- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
The two-gospel advocates argue that we must rightly divide the word of truth by recognizing that only Paul’s epistles are applicable to the Church today. But can they be said to be rightly dividing the word of truth when they relegate all of Scripture as nonapplicable to the Church, with the exception of Paul’s epistles? What does Paul say about this? He says:
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Tim 3:16-17).
It must be kept in mind that, when Paul wrote this around 66 A.D., the book of Acts and James, as well as the gospel of Luke, and possibly Matthew and Mark, had already been written. Peter referred to Paul’s writings as being part of the Scriptures (2Peter 3:15-16). Doubtlessly, Paul likewise considered these other writings, which today make up part of our New Testament to be God-breathed Scriptures and therefore profitable for doctrine.
If Paul himself considered all of Scripture to be profitable for doctrine and able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus (2Tim 3:15), how can the two-gospel people claim to be Paul’s followers while at the same time denying that the rest of Scripture is applicable to us and profitable for doctrine? How can one claim as Paul that the Holy Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation, while at the same time arguing that they present another gospel, another way of salvation?
The proponents of the two-gospel doctrine point out numerous truths taught by Paul which they perceive to be irreconcilable with the rest of the New Testament. Martin Zender, in his book, “The First Idiot in Heaven,” presents what he considers to be thirty-one key differences between Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament. [1] In the previous blogs we considered some of these alleged differences and saw that they were in reality in agreement with, and complementary to, the overall message of the New Testament. The rest of the differences he argues for overlap, and could be reduced to six, which are: 1) Justified by works vs. Justified by grace through faith alone without works. 2) Repentance and baptism required for salvation vs. salvation by faith alone. 3) New birth for Israel vs. a new creation for the Church. 4) Conditional forgiveness vs. Unconditional forgiveness. 5) Earthly inheritance vs. heavenly inheritance, and 6) Appointed to wrath vs. saved from wrath. The following is a brief consideration of each of these supposedly irreconcilable differences.
1. Justified by works vs. Justified by Grace through Faith alone
They argue that only those under Paul’s gospel are justified apart from works, whereas the Jews who believe are saved by a combination of faith and works. However, apart from the fact that God is not a respecter of persons, we have already seen that no one, whether they be Jew or Gentile, of this age or any other age, can ever be justified by works before God. Paul most emphatically says: “Therefore by the deeds of the law NO FLESH will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). This is a universal principle. The Law can only provide the knowledge of our sinful condition and need of justification by grace – it can never justify anyone, nor can anyone be justified by keeping it, since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).
It is supposed that Paul’s statement concerning justification by faith alone is incompatible with James’ insistence upon works for justification. Paul and James each came to the following conclusions concerning justification:
Paul: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:28)
James: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)
These two passages seem to be diametrically opposed to each other when read alone, out of their context. However, a careful consideration of each verse within its context reveals that they were talking about justification from two entirely different perspectives. Paul was speaking of our justification before God, which is by faith alone. James, on the other hand, is speaking of justification in the eyes of man. Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith when he simply believed God’s promise (Gen 15:6). God, who sees the heart, justified Abraham based upon his faith the moment he believed.
However, when James speaks of Abraham being justified, he made reference to an incident many years later when he offered up his own son Isaac, thereby visibly demonstrating to all the faith God always knew Abraham had from the very moment He declared him just (James 2:21).
True faith always results in a corresponding action. Faith that saves is faith alone, but faith that saves is never alone. God, who sees our heart, justifies us the moment we believe. However, that faith which brought justification cannot be confirmed by man apart from observing the corresponding actions. So, both James and Paul are simply looking at justification from two different angles. God knows the heart and justifies according to faith, but man only sees the outward demonstration of one’s faith and determines whether or not one has been justified by seeing faith’s corresponding fruit. That is why James said: “You say you have faith? Show me.”
Paul, just as James, repeatedly warned against being deluded into thinking one has saving faith when their conduct indicates otherwise. Paul said to the carnal believers at Corinth: “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.” (2Cor 13:5 cf.1Cor 15:2; Eph 5:3-6; 1Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19). Paul also speaks of a faith that works:
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6)
Any grace teaching which says that, since you are under grace you can do anything you want, or do nothing if that is what you want, is not presenting the whole council of God and is turning the grace of God into licentiousness.
Jesus likewise taught that it is faith alone which saves, while at the same time warning against empty profession. Jesus, on numerous occasions proclaimed the gospel of justification by faith apart from works. For example:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life… 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned (i.e., ‘is justified’).” (Jn 3:16,18)
“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40)
“Then they said to Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.’” (John 6:28-29)
At the same time, Jesus warned against making an empty profession of faith without corresponding works, or what James refers to as a dead faith. For example, He said:
“by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who SAYS to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of My Father in heaven.” (Matt 7:20-21)
Jesus taught, just as did Paul after Him, that faith without works is dead, and that such empty profession would never save anyone. Paul 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.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)
“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal 5:19-21)
“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.” (Eph 5:3-7)
So, we see that the gospel proclaimed by Jesus and the gospel of Paul are the same gospel of justification by grace through faith alone. At the same time, they both warn against an empty profession without repentance from sin and corresponding works which are an outgrowth or fruit of that faith.
The two-gospel advocates erroneously teach that Paul taught justification by faith alone without the need for a corresponding repentance from one’s former life of sin. This unbalanced presentation of Paul’s gospel converts the grace of God into a license to sin (Jude 4). Martin Zender is perhaps the most deliberately scandalous proponent of this misrepresentation of the gospel of grace. He says:
“Are you irreverent under the gospel of the Uncircumcision? Congratulations. You meet all the qualifications for justification.” [2]
Here he is basing this assertion upon Romans 4:5 where Paul says that God justifies the ungodly. However, while He freely justifies sinners, grace doesn’t save them only to leave them in that condition. Although it is true that God freely justifies the ungodly, the unrepentant are not justified simply because they give mental assent to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is what James calls dead faith – something even demons have (James 2:19-20). Jesus emphasized the vanity of empty faith without the “fruits of repentance” (Luke 3:8). Likewise, Paul gives a strong warning against false teachers who present such perversions of the gospel void of godliness when he says:
“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.” (1Tim 6:3-5)
So, we see that justification throughout the New Testament is consistently by grace through faith apart from works, but the faith that accompanies justification ultimately must bear the fruit of godliness – otherwise one has believed in vain. For those interested, I develop this subject further in my book, “The True Grace of God,” and in my article, Saving Faith.
2. Repentance and Baptism vs. Faith Alone.
The two-gospel advocates teach that, under Peter’s gospel of the circumcision, repentance and water baptism are necessary for salvation, whereas under Paul’s gospel of the Gentiles, it is by grace through faith alone that we are saved, and therefore, we should no longer say as Jesus did: “Repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15). Nor should we go into all the world preaching the gospel to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus commissioned His disciples to do (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).
Some of the more hardline two-gospel preachers who believe in the traditional doctrine of an eternal hell, say that if one has been water baptized, they are eternally doomed. For example, Les Feldick says concerning the Great Commission: “That little portion of Scripture in the Great Commission, ‘Go into all the world baptizing them,’ has sent millions of people to their eternal doom.” [3] We already saw in part 2 of this series of blogs that the Great Commission to preach the gospel to all the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was never suspended, as the two-gospel advocates claim, so I won’t give more attention to that error here. [4]
Was water baptism ever a condition of salvation as the two-gospel people claim? While space doesn’t allow me to consider each passage on the subject, it is for good reason that mainstream Evangelicals deny that water baptism is salvific. For those interested in a more exhaustive consideration of this question I recommend my book, “Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” Here I would just like to briefly consider two passages which at first sight may be mistaken as teaching that water baptism is required for salvation.
Mark 16:16
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
What this passage tells us is that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, whereas those who do not believe will be condemned. However, what it doesn’t say is just as important as what it does say. What it doesn’t say is what happens to those who believe but for one reason or another do not get baptized. Those who teach that this is another gospel must assume what is not here stated. They must assume that it is not faith alone which saves, but faith plus baptism, and therefore anyone who isn’t baptized before death is condemned, even if he was a believer. What they assume contradicts other declarations of Jesus which present faith alone as necessary for salvation, like what Jesus said earlier 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.” (John 3:18)
If what they claim is true, then Jesus left out a critical ingredient in His presentation of the Gospel in John 3:18, because He here mentions faith as the only human response necessary in order to be justified – not faith plus baptism. They assume that what Jesus meant to say in Mark 16:16 is: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe and get baptized will be condemned.” By doing this they make Jesus’ words here contradict what is clearly stated in John 3:18 and many other passages – that one is saved by faith alone, apart from works (see also John 5:24; 20:31; Eph 2:8-9; 1John 5:11-13).
What they are guilty of is non-sequitur reasoning. If a statement is true, we should not automatically assume that its opposite is also true. For example, if I were to say: “All who believe and come to the altar will be saved, but those who do not believe will be lost,” it would be wrong to assume that those who believed but didn’t come to the altar would be lost, simply because they believed where they were, without coming to the altar. It is believing - not believing plus coming to the altar which saves, even though I called upon them to do both.
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
In the minds of the two-gospel advocates, Peter is here saying that water baptism was what took away their sins. However, in the next sermon when Peter preached the gospel, the number of men who believed alone, without counting women and children, came to be about 5,000. What did Peter tell them to do in order for their sins to be forgiven? He didn’t even mention baptism. He simply said: “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). Repentance and conversion are both elements of saving faith. In order to believe on Jesus, an unconverted Jew would have to repent or “change his mind,” (metanoéo), concerning Jesus, acknowledging one’s need for Him. He would also have to be converted or “turn about” (epistrepho). This implies a turning from sin to Jesus. Both of these are an integral part of what it means to believe on Jesus. They are not separate from faith, or in addition to faith, as is the case with water baptism, since they are simply part of what it means to truly believe in Jesus and receive Him.
Of some 48 times where the gospel is preached and believed upon in the book of Acts, only in 8 instances is there mention of those who believed being baptized afterwards, and in none of these other instances could one draw the conclusion that baptism was necessary in order for them to be saved. Peter, in one instance, speaking to Cornelius and those of his household, states that it is faith which results in remission of sins – not baptism:
“To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)
Our understanding of Acts 2:38 must take into account Peter’s statement here, saying that we are forgiven when we believe – not when we are baptized in water. In this instance, they believed and were baptized in the Holy Spirit and only afterwards were baptized in water (v. 47).
In Acts 2:38, it is imperative that one understands what is meant by the phrase: “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins.” Those who teach Baptismal Regeneration understand the preposition “for” as “in order to receive.” However, this preposition has several other meanings. Obviously, based upon all we have seen so far, the rendering “in order to receive the remission of sins” is not the correct one.
There is a better way of understanding this phrase that is consistent with the overall teaching of the New Testament concerning salvation by grace through faith alone. In the Colombian Amazon jungle where I minister, many suffer from toenail fungus due to the constant humidity. If I were to say to my neighbor: “soak your feet in vinegar-water for your toenail fungus” he would know that I did not mean “in order to receive.” In this case “for” means “in view of or because of.”
Understood in this manner, the verse says: “be baptized in view of the remission of sins (which you already received the moment you believed).” This is consistent with the recognition that the ordinances of the Lord’s Supper and water baptism are a picture of a greater reality, just as the Old Testament sacrifices were. We repent and are baptized in water in view of the remission of sins, which we already received because of our having been baptized into the Body of Christ through the baptism by the Spirit, which took place the moment we believed.
It is noteworthy that the same preposition is used elsewhere in relation to baptism where it is obvious that the preposition does not mean “in order to get.” John uses the same preposition (eis) when he said: “I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance…” (Matt 3:11). Although here it is translated “unto” instead of “for,” it is the same Greek preposition. Obviously, we are baptized in view of or because of our repentance – not in order to receive repentance.
