
Salvation is made possible only because the Judge Himself took the judgment due to His creatures upon Himself. Our Savior could not have been a mere innocent creature bearing the punishment for the guilty. That would have compounded injustice rather than satisfying justice (Deut 24:16). The beauty and justice of our redemption is that Yahweh Elohim Himself took humanity upon Himself and bore the just penalty for the sins of the world in the person of God the Son. Jesus Christ is both our God and Savior. Jesus Christ is Himself our Savior Yahweh Elohim. That is what Peter affirms when he refers to Jesus as both “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” and “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” in the same epistle (2 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 1:1). As Yahweh said before the incarnation, “I am the LORD (Yahweh) your God (Elohim)…there is no savior besides Me” (Hos 13:4).
The Jews of Jesus’ day were familiar with the Scriptures and knew full well that only God can forgive sins committed against His own justice. Their Scriptures are emphatic:
“I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins.” (Isa 43:25; cf. Dan 9:9)
“No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him —
8 For the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever — 15
But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will receive me.” (Ps 49:7-8,15 NASU)
In the light of these passages, we can understand why the Jews inwardly accused Jesus of blasphemy when He said to the paralytic: “your sins are forgiven you” (Mark 2:5-12). They knew something many today who deny the full deity of Christ fail to understand – only God Himself can be our Savior, only He can forgive sins committed against His own justice. And, just as in other occasions when the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, rather than denying His deity, He further affirmed it, first by demonstrating that He knew their inward thoughts which only God can know (1Sam 16:7; cf. Rev 2:23), and then healing the paralytic using these words:
“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise, take up your bed and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins — He said to the paralytic, 11 ‘I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.’” (Mark 2:9-11).
Just in the light of what we have seen here alone, it should be clear to all that the denial of the full deity of Christ is a very serious matter, since it is foundational to the salvation of all mankind. Put simply, either Jesus is Himself God and Savior of all, or He isn’t the Savior at all. The very name Jesus means “Yahweh saves.” That is why Peter could so boldly declare before the Sanhedrin: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Equally important is the true humanity of Christ. In order for Yahweh to atone for our sins He had to come in the likeness of sinful flesh and be tempted in every way as we, yet without sin. And then, as our representative head, He had to be put to death in the flesh, which was the just penalty for Adam’s original sin (Rom 8:3; Heb 4:15; 1Pet 3:18; Rom 6:23). It is only in Jesus Christ that all who died in Adam can be freed from the penalty of Adam’s sin and made alive (1Cor 15:22). Nothing less than Jesus Christ the God/Man could give His own life as a ransom for the sins of the world and then take it back again, raising from the dead, thereby creating a whole new humanity as the resurrected and glorified Last Adam (Jn 10:17-18; Eph 2:15).
Only Yahweh could have done what Jesus Christ did, bringing salvation and a new creation to a fallen world. That is why Jesus warned the Pharisees who refused to acknowledge Him, “if you do not believe that I am (EGO EIMI), you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). We will look at this in more detail in another blog, but EGO EIMI is the very name God told Moses to call Him at the burning bush (Ex 3:14). That the Pharisees understood what He was claiming is evident, given their response when Jesus said: “Before Abraham was, I am (EGO EIMI). They took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy. (Jn 8:58-59).
I believe that Unitarians haven’t duly considered how much the idea of a solitary God diminishes the glory of God’s love. One is left with only two options; either deny that love is His essential nature or else claim that He is not self-sufficient, since He would require creation to be able to give expression to His essential nature which is love.
Also, even more consequential is their belief that Christ was merely a created being whom God sent to die in His place for us, rather than Him coming Himself in the person of His own unique Son who is eternally in the Father’s bosom. This greatly diminishes the demonstration of God’s love when He Himself took the form of man and died for our sins upon the cross. Yahweh didn’t simply send someone to die for us – He came in the person of the Son, our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).