The two-gospel advocates present two arguments as evidence that we are not to practice water baptism today. The first is to quote Ephesians 4:5 which states that there is one baptism. However, that is not inconsistent with the practice of water baptism, since the ceremony of water baptism is merely a picture of the one true baptism in which the Spirit baptized us into the body of Christ (1Cor 12:13; Rom 6:1-5). The ceremony of water baptism is no more another baptism than partaking of the Lord’s Supper is crucifying afresh the Son of God.
The second argument is based upon Paul’s statement: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” I will quote the whole passage in its context since the overall context totally refutes the whole idea of two gospels with two separate groups of believers:
“Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas (Peter),’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.” (1 Cor 1:12-17)
Ironically, Paul here counters the very doctrine that the two-gospel advocates teach. Christ is not divided into those of Peter and those of Paul. Also, in asking them, “were you baptized in the name of Paul?” he assumes that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus, rather than in his name. The fact that Paul baptized several of them also indicates that they still practiced baptism. In saying that Christ didn’t send him to baptize but to preach the gospel, it only indicates that he delegated that duty to others. Also, if water baptism were incompatible with his gospel, as the two-gospel people affirm, he would have certainly indicated it here.
John says the same of Jesus. He said: “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples” (John 4:2). Nevertheless, all who believed were being baptized, even though Jesus Himself wasn’t the one doing the baptizing. The same applies to believers in Paul’s day: They were still being baptized in Jesus’ name upon believing even though Paul himself usually wasn’t the one doing the baptizing. It is doubtful that even Peter himself baptized all 3,000 souls who were baptized on the day of Pentecost.
Repentance
As to the subject of repentance, while repentance isn’t always mentioned in Paul’s proclamation of the gospel, it is always implicit in true saving faith. One does not believe on Jesus in order to be saved from sin unless they are repentant and want to be free from sin. Near the end of Paul’s ministry, when he appeared before King Agrippa, in describing his ministry, he made it clear that repentance was an indispensable part of his proclamation of the gospel. He said:
“Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:19-20; cf. Rom 2:4-6; 2Cor 7:9-10; 2Tim 2:25-26; 2Cor 12:21, etc.).
Paul’s gospel was the same gospel of Jesus Christ which Jesus Himself and the other Apostles preached, including Peter. The book of Acts closes with Paul still preaching the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31; see also, Col 4:11; Rom 14:17; 1Cor 4:20). The writings of Paul are in total harmony with the rest of the New Testament on this subject. For a more thorough consideration of the overall teaching of Scripture concerning biblical repentance, I recommend my blog: “True Repentance.”
3. New birth for Israel vs. New Creation for the Church
Those who hold to the two-gospel teaching say that the new birth only applies to the nation of Israel. They claim that we are not born again the moment we believe, but rather we become a new creation, which they consider to be different from being born again. Martin Zender says of the new birth: “Individuals are not born again; a nation is to be born again. (Not one person, as I write, has ever been born again.)” [5] But is it true that no individual has been born again? According to Peter himself, the recipients of his first epistle had all been born again. He said:
“having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.” (1 Peter 1:23)
Not only did Peter say that they had been born again, but he followed up in 1 Peter 2:2
by saying to them: “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,” indicating that, even as we needed to be nourished by milk when we were born into the physical world, so also we need to be nourished in the Word after being born of the Spirit.
Paul likewise, speaks to believers as those having been born of the Spirit. He said of the carnal believers in Corinth, “I could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food” (1 Cor 3:1-2). Then he told the Galatian believers that they had been born according to the Spirit, saying:
“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.” (Gal 4:28-29 cf. vv. 21-31)
Additionally, In Ephesians 2 Paul speaks of us as formerly having been dead and then being made alive in Christ (Eph 2:1-6). How could we have been made alive spiritually apart from the rebirth of our spirits by the Holy Spirit? It is true that Paul says that we are a new creation in Christ (2Cor 5:17). But how can we become a part of the new creation if not through being born again with Christ’s resurrection life?
They argue that Jesus, in John 3 was not telling Nicodemus that individuals must be born again, but that the nation of Israel collectively had to be born again. However, it is impossible to conclude that if one considers the whole account. I will quote it in full, noting the singular and plural pronouns:
“Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you (sing.), unless one (individual) is born again, he (sing.) cannot see the kingdom of God.’ 4 Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?’ 5 Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you (sing.), unless one (sing.) is born of water and the Spirit, he (sing.) 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. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you (sing.), ‘You (pl.) must be born again.’” (John 3:3-7)
Throughout the entire discourse Jesus is emphasizing that it is necessary for individuals to be born again in order to enter, or even see, the kingdom of God. Nicodemus correctly understood it to be an individual rebirth but didn’t understand that it is our spirit which must be born again (cf. Ezek 11:19). When Jesus finally used the plural form in verse 7, saying that they all had to be born again, He was simply saying that each and every one of them had to be born again. Jesus wasn’t referring to the rebirth of the nation, prophesied in Isaiah 66, but rather to the new spirit that each and every individual must receive in order to enter the kingdom of God under the promised New Covenant as prophesied in Ezekiel:
“Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh.” (Ezek 11:19)
Jesus reproached Nicodemus for being a teacher of Israel and yet not knowing about God’s promise to give them a new spirit (Jn 3:10). Because of Israel’s unbelief, they did not enter into the kingdom of God through the new birth even though the kingdom was offered to them. As a consequence, Jesus said to them: “the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (Matt 21:43). We, as the Church of Jesus Christ, are now that holy nation – we who once were not a people are now “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that we may proclaim the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1Peter 2:9-10).
This is not Peter speaking exclusively to believing Jews, as the two-gospel people claim, but rather he is speaking especially to the Gentiles within the Church who once were not a people. Israel has been set aside for a time in order to provoke them to jealousy until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and then all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:11-12, 25-26).
There is one final verse in John’s gospel I would like to cite which makes it clear that individuals had experienced their spiritual rebirth from the moment the New Covenant went into effect:
“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: who were born…of God (past tense).” (John 1:11-13)
Here we see that Jesus first came to the house of Israel. However, when Israel rejected their Messiah, the invitation was extended to all. As many (individuals) as received Him were born of God. It could not be any clearer. Clearly, this, just as nearly all other two-gospel distinctions, are human fabrications, and cannot be substantiated from Scripture.
4. Conditional Forgiveness vs. Unconditional Forgiveness
It is further claimed that God’s forgiveness of Jews who believe under Peter’s gospel is conditional, whereas forgiveness for us under Paul’s gospel is unconditional. This is argued based upon the fact that, for example, in the Lord’s prayer Jesus said that, if we do not forgive, our Father will not forgive us (Matt 6:14-15). He further said that if we do not forgive as we were forgiven that the Father will deliver us to the tormentors until we have paid our debt in full (Matt 18:23-35). John also presents God’s forgiveness as being conditioned upon our confession of sin (1Jn 1:9). In contrast to this, they say that Paul presents forgiveness as being unconditional when he says: “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph 4:32; cf. Col 3:13).
The main problem with this is that unconditional forgiveness is not only found in Paul’s epistles. For example, the author of Hebrews presents forgiveness as once and for all time. He says:
“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified… 17 then He adds, ‘their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’” (Heb 10:12-14,17)
Unconditional forgiveness is likewise implicit in many other passages throughout the New Testament. For example, Jesus said:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me HAS everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” (John 5:24)
What the two-gospel advocates fail to take into consideration is that there are two very distinct types of forgiveness – there is relational forgiveness, and there is a judicial forgiveness or a legal pardon. This is sometimes referred to as remission or as justification. This pardon or remission was only possible because of the blood of the New Covenant shed for the remission of our sins, and was done once and for all (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:22; 9:12). This forensic forgiveness is not unique to Paul’s epistles. Because of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, God can be just while at the same time justifying the ungodly sinner who believes in Jesus (Rom 3:24-26).
Distinct from judicial forgiveness there is a relational forgiveness, such as that which a father extends to his child once the child confesses his wrongdoing. This is what we see emphasized in those instances where forgiveness is conditional. For example, when Jesus said, “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses,” it is evident that Jesus is referring to paternal forgiveness and not a judicial pardon. (Matt 6:14-15; cf. Matt 18:23-35).
In 1John we see mention of a judicial once and for all forgiveness in 1John 2:12, where John says: “I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven” (perfect passive “have been forgiven”) you for His name's sake.” Only by knowing to differentiate between judicial forgiveness and relational forgiveness can we understand that John wasn’t contradicting himself when he said in 1John 1:9 that the Father’s forgiveness is conditioned upon the confession of our sins before Him.
Both conditional and unconditional forgiveness are found throughout the entirety of the New Testament since they are both necessary. We need to be forgiven or justified from our sins before God as our Judge, and we also need to confess our sins when we have been disobedient, not in order to be saved, but in order to maintain communion with God who is light (1Jn 1:5-10). Therefore, Paul didn’t teach a different form of forgiveness from the rest of the New Testament.
5. Earthly Inheritance vs. Heavenly Inheritance
The two-gospel advocates say that the Jews who believe in Peter’s gospel are earthbound, whereas those who believe Paul’s gospel are already seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Martin Zender says that Jewish believers, along with the 12 Apostles, had no expectation of going to heaven. In Zender’s book “The First Idiot in Heaven,” he poses the question:
“Were faithful Israelites ever promised heaven? Not once. Jesus Himself said, ‘The meek shall inherit the Earth’ (Matthew 5:5). Wouldn’t Jesus have known what He was talking about? Israelites never dreamed of getting lifted from Terra Firma. Why would they? Jesus never spoke to them of such a thing.” [6]
Is it true that the 12 Apostles and the Jewish believers in Jerusalem knew nothing of a heavenly inheritance? What about Jesus’ promise in John 14? Wasn’t that a promise of heaven? Jesus said:
“In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:2-3)
Did the Apostles understand the Father’s house to be in heaven? Certainly! Jesus repeatedly referred to His Father as “the Father in heaven” and told them to lay up for themselves treasures in heaven (Matt 6:20). It is very obvious that Peter anticipated a heavenly inheritance in 1Peter 1 where he said:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you.” (1 Peter 1:3-4)
So, in this passage we not only see that he and his readers were already born again, but they all anticipated a heavenly inheritance. While it is true that the 12 Apostles will be seated upon 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the Millennial earth (Matt 19:28), all the mature sons of God who overcame while suffering with Him, will also reign with Him over the mortals in the Millennial earth from our habitation in the Heavenly New Jerusalem in the time of the Manifestation of the mature sons of God (huios), when all of creation will be finally restored (2Tim 2:12; Rom 8:17-23).
Jesus said to the predominately Gentile believers in the Church of Thyatira: “he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations — He shall rule them with a rod of iron” (Rev 2:26-27). Even father Abraham, although he never saw the promise fulfilled of inheriting the land of Canaan, wasn’t discouraged since he waited in expectation of the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb 11:10; cf. Jn 14:2-3).
There is so much more that could be said, demonstrating that both Jew and Gentile believers share the same heavenly inheritance, and that the entire Jew/Gentile body of Christ will be co-reigning with Christ over the earth during the Millennium and beyond, not just the 12 Apostles, who will be reigning over the mortal Jews in the land of Israel only. This supposed distinction between two destinies for two groups of believers simply cannot withstand scrutiny.
6. Appointed to Wrath vs. Saved from wrath.
Finally, I would like to briefly consider the claim that Jews who believe Peter’s gospel will experience the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation, whereas those who believe Paul’s gospel are exempt from wrath. In the first place, this assumes that the Church will be raptured before the final tribulation period. I argue for a Postribulational rapture of the Church at the Second Coming of Christ in my book “Focusing in on End-Time Events.”
Here I would just like to point out that no believer for whom Christ died will ever be subjected to the wrath of God, whether they undergo the Tribulation or not. To inflict wrath on any blood-bought saint of God would be double jeopardy. The wrath we are saved from in 1Thessalonians 1:10 and 1Thessalonians 5:9 is the same wrath as that mentioned in Romans 5:9 where Paul says: “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” This is not referring to God’s wrath in the Tribulation, but to His postmortem judgment of the unrepentant (Rom 2:5).
A careful examination of the book of Revelation reveals that the only wrath the saints of God will undergo during the Great Tribulation is the wrath of the Dragon and his Beast (Rev 12:12; 13:7,15).
This blog has already become a small book, so I won’t go into further detail, except to say that the wrath of God is only poured out upon the worshippers of the Beast who do not have the seal of God in their foreheads. God’s people are specifically said to be exempted from His bowls of wrath when they are poured out. In my book “Focusing in on End-Time Events,” I demonstrate this with more detail.
I hope that this series of four blogs will be helpful to those who have become entangled in this complex hyper-dispensational labyrinth, first contrived by E.W. Bullinger in the 19th century and further developed by A.E. Knoch, who was excommunicated from the Plymouth Brethren Movement for his aberrant divisive doctrines which also included the denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
I realize that some are so committed to this two-gospel doctrine that they have reached the point of cognitive dissonance and no amount of reasoning with them from the Scriptures will persuade them otherwise. This series of blogs is primarily directed towards those who are not yet fully cemented in this doctrine, and therefore are still open to consider scriptural arguments opposing it.
[1] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 2813, Kindle Edition.
[2] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 3231, Kindle Edition.
[3] Les Feldick – Galatian’s teaching on the two gospels. 12:42 min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AxAou-Pn6g&t=2305s
[4] https://www.triumphofmercy.com/blog/are-there-two-groups-of-believers-or-are-we-one-body-2-of-2
[5] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 3156, Kindle Edition.
[6] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 127. Kindle Edition.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
Are there two sets of Scriptures in the New Testament, intended for two separate groups of believers, as the two-gospel advocates affirm? Most Christians recognize that the Old Testament was for the Jews under the Old Covenant and that, although it was written for us, it isn’t all directly applicable to us under the New Covenant. Additionally, in reading the four Gospels, it must be kept in mind that Jesus’ ministry was carried out while yet under the Old Mosaic Covenant.
Therefore, much of Christ's teachings were intended to be transitional, on the one hand presenting the old, while at the same time introducing the new. Christ often elevated the demands of the Law so that His hearers would despair of self-salvation by law observance and afterwards gladly receive His redemption from the curse of the Law through His death on the cross, becoming a new creation in union with Him in His resurrection life after He rose from the dead.
In the Gospels, Jesus combined the old with the new and advised His hearers concerning the need to discern between the two. He said that the old was incompatible with the new (Matt 9:17) and alerted His hearers of their need for understanding concerning the kingdom of heaven in order to be able to discern between the two. He said:
“Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matt 13:52)
Therefore, in reading the Gospels, we need to discern when Jesus is applying the old, as opposed to when He is introducing the new. For example, to the rich ruler who was still under the delusion that he could be saved by law observance Jesus raised the bar even higher, saying that he also would have to sell all that he had and give to the poor (Matt 19:16-22). In contrast, when the corrupt tax collector simply cried out to God for mercy, he was justified by pure grace apart from works (Luke 18:9-14).
On one occasion, we see Jesus raising the bar even higher on adultery, saying that just a lustful look puts one in danger of Gehenna fire (Matt 5:27-29). In bold contrast to this, we see Jesus offering the water of life freely to the Samaritan woman while knowing that she was not only living in adultery, but also she had had five previously failed marriages (Jn 4:7-18). On another occasion, we see Him saying to a woman caught in the very act of adultery: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (Jn 8:11).
In the Gospels we often see Jesus using the two-edged sword – at one moment killing with the Law, which was the ministration of condemnation and death (2Cor 3:7-9), and the next moment making alive and extending grace to those who already knew that they were condemned and in need of mercy (cf. 1Sam 2:6).
This two-phased working of God in the heart of man is seen throughout all of Scripture, including Paul’s epistles. Paul said: “For God has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all” (Rom 11:32), and “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24). James likewise said: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” – only to follow up by saying that in the end “mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:10-13). Rather than discarding the Gospels as non-applicable, we need to pray for discernment in order to rightly distinguish the old from the new.
However, the two-gospel advocates not only consider the Gospels to be non-applicable to the Church; they also discard the entirety of the New Testament as non-applicable to us, with the exception of Paul’s epistles. This is an outgrowth of their erroneous interpretation of Galatians 2:7, in which they conclude that there are two separate gospels and subsequently two separate groups of believers: 1) believing Jews or the bride, who are still under the Old Covenant Law, and 2) the believers among the Gentiles who comprise the Church, the body of Christ, and are under grace rather than the Law. This, they argue in spite of Paul’s emphatic statements to the contrary, as we saw in the previous blog (Gal 3:27-29; Eph 3:3-6; 1Cor 12:13).
They say that believing Jews are still under the Old Covenant and therefore obligated to keep the Law of Moses in addition to believing in Jesus, whereas the Church is said to be under grace with no moral obligations whatsoever. But is it true that the Old Covenant is still in effect for some believers? (cf. Rom 10:4). Is the Jew/Gentile Church not presently living under the New Covenant? Paul makes it very clear that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, but rather we are now ministers of the New Covenant. He said:
“But our sufficiency is from God 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.” (2Cor 3:5-11)
Here Paul, speaking to the Jew/Gentile body of Christ, says that God has made us all ministers of the New Covenant which is not of the letter, as the Old Covenant was, being the ministry of death, written and engraved in tablets of stone. In the place of the tablets of stone of the former Old Covenant, Paul says that we are now an epistle “written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart” (2 Cor 3:3). This is a partial fulfillment of that which was promised to Israel under the New Covenant when the Lord said, “I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26).
As we see from Ezekiel 31:31 onward, the New Covenant would have been initiated for the nation of Israel and they would have been fully restored to their land under the New Covenant at the time that Christ, their Messiah and King, came proclaiming that His kingdom was at hand. However, Israel’s representative leadership formally rejected Christ’s offer of the Kingdom when He made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem presenting Himself as their King (Matt 21:6-17).
Consequently, He declared to them that, because they did not recognize the hour of their visitation, they would be left desolate until such a time as the nation of Israel should welcome Him (Matt 23:38-39). National Israel was then set aside for judgment. Since Pentecost, the promise of Abraham, as well as that of the New Covenant, have been fulfilled in the Church, which is made up primarily of Gentiles, with only a small remnant of Israel believing and coming under the New Covenant during this age (Rom 11:5-7, 25-27).
In 2Corinthians 3, after declaring that we, as the Church of Christ, are now under the New Covenant, Paul goes on to explain that national Israel fails to see that the Old Mosaic Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant because they have been blinded to what Christ accomplished upon the Cross:
“But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” (2Cor 3:14-16)
It is not that the New Covenant has not yet been effectuated. Jesus said of His blood that it was the blood of the New Covenant, shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). Through His death He redeemed us from our sins and became the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 9:15). Paul instructed the Church concerning the Lord’s Supper celebrated in remembrance of His blood shed for us, reminding them of Jesus’ words: “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1Cor 11:25).
So, we see that the only people-group that are still blinded and therefore continue living under the Old Covenant are the unsaved Jews, and not the believers among the circumcision. In the very moment a Jew believes in Christ, the veil is removed, and they see that we are now already living under the New Covenant. Those who persecuted the Church and sought to impose the Old Covenant Law were the unregenerate Jews who did not acknowledge that Christ had initiated the New Covenant in His own blood, as well as some false brethren whom we commonly refer to as Judaizers (Gal 2:4; Acts 15:5). But Paul insisted that all believers in this age are to live under the New Covenant, free from the Law. He said:
“For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children — 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of US ALL.” (Gal 4:24-26)
It must be kept in mind that Paul was speaking both to Jew and Gentile believers when he says that we are all free from the Law under the New Covenant (Gal 3:26-29). In this present age salvation has come to the Gentiles to provoke Israel to Jealousy (Rom 11:11-15). However, national Israel will finally be saved and will welcome their Messiah and King at His Second Coming. At that time, they will come under the New Covenant and will see the full restoration of their land as promised in Ezekiel and elsewhere. However, that future restoration has to do with God’s program for national Israel and does not apply to believing Jews in this age who all became part of the Church upon believing (1Cor 12:13).
So, understanding that there are not two separate saved people-groups, but that both Jew and Gentile believers make up the one and only body of Christ, the Church, the argument that today there are two sets of Scriptures in the New Testament for two separate groups of believers, falls to the ground. There are several perceived contrasts and apparent discrepancies presented by the two-gospel advocates to substantiate their claim that the epistles of Paul are different from, and incompatible with, the rest of the New Testament. These supposed discrepancies will be considered in the next blog.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
In the previous blog I demonstrated both contextually and grammatically that Galatians 2:7 is referring to only one gospel – the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which was first announced to the shepherds on the night Christ was born in Bethlehem, and later blossomed into the full-orbed gospel as it was finally revealed to Paul by the glorified Christ Himself. At the council at Jerusalem, it was determined that Paul’s gospel wasn’t different from the gospel they themselves had been proclaiming. In the council, Peter, who had previously spent fifteen days with Paul (Gal 1:18), explained to the rest of the council that the gospel Paul preached was not different from the gospel they preached. He said:
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.) and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved IN THE SAME MANNER as they.” (Acts 15:7-11)
Paul said of this singular one-and-only gospel that it was the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom 1:16). In chapter one of Galatians, Paul most emphatically insisted that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Therefore, it is unreasonable to think he would turn around only a few verses later and say in 2:7 that there are two distinct gospels. This error is primarily due to the fact that the KJV rendered it “the gospel of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision.”
Those who would insist that it must read “of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision,” simply because the noun, uncircumcision, is in the genitive case, only show their lack of understanding of the many nuances of the genitive case in Greek. When teaching first year Greek, we always warned the students that they needed to continue on to at least complete the second year, due to the complexities of the Greek language. Many consider themselves to be authorities on Greek after only having received the basics of the language.
I don’t claim to be an expert myself, but it troubles me to see some who obviously lack any real knowledge of the original languages, showing contempt for the translators as if those scholars didn’t know what they were doing. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson lists ten distinct uses of the genitive. [i] As we saw in the previous blog, a common use of the genitive case is the objective genitive, which would read “to” or “towards.” The reason many of the more recent translations render it as “to the uncircumcision” rather than “of the uncircumcision” is because the structure allows it, and the context requires it.
Upon this demonstrably erroneous rendering of the genitive an entire doctrinal system has been built which also argues for two separate groups of believers among the people of God, each with their own private set of Scriptures and disparate doctrines. They dogmatically affirm that they are the only ones in our day who rightly divide the Word of God (2Tim 2:15).
However, I must ask the question: are they rightly dividing the Word of God when they divide believers into two groups? I hope to demonstrate in this blog that in reality they are dividing that which God has joined together. They are drawing lines of division where Paul himself most emphatically states that they are not to be drawn.
In his book “The Two Gospels,” Dawson Barlow argues that Galatians is key to understanding God’s present program since it contains a major “road sign” or transition that most of the Church has failed to recognize. [ii] Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, related in Galatians 2, corresponds to his appearance before the Jerusalem council as recorded in Acts 15. There, as we have already seen, they determined that the gospel Paul preached was not another gospel and gave him the right hand of fellowship, saying that he should go to the Gentiles and Peter would go to the circumcised (Gal 2:9).