Many are scandalized by the cross because they fail to comprehend the Triune being of God. They picture the Father as an independent being sending His created son to die in order to pay our sin debt which we owed to Him, scourging and crucifying His Son as a go-between for us. That is a gross misunderstanding of the Triune God’s loving sacrifice for us. God the Father was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (2Cor 5:19), and Christ by the Holy Spirit willingly offered Himself up for us all (Heb 9:14). And, it was the Father with the Holy Spirit who raised Him from the dead (Rom 8:11;1Peter 3:18). All three persons of the Trinity participated in our salvation. All three persons equally suffered. There is no greater love than this!
Only God is to receive worship
We find it repeatedly and emphatically stated throughout Scripture that we are to worship only Yahweh Elohim, and that He will not give His glory nor His praise to any other:
“you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Ex 34:14; cf. Matt 4:10)
“I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images.” (Isa 42:8)
It follows that, if Jesus is not God, then we should not worship Him; we should not glorify Him and praise His name. Such worship would be blasphemous idolatry. When Herod received worship as a god, an angel of the Lord struck him and he died, eaten of worms (Acts 12:21-23). For this reason, when the men of Lystra were going to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you” (Acts 14:14-15). Likewise, when Cornelius fell at Peter’s feet to worship him, he said: “Stand up; I myself am also a man” (Acts 10:26).
If Jesus were merely a sinless man, we would certainly expect Him to react the same way. But quite the contrary, when Thomas said to Jesus, “my Lord and my God,” Jesus affirmed the truth of his confession saying: “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Instead of saying to Him, “you are mistaken, I am a man and not God,” He reproached Him for having to see Him face to face before believing that He was his Lord and God.
Some Unitarians say that Jesus Christ was a created angel. We will see why that is impossible later, but here I just want to point out that mere angels do not receive worship, since worship is due to God alone. Two times John was overwhelmed by the splendor of the angel who appeared to him and fell down to worship them. But both times the angel responded saying: “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren… Worship God!” (Rev 19:10; 22:9).
God’s glory is exclusive to Himself. Yet, we see Jesus in His intercessory prayer in the night of His passion praying to the Father saying:
“Now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5)
So, either God in fact shared His glory with another, even before creation, or else Jesus was indeed the Son of God, eternally existing in the bosom of the Father, but willingly leaving His throne of glory, taking the form of a man and being obedient unto death, at which time God raised Him from the dead and exalted Him above all creation.
Combining His prayer to the Father in John 17 with Paul’s description of Christ’s kenosis in Philippians 2, we see that Jesus Christ was always the God of glory who became incarnate as Man, being obedient unto death, only to be restored to the glory He had with the Father from eternity:
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation (He put aside the glory He had with the Father before the world was), taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man (while yet being fully God), He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name (restored Him to the glory He eternally had with the Father), 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (in worship), of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Yahweh), to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:5-11)
As the resurrected and exalted Christ, the Son of God, He is then worshiped by all of the restored creation, receiving the glory, honor and praise that is due to God alone:
“And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: ‘Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever!’ 14 Then the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.” (Rev 5:13-14)
When it says that they worship Him who lives forever and ever, it refers back to Revelation chapter one where Jesus says of Himself: “I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Rev 1:17-18). He also said: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,’ says the Lord, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty’” (Rev 1:8). As we will see in another blog, these are titles exclusive to Yahweh Elohim. There cannot be two “Almighties.” There is only one God who exists in three persons.
So, we see the importance of the deity of Christ in that only God is to be worshipped. If Jesus is not God, then we are breaking the first commandment when we worship Him. If Jesus is not God, then Thomas should have been reprimanded for calling Him “my Lord and my God.” But once we understand that He is both our Lord and our God, then the only response is to bow the knee to Him in worship and adoration, to the glory of God the Father.
I hope that I have been able to briefly demonstrate the importance of acknowledging Jesus Christ as God incarnate. John was so emphatic as to its importance he said that those who deny that Jesus is the Christ are antichrist. In the following blogs I will demonstrate that “the Christ” is none other than Yahweh of the Old Testament, and that Yahweh Elohim is one God who manifests as three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism#cite_note-110