However, two-gospel advocates like Dawson and Martin Zender, insisting upon the Authorized Version’s rendering of Galatians 2:7, argue that the Jerusalem council actually concluded the very opposite – that Peter and Paul were to proclaim two different gospels for two separate people groups: Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. They not only argue that from the Jerusalem council onwards there were two distinct gospels, but they also insist that God had two separate people groups contemporaneous with each other: 1) The Messianic Jews or the circumcision, and 2) the Gentile believers or the uncircumcision. They also claim that only the Jewish believers make up the bride of Christ, while the Gentiles are the Church or the body of Christ and separate from the bride.
But is Christ divided? If such a distinction had been made at the Jerusalem council, we would certainly expect to see it mentioned by Paul in Galatians, but what does he say in this regard? In the very next chapter, Paul makes it abundantly clear that no such division existed between Jew and Gentile believers at that time. He said:
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for YOU ARE ALL ONE in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:27-29)
Here we see that, not only do Jews and Gentiles make up the one and only body of Christ, but the Gentiles have also become Abraham’s seed by virtue of their union with Christ, who is Abraham’s Seed (cf. Gal 3:16). To Paul, as to no other Apostle, was entrusted the mysteries of the gospel. However, the mystery revealed to him was not that the Gentile believers were separate from the Jewish believers, but quite to the contrary, the mystery was that they both make up the same body. He said:
“by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of THE SAME BODY, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.).” (Eph 3:3-6).
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into ONE BODY — whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free — and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)
So, we see that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, teaches the exact opposite of that which the two-gospel people affirm. He clearly states that Jew and Gentile believers form one body in Christ. Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that the mysteries of the gospel were not exclusive to Paul, as they claim. Here Paul says that this mystery was also revealed to Christ’s “holy apostles and prophets” by the Spirit. The mysteries revealed to Paul were not revealed to him to the exclusion of the other Apostles, they were revealed to the whole body.
The argument that the Gentiles make up the Church, the body of Christ, while the Jews who believe only become the bride of Christ, is based upon the fact that Paul’s epistles do not use the word “bride” when referring to believers. Since they believe that no part of the New Testament, apart from Paul’s epistles, is applicable to the Gentile Church, they argue that the lack of mention of the word “bride” is conclusive evidence that the Church will not be the bride of Christ.
I will consider the fallacy of the two Scripture doctrine in another blog. However, while the actual word “bride” is not directly applied to the Church in Paul’s epistles since the wedding feast is yet future, he nevertheless does refer to the church as having been betrothed to become the bride. Paul said to the Corinthians:
“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor 11:2)
Here Paul presents himself as one who made himself a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake, preparing the betrothed bride of the King for the wedding day. Likewise, in Ephesians, Paul compares the one flesh husband/wife relationship in marriage to that of the relationship of Christ to His Church:
“So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Eph 5:28-32)
Paul here says that the one-flesh union with a man and his wife is a representation of a great mystery – the mystery of the union of Christ with His Church. Clearly, the Church is presented as the bride of Christ, not only in the book of Revelation, but also in Paul’s epistles.
They argue that the book of Revelation is not applicable to the Church but only to the Jews or the bride of Christ. However, in the very introduction, John specifically says: “John, to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev 1:4). Jesus then says: “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia…” (Rev 1:11). How can it reasonably be argued that the book of Revelation was not addressed to the Gentiles in the churches, when it was Paul himself who first took the gospel to most of the cities mentioned in Revelation?
Also, it should be noted that, while Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, he did not preach the gospel exclusively to them. In fact, just as he said in Romans 1:16, it was his custom to preach the gospel first to the Jews. In Acts 17, after the Jerusalem council in chapter 15, it was still his custom to preach first to the Jews. It says:
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” (Acts 17:1-2).
How can the two-gospel people explain the fact that Paul customarily went and preached the gospel first to the Jews if indeed his gospel was different from that of the circumcision? Paul said that, to the Jews he became as a Jew in order to win the Jews, but he preached the same gospel to them and not another (1Cor 9:19-23).
They also argue that the Great Commission, which Jesus commanded the 12 Apostles to preach to the ends of the earth was suspended at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. If that is true, then what was the gospel that the other 12 Apostles took to the nations during their lifetime? Did they only evangelize the Jews?
The two-gospel advocates imply that the 12 remained in Jerusalem preaching the gospel to the Jews only. However, that is not the case. In Acts 1 Jesus said that they would be His witnesses beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and finally unto the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Following through Acts, we can see that the Great Commission was carried out in that order, just as Jesus said – first in Jerusalem (1:1 – 7:60), then Judea and Samaria (8:1 – 9:43), and finally to the ends of the earth (10:1 – 28:31). In the final verse of Acts we see that Paul is still preaching the same gospel of the kingdom of God and not another, as the two-gospel people claim (Acts 28:31). Jesus said that the end would come as soon as the gospel of the kingdom had been preached to all the world as a witness to all the nations (Matt 24:14).
The other 12 Apostles began in Jerusalem, but they didn’t remain there. Even Peter spent his final days in Rome. Most of them died as martyrs at the hands of the Gentiles because of their testimony, with the exception of John, who died of old age in Ephesus. In the following map one can see that they didn’t consider the Great Commission Jesus commended to them as having been suspended in Acts 15, as claimed by the two-gospel people.
--
In the previous blog I demonstrated both contextually and grammatically that Galatians 2:7 is referring to only one gospel – the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which was first announced to the shepherds on the night Christ was born in Bethlehem, and later blossomed into the full-orbed gospel as it was finally revealed to Paul by the glorified Christ Himself. At the council at Jerusalem, it was determined that Paul’s gospel wasn’t different from the gospel they themselves had been proclaiming. In the council, Peter, who had previously spent fifteen days with Paul (Gal 1:18), explained to the rest of the council that the gospel Paul preached was not different from the gospel they preached. He said:
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.) and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved IN THE SAME MANNER as they.” (Acts 15:7-11)
Paul said of this singular one-and-only gospel that it was the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom 1:16). In chapter one of Galatians, Paul most emphatically insisted that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Therefore, it is unreasonable to think he would turn around only a few verses later and say in 2:7 that there are two distinct gospels. This error is primarily due to the fact that the KJV rendered it “the gospel of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision.”
Those who would insist that it must read “of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision,” simply because the noun, uncircumcision, is in the genitive case, only show their lack of understanding of the many nuances of the genitive case in Greek. When teaching first year Greek, we always warned the students that they needed to continue on to at least complete the second year, due to the complexities of the Greek language. Many consider themselves to be authorities on Greek after only having received the basics of the language.
I don’t claim to be an expert myself, but it troubles me to see some who obviously lack any real knowledge of the original languages, showing contempt for the translators as if those scholars didn’t know what they were doing. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson lists ten distinct uses of the genitive. [i] As we saw in the previous blog, a common use of the genitive case is the objective genitive, which would read “to” or “towards.” The reason many of the more recent translations render it as “to the uncircumcision” rather than “of the uncircumcision” is because the structure allows it, and the context requires it.
Upon this demonstrably erroneous rendering of the genitive an entire doctrinal system has been built which also argues for two separate groups of believers among the people of God, each with their own private set of Scriptures and disparate doctrines. They dogmatically affirm that they are the only ones in our day who rightly divide the Word of God (2Tim 2:15).
However, I must ask the question: are they rightly dividing the Word of God when they divide believers into two groups? I hope to demonstrate in this blog that in reality they are dividing that which God has joined together. They are drawing lines of division where Paul himself most emphatically states that they are not to be drawn.
In his book “The Two Gospels,” Dawson Barlow argues that Galatians is key to understanding God’s present program since it contains a major “road sign” or transition that most of the Church has failed to recognize. [ii] Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, related in Galatians 2, corresponds to his appearance before the Jerusalem council as recorded in Acts 15. There, as we have already seen, they determined that the gospel Paul preached was not another gospel and gave him the right hand of fellowship, saying that he should go to the Gentiles and Peter would go to the circumcised (Gal 2:9).
However, two-gospel advocates like Dawson and Martin Zender, insisting upon the Authorized Version’s rendering of Galatians 2:7, argue that the Jerusalem council actually concluded the very opposite – that Peter and Paul were to proclaim two different gospels for two separate people groups: Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. They not only argue that from the Jerusalem council onwards there were two distinct gospels, but they also insist that God had two separate people groups contemporaneous with each other: 1) The Messianic Jews or the circumcision, and 2) the Gentile believers or the uncircumcision. They also claim that only the Jewish believers make up the bride of Christ, while the Gentiles are the Church or the body of Christ and separate from the bride.
But is Christ divided? If such a distinction had been made at the Jerusalem council, we would certainly expect to see it mentioned by Paul in Galatians, but what does he say in this regard? In the very next chapter, Paul makes it abundantly clear that no such division existed between Jew and Gentile believers at that time. He said:
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for YOU ARE ALL ONE in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:27-29)
Here we see that, not only do Jews and Gentiles make up the one and only body of Christ, but the Gentiles have also become Abraham’s seed by virtue of their union with Christ, who is Abraham’s Seed (cf. Gal 3:16). To Paul, as to no other Apostle, was entrusted the mysteries of the gospel. However, the mystery revealed to him was not that the Gentile believers were separate from the Jewish believers, but quite to the contrary, the mystery was that they both make up the same body. He said:
“by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of THE SAME BODY, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.).” (Eph 3:3-6).
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into ONE BODY — whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free — and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)
So, we see that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, teaches the exact opposite of that which the two-gospel people affirm. He clearly states that Jew and Gentile believers form one body in Christ. Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that the mysteries of the gospel were not exclusive to Paul, as they claim. Here Paul says that this mystery was also revealed to Christ’s “holy apostles and prophets” by the Spirit. The mysteries revealed to Paul were not revealed to him to the exclusion of the other Apostles, they were revealed to the whole body.
The argument that the Gentiles make up the Church, the body of Christ, while the Jews who believe only become the bride of Christ, is based upon the fact that Paul’s epistles do not use the word “bride” when referring to believers. Since they believe that no part of the New Testament, apart from Paul’s epistles, is applicable to the Gentile Church, they argue that the lack of mention of the word “bride” is conclusive evidence that the Church will not be the bride of Christ.
I will consider the fallacy of the two Scripture doctrine in another blog. However, while the actual word “bride” is not directly applied to the Church in Paul’s epistles since the wedding feast is yet future, he nevertheless does refer to the church as having been betrothed to become the bride. Paul said to the Corinthians:
“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor 11:2)
Here Paul presents himself as one who made himself a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake, preparing the betrothed bride of the King for the wedding day. Likewise, in Ephesians, Paul compares the one flesh husband/wife relationship in marriage to that of the relationship of Christ to His Church:
“So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Eph 5:28-32)
Paul here says that the one-flesh union with a man and his wife is a representation of a great mystery – the mystery of the union of Christ with His Church. Clearly, the Church is presented as the bride of Christ, not only in the book of Revelation, but also in Paul’s epistles.
They argue that the book of Revelation is not applicable to the Church but only to the Jews or the bride of Christ. However, in the very introduction, John specifically says: “John, to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev 1:4). Jesus then says: “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia…” (Rev 1:11). How can it reasonably be argued that the book of Revelation was not addressed to the Gentiles in the churches, when it was Paul himself who first took the gospel to most of the cities mentioned in Revelation?
Also, it should be noted that, while Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, he did not preach the gospel exclusively to them. In fact, just as he said in Romans 1:16, it was his custom to preach the gospel first to the Jews. In Acts 17, after the Jerusalem council in chapter 15, it was still his custom to preach first to the Jews. It says:
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” (Acts 17:1-2).
How can the two-gospel people explain the fact that Paul customarily went and preached the gospel first to the Jews if indeed his gospel was different from that of the circumcision? Paul said that, to the Jews he became as a Jew in order to win the Jews, but he preached the same gospel to them and not another (1Cor 9:19-23).
They also argue that the Great Commission, which Jesus commanded the 12 Apostles to preach to the ends of the earth was suspended at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. If that is true, then what was the gospel that the other 12 Apostles took to the nations during their lifetime? Did they only evangelize the Jews?
The two-gospel advocates imply that the 12 remained in Jerusalem preaching the gospel to the Jews only. However, that is not the case. In Acts 1 Jesus said that they would be His witnesses beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and finally unto the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Following through Acts, we can see that the Great Commission was carried out in that order, just as Jesus said – first in Jerusalem (1:1 – 7:60), then Judea and Samaria (8:1 – 9:43), and finally to the ends of the earth (10:1 – 28:31). In the final verse of Acts we see that Paul is still preaching the same gospel of the kingdom of God and not another, as the two-gospel people claim (Acts 28:31). Jesus said that the end would come as soon as the gospel of the kingdom had been preached to all the world as a witness to all the nations (Matt 24:14).
The other 12 Apostles began in Jerusalem, but they didn’t remain there. Even Peter spent his final days in Rome. Most of them died as martyrs at the hands of the Gentiles because of their testimony, with the exception of John, who died of old age in Ephesus. In the following map one can see that they didn’t consider the Great Commission Jesus commended to them as having been suspended in Acts 15, as claimed by the two-gospel people.
There is much more that could be said, but from these first two blogs it should be evident to any unbiased student of the Word that believers in the first century knew nothing of two gospels with two separate people-groups among believers. In the next blog we will be considering their arguments for two separate sets of Scriptures – Paul’s epistles which they say are for the Gentiles only, and the rest of the New Testament which, according to them, is for the Jews only.
[1] Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Objective Genitive.
[2] R. Dawson Barlow, The Two Gospels – A big difference.
[1] Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Objective Genitive.
[2] R. Dawson Barlow, The Two Gospels – A big difference.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
I have recently had discussions with individuals who defend the belief that there are two distinct gospels found in the New Testament – one gospel for the Jews which required circumcision as well as other law observances, and the other gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles which was salvation by grace through faith alone.
It is commonly held by them that, by the end of Paul’s own lifetime, the gospel which he had preached to the Gentiles had been rejected by all those whom he had evangelized in Asia Minor, being displaced by the gospel of the circumcision. This is based upon their interpretation of Paul’s statement that all those in Asia had turned away from him (2Tim 1:15). From this they deduce that the true gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone preached by Paul was lost to the Church in the first century, being replaced with Peter’s works-salvation gospel. This is how they explain the fact that such a doctrine is not found anywhere in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Most who hold to this two-gospel message argue that very few have been saved from Paul’s day to the present since the majority have only heard and received the gospel of the circumcision which requires works for salvation.
Being a Dispensationalist myself, I was always somewhat familiar with the two-gospel teaching. However, those brethren who held to this teaching were generally regarded by most as being a sectarian fringe group of Hyper Dispensationalists and I didn’t give much thought to the subject: That is, until I encountered some among us Universalists who also hold to a variation of this same teaching. From what I have been able to gather, its main proponent among Universalists today is Martin Zender. [1]
I am in agreement with them in that the gospel of grace through faith alone which Paul preached is the only way that we as Gentiles may be saved. However, the main point of contention is their claim that there was a different gospel for the Jews which required that they perform works of the Law in addition to faith in order to be saved.
Additionally, according to them, only Paul’s epistles are applicable to the Church today. They claim that the Church did not begin on the day of Pentecost when the gift of the Holy Spirit was first given to believers, but midway through Acts with the stoning of Stephen and the commissioning of Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, the other twelve Apostles are not even part of the Church of Jesus Christ, according to them.
Upon what foundation is this doctrine based? Amazingly, as we shall see, the entire doctrinal scheme was derived from only one verse as it was translated in the King James Version, taken out of context. Their key passage is Galatians 2:7-9 which reads:
“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” (Gal 2:7-9)
From verse 7 they argue that there were two distinct gospels – one under Peter’s apostleship, pertaining to the Jews, and the other under Paul’s apostleship, pertaining to the Gentiles. They argue that the Jewish gospel preached by Peter required circumcision and law observance in addition to faith in order to be saved, whereas the gospel proclaimed by Paul was salvation by grace through faith alone.
However, even a casual consideration of the context in which this verse appears makes it abundantly clear that Paul here is not speaking of two distinct gospels, but rather the only true gospel, the gospel of grace, which was presented to all people-groups, including the Jews. After Paul’s brief introductory statements in chapter one, he goes directly to the motive of his epistle, which is to expose the Judaizers who had crept in among the Galatians and were subverting the faith of some, presenting another false gospel. Beginning in verse 6 he says:
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6-9).
Paul here most emphatically says that there is only one gospel and that any gospel other than that which he preached was in fact not a gospel at all. Those who argue for two gospels say that the gospel Peter preached to the circumcision required circumcision and law observance. However, that is the very false gospel that Paul opposes here in Galatians. Paul said concerning circumcision:
“Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Gal 5:2-4).
The two gospel advocates say that the gospel of the circumcision required that they be circumcised and keep the Law. But Paul says that if one seeks to be justified by any ritual or by the works of the Law, then Christ would profit them nothing. Seeking to be justified by works constitutes a falling from grace. It cannot be argued that Paul only means to say that the Gentile believers cannot be justified by works, whereas the Jews must, since he makes it abundantly clear that absolutely no one can be justified by the works of the Law. He said:
“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that A MAN is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law NO FLESH shall be justified.” (Gal 2:15-16).
Paul here includes himself and Peter, both being Jews, when he says that NO MAN – NO FLESH, can be justified by the works of the Law. Likewise, in Romans 1 thru 3, Paul establishes that both Jew and Gentile alike stand guilty before God without any possibility of being justified by the works of the Law. In 3:20 he sums up the matter saying:
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:20)
Paul emphatically states that NO FLESH can be justified by the Law. It only served to give us the knowledge of our own sinful condition – nothing more. The Law was the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones (2Cor 3:7). It was not given to live by but to die by. After having done its work, destroying all hopes of self-salvation, Paul in the next verse introduces the one and only true gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of grace:
“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, TO ALL and ON ALL who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all (both Jew and Gentile) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 3:21-24).
So, the good news for all, including both Jew and Gentile, is the gospel of free justification by grace apart from the works of the Law. If a supposed gospel includes works, then it is not a gospel at all, because it cannot save anyone – not even a Jew. There can be no two gospels.
One of the main reasons why there are so few Jews being saved in this present time is because they still seek to establish their own righteousness by the Law and reject the only true gospel of justification by grace through faith alone. Paul said concerning the Jews of this time:
“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE who believes.” (Rom 10:2-4)
“Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant (of Jews) according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.” (Rom 11:5-6)
So, it is abundantly clear that the Jews must be saved by the same gospel of grace apart from works, rather than by a different gospel. It becomes even more evident that Paul did not see Peter’s gospel as being different from his as we continue reading in Galatians chapter two. Right after saying that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter, Paul relates an incident in which he confronted Peter and others of the circumcision because they were not living “according to the truth of the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.)” (Gal 2:14-16). Included in his reproach he reminded them that “according to the gospel” they as Jews knew that “a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
If indeed there were two distinct gospels, Paul would not have reproached Peter for not living according to “the gospel” (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). If Peter’s gospel were different from Paul’s gospel, he wouldn’t have said “the gospel” with the definite article. He would have said that Peter wasn’t living according to his own gospel. However, if indeed Peter’s gospel required that the Jews live as a Jew, as the two-gospel advocates claim, then Peter would have actually been living according to his circumcision gospel by separating from the Gentile believers.
Two Gospels, or the Progressive Unveiling of the One and Only True Gospel?
The two-gospel advocates note differences between the Gospel of the kingdom of God presented by Jesus and the twelve Apostles in the Synoptic Gospels and conclude from that that there must be two different gospels. Prior to the cross, the Jews were called upon to repent and believe the gospel, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Mark 1:15; Matt 10:5-7). However, after the resurrection the gospel also included the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1Cor 15:3; Acts 2:23-24; 10:39-40).
Rather than two gospels, what is progressively presented to us in the New Testament is the unveiling of the one and only true gospel; from its seed form during the life and ministry of Christ; to His burial as a seed falls into the ground, and then to its full bloom through Christ’s resurrection from the dead victorious over sin and death as our Last Adam.
The two-gospel advocates argue that there was the gospel of the kingdom, which was for the Jews only, and then there was the gospel of Christ’s death burial and resurrection, which Paul preached to the Gentiles. It is true that the gospel was first preached to the Jew, but it is the same gospel that saves both the Jew and the Gentile. As Paul said:
“For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the JEW FIRST and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” (Rom 1:16-17)
So, while it is true that the gospel of Christ was first preached to the Jew, and only afterwards to the non-Jews, it was the same gospel of grace and not another. The gospel of Christ is the same gospel which was first proclaimed to the shepherds the night Jesus was born in a manger. We can see the universal reach of this one and only true gospel from its very beginnings in the Angel’s proclamation:
“Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to ALL PEOPLE… And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!’” (Luke 2:10, 13-14)
The gospel of Jesus Christ never changed into another gospel – it simply blossomed into the full-blown gospel, expanding to include all people, both Jews and non-Jews, just as it was finally revealed to the Apostle Paul.
The Correct Rendering of Galatians 2:7
With this understanding concerning the one and only true gospel of Christ, we can now turn our attention to the one verse from which the two-gospel doctrine found its origin, Galatians 2:7. The word “gospel” only appears once in the phrase, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.” It literally reads “I was entrusted with the gospel of/to the uncircumcision just as Peter of/to the circumcision (πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς)” Some translations favor the Authorized Version’s rendering “gospel of the circumcision,” but the majority of recent translations, taking into account the context, render it as “the gospel to the circumcision.”
The two-gospel advocates insist that the only correct rendering is “of the circumcision,” saying that it must mean “of” and not “to” because it is in the genitive case in Greek, rather than the dative (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας...τῆς περιτομῆς). However, insisting that the genitive must always be rendered “of” shows a lack of understanding concerning the diverse uses of the genitive case. [2]
One of the uses of the genitive case is referred to by the Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson as the objective genitive. This usage would read as “to” or “towards” in English. [3] For example, in 1 Peter 2:19, it speaks of a good conscience “toward” God (διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ), while Luke 6:12 also is an objective genitive, and is properly rendered prayer “to” God (ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ). It is too simplistic to force the meaning “of” upon every genitive without due regard for its actual use in the context. Considering the context of Galatians 2:7, it becomes very clear that the correct rendering is “I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcision just as Peter to the circumcision.”
It is the same gospel message, but Paul presented it in such a way as to be understood and received by a Gentile, whereas Peter presented it in a manner that would be more readily received by a Jew. As Paul said:
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, sing.), that I may be partaker of it with you.” (1 Cor 9:19-23)
Paul only saw one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ. But in order that he might win and save all, he became all to all people in his presentation of it. Here in 1Corinthians 8 thru 9, as well as in Romans 14 thru 15, Paul instructs Gentile believers who know the truth concerning our liberty under the New Covenant as to how we are to relate to those who have a legalistic background. He says that we are not to flaunt our liberty in Christ before those who feel that they must live under the dietary restrictions and ceremonial observances such as the Sabbath. However, while his presentation of the gospel differed depending upon his audience, the gospel remained the same and not another.
The two-gospel advocates rightly point out that Paul received greater revelation as to the mystery of the gospel. In fact, to him mysteries were revealed as to no other Apostle. However, the mystery of the gospel was not that there were two gospels. To him was revealed the mystery that God had always planned to unite Jews and Gentiles, forming one body. He said:
“if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.).” (Eph 3:2-6)
Here we see that the mystery revealed to Paul was not that of two people groups with two gospels, but one gospel and only one people – His body, the Jew/Gentile Church. The revelation given to Paul did not produce division but oneness. Two gospel advocates cite Paul’s reference to the gospel which he preached, referring to it as “my gospel” as evidence that it was exclusive to him. Paul said:
“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.” (Rom 16:25-26)
In the first place, it only needs to be pointed out that, for him to say that the gospel is “his gospel” in no way makes it exclusive to him. For example, when I say, “my faith,” “my God,” or “according to my Bible,” etc., it is obvious that I don’t mean to say that they are exclusive to me or that they originated with me. Also, Paul always sought to preach the gospel where it was as yet unknown (Rom 15:20). Therefore, it is to be anticipated that he would have become accustomed to referring to the gospel as his good news since no one in the region would have previously heard of it. While Paul as no other received revelation of all aspects included in the gospel of Jesus Christ, he clearly did not present another gospel.
Paul did not exclusively refer to the gospel as “his gospel”. On three occasions he referred to it as "our gospel" (2Cor 4:3; 1Thess 1:5; 2Thess 2:14). Even more significantly, he referred to it as the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as we see in the Gospels (2Thess 1:8; cf. Mark 1:1).
If the two-gospel advocates simply emphasized the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone as Paul proclaimed it, it would be an error of little consequence, since that is the true gospel of Jesus Christ which we must believe in order to be saved. However, along with the two-gospel doctrine they further claim that only Paul’s epistles are applicable to us today. The rest of the New Testament, according to them, only had application to the Jewish believers. This has given place to a denial of many fundamental truths of Scripture, such as the reality of sin and the need for repentance and the new birth, saying that they are not applicable to the Church, since, according to them, these truths were not taught in Paul’s epistles. In the next blog I will be considering some of the more damaging doctrinal errors which have resulted from the two-gospel doctrine that began with the misinterpretation of just one solitary verse in Galatians.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1YG4YrpzBI
[2] For a chart demonstrating the many uses of the genitive case see:
https://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf
[3] Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Objective Genitive.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
True Repentance
by George Sidney Hurd
--
“Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, so that there may come times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that he may send Christ Jesus, who was ordained for you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God spoke long ago by the mouth of his holy prophets.” (Acts 3:19-21)
As will be demonstrated in this blog, true repentance involves a turning to God from sin, resulting in our sins being blotted out, just as we see stated here in Acts by the apostle Peter. However, as with many other biblical terms such as sin, separation, propitiation and regeneration, there is a new wave of spiritual deconstructionists who are seeking to redefine repentance in a manner antonymous with its obvious contextual meaning throughout Scripture. One metaphysical New Age Christian website presents a redefinition of “repentance” which is frequently reflected in the writings of Progressive/New Age authors. It says:
“Repentance: ‘A turning from a belief in sin and error to a belief in God and righteousness; a reversal of mind and heart in the direction of All-Good. When we repent, we break with mortal thought and ascend into a spiritual thought realm, the kingdom of God.’” [1]
This definition is actually the antithesis to true biblical repentance. Biblical repentance is an acknowledgment of one’s sin and a turning away from it, whereas “a turning from a belief in sin” constitutes a denial of sin’s reality. Also, turning “to a belief in God” is not the same as turning to and serving the only living and true God (1Thess 1:9). Many believe in God in the sense that they acknowledge His existence. Even demons believe in God and tremble, but mere intellectual assent does not result in salvation (James 2:19).
This blurring of biblical distinctions, subtly nuancing the plain contextual meaning of words in order to accommodate a form of Christianized New Age metaphysical spirituality, is a very disturbing trend within the Church today.
Particularly disturbing to me is seeing Bethel Church in Redding California deconstructing into this form of New Age spirituality. In the book “The Physics of Heaven” co-authored by pastor Bill Johnson, Ellyn Davis says of their paradigm shift from biblical Christianity towards New Age spirituality:
“Now we are beginning to hear more and more revelation that is in line with what New Agers have been saying all along and we are hearing more and more teaching about Christians ‘taking back truths’ from the New Age that really belong to citizens of the Kingdom of God.” [2]
The revelation she refers to is not a deeper understanding of the Scriptures, but rather additional subjective revelations received through dreams, visions, prophesies and communication with angels. The Scriptures are then nuanced in an attempt to make them appear to support their new revelations. This is done by various methods, such as spiritualizing texts or creatively redefining biblical terms without due regard to their actual meaning in context.
This unjustifiable practice of redefining biblical terms is employed by pastor Bill Johnson in order to redefine the term “repentance” in a manner more consistent with the New Age concept of repentance as being merely an elevation of the mind from the mortal thought-realm to the spiritual thought-realm. Notice his creative attempt at redefining repentance:
“Renewing the mind begins with repentance. That is the gateway to return to our original assignment on earth. Jesus said, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ To many Christians, repent refers to having an altar call where people come forward and weep at the altar to get right with God. This is a legitimate expression of repentance, but it’s not what the word repentance means. ‘Re’ means to go back. ‘Pent’ is like the penthouse, the top floor of the building. Repent, then, means to go back to God’s perspective on reality. And in that perspective there is a renewal, a reformation that affects our emotions, and every part of our lives…” (emphasis mine).[3]
This is a classic example of a Deconstructionist’s creative attempts to attach a New Age meaning to the biblical word “repentance.” Rather than considering the definitions of the words as they appear in the original biblical text, he draws his definition from our English word. In English, the word “repentance” is composed of the prefix re-, meaning “again,” which he erroneously renders as “to go back.” “Pent” is from the Latin peh, meaning “to hurt or feel pain.” [4] However, in order to redefine the word “repentance” so as to have a metaphysical meaning, he creatively associates pent with the word “penthouse.” From there he argues that repentance is a going back to the top floor, spiritually speaking. As we shall see, this new definition is more in alignment with the New Age concept of repentance which they see as an ascending into the Higher Mind, a reawakening to the divine within us. It has little or no relationship with true biblical repentance.
Repentance Biblically Defined
The Hebrew word often translated as “repent or repentance” in the Old Testament is nacham which literally means “to pant, to sigh or to groan.” [5] In actual usage, nacham expresses the emotion of sorrow or regret, accompanied by a corresponding change of mind. God is said to relent or repent 30 times in the Old Testament. However, in many of those instances what is primarily being expressed is sorrow or regret. Even when God appears to have a change of mind, it must be understood as an anthropomorphism since it is impossible for God to literally repent in the sense of changing His mind (1Sam 15:29). I consider the subject of God’s repentance in relation to His immutability in my blog: Open Theism - Does God know my Tomorrow 2 of 2 .
Throughout the Old Testament, nacham has the same two-fold meaning of sorrow which results in a change of mind. Even when repentance is not specifically of sin, as we see with the Children of Israel repenting and returning to Egypt upon seeing war (Ex 13:17), their repentance included sorrow or regret accompanied by a change of mind and a corresponding action.
These three elements: 1) sorrow, 2) change of mind, and 3) a corresponding change of action, are essential to true biblical repentance. Some argue that sorrow for sin is not necessary since the Greek word used in the New Testament is metanoia, which is composed of meta, “change” and nous, “mind,” literally meaning “a change of mind.” However, words are defined by their meaning in context and not simply according to their morphology. In the Old Testament nacham literally means “to groan” but in context means “sorrow with a change of mind.” In the New Testament metanoia literally means “a change of mind,” but in context often means “a change of mind with sorrow.”
True repentance of sin, both in the Old Testament and in the Gospels, was often demonstrated by repenting in dust and ashes as an expression of contrition (Job 42:6; 1Kings 21:27; Jonah 3:6-10; Matt 11:21; Luke 10:13; Jer 31:19). In the context of repentance concerning fornication and boasting in tolerance of such conduct, Paul indicates that true godly repentance includes sorrow for one’s sin. He said:
“Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2Cor 7:9-10).
It is important to note here that sorrow, in and of itself, without a change of heart and mind, turning from sin towards God, is not true repentance. Neither is biblical repentance a change of mind without a corresponding change of direction.
Repentance from Sin
Some argue that repentance does not have to do with repenting of sin but merely a change of mind towards God. However, one cannot rightly change their mind towards God without repenting of sin. Throughout Scripture repentance is consistently seen to involve a turning from one’s sinful lifestyle. In 2Chronicles 7:14 God promises that if His people turn from their wicked ways He will forgive. In Jeremiah 25:5-6 He calls upon them to repent each one of his evil way and his evil doings. In Jeremiah 8:6 He laments that no man repented of his wickedness. In Ezekiel 14:6 He calls upon them to repent, turning away from their idolatry and abominations. In Ezekiel 18:30-31 they are called upon to repent, turning from all their transgressions, casting them away from themselves. In Acts 8:22 Peter rebukes Simon the magician saying: “Repent therefore of this your wickedness.” In Revelation 2:14-16 Jesus warned those within the church who were practicing idolatry and sexual immorality, saying: “Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.”
In verses 21-22 He said of a woman within the church called Jezebel:
“And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.”
It is further said that, in spite of the final severe bowl judgments, the wicked will not repent of their idolatries, murders, sorceries, sexual immorality and thefts (Rev 9:20-21; 16:11).
Throughout Scripture both believers and nonbelievers are called upon to repent of their sinful lifestyles and turn to God. Some Calvinists would say that the lost are not called upon to repent of sin, but simply to repent in the sense of changing their mind about the Gospel, putting their faith in Christ. Some within the grace movement would say that the lost are to repent of sin, but not Christians, since their sins are no longer an issue with God. However, without going into more detail, we can see in the Scriptures cited above and elsewhere that, while the believer has been justified once-and-for all and there is now therefore no condemnation for them (Rom 5:1; 8:1), both the lost and the saved are called upon to repent of sin. Anyone who is living in sin must repent for forgiveness of sins, whether they be believers or nonbelievers. As Paul said to the men of Athens:
“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because…He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.” (Acts 17:30-31).
What Paul is saying is that God has appointed a day of judgment in which He will judge all men. Repentance is seen to be prerequisite to one having their sins remitted or blotted out (Acts 2:38; 3:19). Paul is calling upon the men of Athens to repent in order to be free of sin and its resulting condemnation on the day of judgment. While there is no condemnation for the believer, Jesus warns of severe disciplinary judgments towards believers who obstinately persist in sin and do not repent (Rev 2:5,15-16,21-23).
Is Repentance a Prerequisite to Salvation?
Some Calvinists point out that when the Philippian jailer asked: “What must I do to be saved,” the only prerequisite to salvation given by Paul was to believe. He said: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). However, the jailer’s very question indicates that he was already repentant. One does not seek salvation from sin unless they are repentant of it. Placing one’s faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior from sin logically requires that the Holy Spirit had already convicted that individual of their sin, resulting in repentance and placing faith in Jesus as Savior. An individual who simply prayed the prayer of faith in order to avoid judgment and hell without ever having repented from his sins has not believed unto salvation.
Repentance and true saving faith are as inseparable as two sides of the same coin. Jesus preached saying: “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). He said, “I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Matt 9:13). Jesus has promised that He will draw all unto Himself (Jn 12:32). However, He waits until the Holy Spirit has convinced each individual of their sin before calling them to repentance and faith. Ultimately the Spirit will have convinced the whole world of sin and of their need of God’s free gift of righteousness in Christ (Jn 16:8).
However, those who are righteous in their own eyes are more resistant to the Spirit’s conviction of sin. For this reason, Jesus said to the religiously self-righteous: “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt 21:31). Eventually even they will be convinced of their sin and repent, believing the Gospel, but those who are more conscious of their sinful condition, like the tax collectors and harlots, are more readily convinced of their sin and need of the Savior, and therefore repent and believe before the Pharisees. This is graphically illustrated by Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector:
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men — extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:10-14)
Here Jesus shows us why the sinners and tax collectors enter the kingdom before the self-righteous. The Pharisee had yet to be convinced of his own sin. One does not repent and believe the Gospel until the convicting work of the Spirit has been fully accomplished, resulting of one repenting of their sins and believing the Gospel. This is what Jesus teaches us in this parable. All will eventually bow the knee, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord in the day of their visitation, but that day will not come until the Holy Spirit has completed His work of convincing all sinners of their sin (Php 2:10-11; 1Peter 2:12).
Isn’t Repentance a Work?
Some Calvinists object to repentance being required for salvation since salvation is entirely by grace, apart from works. However, repentance is not a work that the sinner must perform in order to be saved. Just as conviction of sin is entirely a work of the Spirit, so also the Spirit is the one who produces repentance and faith in the convicted sinner. The church in Jerusalem recognized that repentance is a gift of grace, saying: “Then God has also GRANTED to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11:18). Peter said, speaking before the Sanhedrin: “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to GIVE repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:31). Paul speaks of God as GRANTING repentance so that those who oppose themselves may know the truth and escape the snare of the devil (2Tim 2:25-26). So, the Early Church understood that both repentance and the resulting forgiveness of sins is given to man by grace alone. Just as the faith necessary for salvation is granted by grace (Php 1:29; Eph 2:8-9; Acts 16:14), so also conviction of sin and the resultant repentance are gifts of God’s grace.
So, we must insist upon the biblical definition of repentance as being a repentance from sin and a turning towards God, resulting in the remission of our sins. We must reject any nuanced New Age definition which minimizes or denies the reality of sin and the need to repent of it, regarding repentance as being nothing more than a change of mind without any corresponding change in conduct. John the Baptist confronted the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, saying: “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt 3:7-8). Paul preached to men everywhere that they should “repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:20). Rather than succumbing to a false repentance, we must preach repentance of sins and a turning back to God.
[1] https://www.truthunity.net/rw/repentance
[2] Franklin, Judy; Davis, Ellyn. The Physics of Heaven (p. 15). Destiny Image, Inc.
[3] Johnson, Bill. The Supernatural Power of a Transformed Mind: Access to a Life of Miracles. p 44
[4] https://www.wordsense.eu/paenitere/
[5] International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Repentance.
--
“Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, so that there may come times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that he may send Christ Jesus, who was ordained for you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God spoke long ago by the mouth of his holy prophets.” (Acts 3:19-21)
As will be demonstrated in this blog, true repentance involves a turning to God from sin, resulting in our sins being blotted out, just as we see stated here in Acts by the apostle Peter. However, as with many other biblical terms such as sin, separation, propitiation and regeneration, there is a new wave of spiritual deconstructionists who are seeking to redefine repentance in a manner antonymous with its obvious contextual meaning throughout Scripture. One metaphysical New Age Christian website presents a redefinition of “repentance” which is frequently reflected in the writings of Progressive/New Age authors. It says:
“Repentance: ‘A turning from a belief in sin and error to a belief in God and righteousness; a reversal of mind and heart in the direction of All-Good. When we repent, we break with mortal thought and ascend into a spiritual thought realm, the kingdom of God.’” [1]
This definition is actually the antithesis to true biblical repentance. Biblical repentance is an acknowledgment of one’s sin and a turning away from it, whereas “a turning from a belief in sin” constitutes a denial of sin’s reality. Also, turning “to a belief in God” is not the same as turning to and serving the only living and true God (1Thess 1:9). Many believe in God in the sense that they acknowledge His existence. Even demons believe in God and tremble, but mere intellectual assent does not result in salvation (James 2:19).
This blurring of biblical distinctions, subtly nuancing the plain contextual meaning of words in order to accommodate a form of Christianized New Age metaphysical spirituality, is a very disturbing trend within the Church today.
Particularly disturbing to me is seeing Bethel Church in Redding California deconstructing into this form of New Age spirituality. In the book “The Physics of Heaven” co-authored by pastor Bill Johnson, Ellyn Davis says of their paradigm shift from biblical Christianity towards New Age spirituality:
“Now we are beginning to hear more and more revelation that is in line with what New Agers have been saying all along and we are hearing more and more teaching about Christians ‘taking back truths’ from the New Age that really belong to citizens of the Kingdom of God.” [2]
The revelation she refers to is not a deeper understanding of the Scriptures, but rather additional subjective revelations received through dreams, visions, prophesies and communication with angels. The Scriptures are then nuanced in an attempt to make them appear to support their new revelations. This is done by various methods, such as spiritualizing texts or creatively redefining biblical terms without due regard to their actual meaning in context.
This unjustifiable practice of redefining biblical terms is employed by pastor Bill Johnson in order to redefine the term “repentance” in a manner more consistent with the New Age concept of repentance as being merely an elevation of the mind from the mortal thought-realm to the spiritual thought-realm. Notice his creative attempt at redefining repentance:
“Renewing the mind begins with repentance. That is the gateway to return to our original assignment on earth. Jesus said, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ To many Christians, repent refers to having an altar call where people come forward and weep at the altar to get right with God. This is a legitimate expression of repentance, but it’s not what the word repentance means. ‘Re’ means to go back. ‘Pent’ is like the penthouse, the top floor of the building. Repent, then, means to go back to God’s perspective on reality. And in that perspective there is a renewal, a reformation that affects our emotions, and every part of our lives…” (emphasis mine).[3]
This is a classic example of a Deconstructionist’s creative attempts to attach a New Age meaning to the biblical word “repentance.” Rather than considering the definitions of the words as they appear in the original biblical text, he draws his definition from our English word. In English, the word “repentance” is composed of the prefix re-, meaning “again,” which he erroneously renders as “to go back.” “Pent” is from the Latin peh, meaning “to hurt or feel pain.” [4] However, in order to redefine the word “repentance” so as to have a metaphysical meaning, he creatively associates pent with the word “penthouse.” From there he argues that repentance is a going back to the top floor, spiritually speaking. As we shall see, this new definition is more in alignment with the New Age concept of repentance which they see as an ascending into the Higher Mind, a reawakening to the divine within us. It has little or no relationship with true biblical repentance.
Repentance Biblically Defined
The Hebrew word often translated as “repent or repentance” in the Old Testament is nacham which literally means “to pant, to sigh or to groan.” [5] In actual usage, nacham expresses the emotion of sorrow or regret, accompanied by a corresponding change of mind. God is said to relent or repent 30 times in the Old Testament. However, in many of those instances what is primarily being expressed is sorrow or regret. Even when God appears to have a change of mind, it must be understood as an anthropomorphism since it is impossible for God to literally repent in the sense of changing His mind (1Sam 15:29). I consider the subject of God’s repentance in relation to His immutability in my blog: Open Theism - Does God know my Tomorrow 2 of 2 .
Throughout the Old Testament, nacham has the same two-fold meaning of sorrow which results in a change of mind. Even when repentance is not specifically of sin, as we see with the Children of Israel repenting and returning to Egypt upon seeing war (Ex 13:17), their repentance included sorrow or regret accompanied by a change of mind and a corresponding action.
These three elements: 1) sorrow, 2) change of mind, and 3) a corresponding change of action, are essential to true biblical repentance. Some argue that sorrow for sin is not necessary since the Greek word used in the New Testament is metanoia, which is composed of meta, “change” and nous, “mind,” literally meaning “a change of mind.” However, words are defined by their meaning in context and not simply according to their morphology. In the Old Testament nacham literally means “to groan” but in context means “sorrow with a change of mind.” In the New Testament metanoia literally means “a change of mind,” but in context often means “a change of mind with sorrow.”
True repentance of sin, both in the Old Testament and in the Gospels, was often demonstrated by repenting in dust and ashes as an expression of contrition (Job 42:6; 1Kings 21:27; Jonah 3:6-10; Matt 11:21; Luke 10:13; Jer 31:19). In the context of repentance concerning fornication and boasting in tolerance of such conduct, Paul indicates that true godly repentance includes sorrow for one’s sin. He said:
“Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2Cor 7:9-10).
It is important to note here that sorrow, in and of itself, without a change of heart and mind, turning from sin towards God, is not true repentance. Neither is biblical repentance a change of mind without a corresponding change of direction.
Repentance from Sin
Some argue that repentance does not have to do with repenting of sin but merely a change of mind towards God. However, one cannot rightly change their mind towards God without repenting of sin. Throughout Scripture repentance is consistently seen to involve a turning from one’s sinful lifestyle. In 2Chronicles 7:14 God promises that if His people turn from their wicked ways He will forgive. In Jeremiah 25:5-6 He calls upon them to repent each one of his evil way and his evil doings. In Jeremiah 8:6 He laments that no man repented of his wickedness. In Ezekiel 14:6 He calls upon them to repent, turning away from their idolatry and abominations. In Ezekiel 18:30-31 they are called upon to repent, turning from all their transgressions, casting them away from themselves. In Acts 8:22 Peter rebukes Simon the magician saying: “Repent therefore of this your wickedness.” In Revelation 2:14-16 Jesus warned those within the church who were practicing idolatry and sexual immorality, saying: “Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.”
In verses 21-22 He said of a woman within the church called Jezebel:
“And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.”
It is further said that, in spite of the final severe bowl judgments, the wicked will not repent of their idolatries, murders, sorceries, sexual immorality and thefts (Rev 9:20-21; 16:11).
Throughout Scripture both believers and nonbelievers are called upon to repent of their sinful lifestyles and turn to God. Some Calvinists would say that the lost are not called upon to repent of sin, but simply to repent in the sense of changing their mind about the Gospel, putting their faith in Christ. Some within the grace movement would say that the lost are to repent of sin, but not Christians, since their sins are no longer an issue with God. However, without going into more detail, we can see in the Scriptures cited above and elsewhere that, while the believer has been justified once-and-for all and there is now therefore no condemnation for them (Rom 5:1; 8:1), both the lost and the saved are called upon to repent of sin. Anyone who is living in sin must repent for forgiveness of sins, whether they be believers or nonbelievers. As Paul said to the men of Athens:
“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because…He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.” (Acts 17:30-31).
What Paul is saying is that God has appointed a day of judgment in which He will judge all men. Repentance is seen to be prerequisite to one having their sins remitted or blotted out (Acts 2:38; 3:19). Paul is calling upon the men of Athens to repent in order to be free of sin and its resulting condemnation on the day of judgment. While there is no condemnation for the believer, Jesus warns of severe disciplinary judgments towards believers who obstinately persist in sin and do not repent (Rev 2:5,15-16,21-23).
Is Repentance a Prerequisite to Salvation?
Some Calvinists point out that when the Philippian jailer asked: “What must I do to be saved,” the only prerequisite to salvation given by Paul was to believe. He said: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). However, the jailer’s very question indicates that he was already repentant. One does not seek salvation from sin unless they are repentant of it. Placing one’s faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior from sin logically requires that the Holy Spirit had already convicted that individual of their sin, resulting in repentance and placing faith in Jesus as Savior. An individual who simply prayed the prayer of faith in order to avoid judgment and hell without ever having repented from his sins has not believed unto salvation.
Repentance and true saving faith are as inseparable as two sides of the same coin. Jesus preached saying: “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). He said, “I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Matt 9:13). Jesus has promised that He will draw all unto Himself (Jn 12:32). However, He waits until the Holy Spirit has convinced each individual of their sin before calling them to repentance and faith. Ultimately the Spirit will have convinced the whole world of sin and of their need of God’s free gift of righteousness in Christ (Jn 16:8).
However, those who are righteous in their own eyes are more resistant to the Spirit’s conviction of sin. For this reason, Jesus said to the religiously self-righteous: “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt 21:31). Eventually even they will be convinced of their sin and repent, believing the Gospel, but those who are more conscious of their sinful condition, like the tax collectors and harlots, are more readily convinced of their sin and need of the Savior, and therefore repent and believe before the Pharisees. This is graphically illustrated by Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector:
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men — extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:10-14)
Here Jesus shows us why the sinners and tax collectors enter the kingdom before the self-righteous. The Pharisee had yet to be convinced of his own sin. One does not repent and believe the Gospel until the convicting work of the Spirit has been fully accomplished, resulting of one repenting of their sins and believing the Gospel. This is what Jesus teaches us in this parable. All will eventually bow the knee, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord in the day of their visitation, but that day will not come until the Holy Spirit has completed His work of convincing all sinners of their sin (Php 2:10-11; 1Peter 2:12).
Isn’t Repentance a Work?
Some Calvinists object to repentance being required for salvation since salvation is entirely by grace, apart from works. However, repentance is not a work that the sinner must perform in order to be saved. Just as conviction of sin is entirely a work of the Spirit, so also the Spirit is the one who produces repentance and faith in the convicted sinner. The church in Jerusalem recognized that repentance is a gift of grace, saying: “Then God has also GRANTED to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11:18). Peter said, speaking before the Sanhedrin: “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to GIVE repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:31). Paul speaks of God as GRANTING repentance so that those who oppose themselves may know the truth and escape the snare of the devil (2Tim 2:25-26). So, the Early Church understood that both repentance and the resulting forgiveness of sins is given to man by grace alone. Just as the faith necessary for salvation is granted by grace (Php 1:29; Eph 2:8-9; Acts 16:14), so also conviction of sin and the resultant repentance are gifts of God’s grace.
So, we must insist upon the biblical definition of repentance as being a repentance from sin and a turning towards God, resulting in the remission of our sins. We must reject any nuanced New Age definition which minimizes or denies the reality of sin and the need to repent of it, regarding repentance as being nothing more than a change of mind without any corresponding change in conduct. John the Baptist confronted the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, saying: “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt 3:7-8). Paul preached to men everywhere that they should “repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:20). Rather than succumbing to a false repentance, we must preach repentance of sins and a turning back to God.
[1] https://www.truthunity.net/rw/repentance
[2] Franklin, Judy; Davis, Ellyn. The Physics of Heaven (p. 15). Destiny Image, Inc.
[3] Johnson, Bill. The Supernatural Power of a Transformed Mind: Access to a Life of Miracles. p 44
[4] https://www.wordsense.eu/paenitere/
[5] International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Repentance.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
“Faith is like the hand of the beggar that takes the gift while adding nothing to it.”
Thomas Chalmers
Is our salvation transactional, unilateral, relational, or is it a combination of these?
Is the salvation of mankind a bilateral transaction in which God does His part and it is now up to man to do his part, or is it a unilateral transaction in which God saves all without the necessity of any response on man’s part? Some would argue that we shouldn’t even be using such mechanistic, forensic terms since salvation is a relational matter, not a legal one.
God’s Unilateral Provision of Salvation is Transactional – not Relational
While it is certainly true that salvation’s primary purpose and end result is a restored relationship, the relationship of the redeemed with their Creator and Judge wouldn’t have even been a possibility if Christ hadn’t first unilaterally carried upon Himself the sins of the world in order to pay the redemptive price for our sins which had caused separation between us and God (Isa 59:1-2). [1]
We see numerous references to just such a transaction throughout Scripture. Paul said, “for you were bought with a price,” referring to the precious blood of Jesus which was shed for the remission or forgiveness of our sins (cf. 1Cor 6:20; Col 1:14; Matt 26:28; 20:28; Heb 9:22; 1Peter 1:18-19).
The eternal Son of God took upon Himself humanity in order to bear our sins in Himself as the Last Adam, thereby redeeming us through the shedding of His pure innocent blood on our behalf (2Cor 5:21). The transactional, substitutionary nature of Christ’s salvation of mankind is emphasized in 1Timothy 2:5-6 where Paul says:
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom (antilutron) for all, to be testified in due time.” (1Tim 2:5,6)
Paul here presents the Man Christ Jesus as the only Mediator between God and man who gave Himself a ransom (antilutron, “a substitutionary redemptive price”) for all. This word rendered “ransom” in English is from the Greek antilutron – anti meaning “instead of or in substitution for” and lutron, “redemptive price.” The innocent blood of the God-Man, Christ Jesus, was presented to the Father, thereby procuring the eternal redemption of all humanity (Heb 9:11-15).
Many today mock the truth of Christ’s substitutionary death in which He bore the penalty for our sins on our behalf, seeking to reduce Christ’s atoning sacrifice of Himself on the cross to nothing more than a moral example for us to follow. But according to the Scriptures His precious blood made propitiation to God for our sins. As our High Priest He presented His own blood in the heavenly Holy Place. As the writer of Hebrews states, “with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12).
While it is common today to hear Progressive authors mock the doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, that is precisely what is presented to us in the Scriptures. Jesus presented His blood to God as payment for our sins. Paul says, referring to Christ’s sacrifice: “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood” (Rom 3:25). The precious blood of Jesus was more than sufficient to make propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2).
To mock the holy transaction by which God unilaterally procured our redemption through Christ’s own shed blood, calling His substitutionary death “a mechanistic, legal fiction,” [2] is tantamount to denying the Lord who bought us and counting the blood of the covenant shed for the remission of our sins as a common thing (2 Peter 2:1; Heb 10:29).
I consider with more detail the subject of Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement in my book: “The Ways of God,” and in my blog: “Did Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross change God’s Attitude towards Us?” Also in my blog, “The Early Fathers and the Penal Substitutionary Atonement” I show that the penal substitutionary aspect of the atonement was not a later invention contrived by John Calvin, as some claim, but was central to the Early Father’s understanding of the atonement.
Clearly, in Scripture our salvation is seen to have been made possible through a unilateral transaction carried out by our triune God. Even as Adam’s sin brought condemnation and death upon all, the Son of God became the Last Adam in order that through His one righteous act He might bring justification and life to all:
“Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.” (Rom 5:18)
The Appropriation of God’s Unilateral Provision of Salvation is Bilateral
Some Inclusivists argue that since Christ died for all, then all were unilaterally saved, justified and made alive 2,000 years ago at the cross. However, while it is true that provision was made for all at the cross, and before Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father every knee will have bowed in humble submission to Him as Lord and Savior, the salvific work of the cross is not applied to the individual until the Good News of salvation is received by faith. There is an “already” and a “not yet” in the outworking of God’s plan of salvation since it will require ages for every knee to willingly bow to the lordship of Christ, freely receiving God’s gift of righteousness by faith. As the writer of Hebrews says:
“You have put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.” (Heb 2:8)
If subjection to Christ was by divine imposition, or if His salvation was automatically applied to everyone without the need for each individual to come to an end of themselves and personally and willingly receive that salvation which only comes through Christ, there would be no need for such a long interval of time between the moment when Christ cried from the cross “it is finished” and when all will have finally been irresistibly drawn to Him, resulting in God becoming all in all.
Jesus said: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” (Jn 12:32). The first part of this verse is the “already.” He was already lifted up 2,000 years ago upon the cross. But the second part is the “not yet.” Christ by His Spirit has been drawing men unto Himself, each in their own time, and He will continue drawing all unto Himself until all will have finally bowed the knee, confessing Him as Lord and Savior. At that time, and only at that time, God will relationally become all in all (1Cor 15:28; Eph 1:10).
The provision of salvation made at the cross was a unilateral transaction within the Godhead between the Father and Christ, the Last Adam. However, the application of Christ’s provision of salvation is bilateral in the sense that it requires the free response of each individual, personally appropriating God’s free gift of salvation by faith.
However, the term “transaction” is an inaccurate term to describe our necessary response, often intentionally employed so as to present our response to the Gospel as something mechanical rather than personal and relational. A more accurate term to describe our necessary response to the Gospel would be “reception,” instead of “transaction” (Jn 1:12).
Throughout the entire New Testament we see the need for our response of faith in order to be saved (Rom 3:25-26,28; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:24-25, etc.). When Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature He said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16; cf. Jn 3:18). When the Philippian jailor asked Paul what he had to do to be saved, Paul didn’t tell him that he was already saved at the cross, as some do today, but rather said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31). Paul says: “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor 1:21). In Romans 10:9,10 Paul emphasized the need for a genuine faith from the heart in order to be saved, saying:
“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; see also James 2:19 for an example of mere mental assent which does not result in salvation).
The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the gospel is of no benefit to those who do not believe. He said: “For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.” (Heb 4:2). Is the gospel good news? Yes! But it is of no benefit to anyone until they believingly receive it for themselves.
Some Inclusivists, such as Don Keathley, insist that there is no such distinction as the saved and the unsaved – that all were unilaterally saved at the cross and it is therefore unnecessary for one to subsequently be saved in order to receive God’s eternal life. He says: “Believing has nothing to do with being saved, Christ is the Savior of ALL men, everyone is saved…” [3] However, throughout the New Testament the distinction is repeatedly made between those who are saved and have eternal life and those who still need to respond to the gospel in order to be saved, receiving God’s life. The Apostol John clearly distinguishes between those who presently possess God’s life and those who are yet dead in their sins. He says:
“And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” (1John 5:11-13)
John here makes a clear distinction between the saved and the unsaved: Those who have the Son, have eternal life, whereas those who do not have the Son, do not have life. And how is it that we come to have the Son? John elsewhere tells us that we come to have the Son and His eternal life by personally receiving Him:
“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 1:12-13)
John says that all those who receive the Son by faith have been born of God unto life eternal. All those (and only those) who have received the Son have the Son and therefore possess His own eternal resurrection life as their very life (Col 3:3-4; Gal 2:20).
The Faith which receives God’s Salvation is not Meritorious
Strangely, in spite of the many Scriptures which say otherwise, some argue that since salvation is by God’s grace alone apart from works, then faith could not be necessary since faith is a work. However, this argument fails on more than one account. In the first place, rather than faith being presented in Scripture as a work, it is presented as the opposite of works. Paul presented faith as being antonymous with works on numerous occasions:
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Rom 4:5)
“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:27-28)
“knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Gal 2:16; cf. Gal 3:2; Eph 2:8-9).
Saving faith has no merit. It simply receives the salvation which God unilaterally provided for us and offers to all as a free gift of His grace. To quote Thomas Chalmers, “Faith is like the hand of the beggar that takes the gift while adding nothing to it.” A beggar makes no contribution to the gift. Neither does he do anything to deserve it. He simply receives what is being freely offered to him, just as the repentant sinner receives by faith God’s free gift of salvation offered to him by grace through faith alone.
Not only is faith seen to be antonymous with works and therefore in no way contributing to our salvation, but also we see that true saving faith is itself a gift of God’s grace and not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9). I develop this theme in more detail in my book: “The Universal Solution,” as well as in my blog: “The Faith of Jesus.” In Acts it refers to believers as “those who have believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). Paul says that we “hope by grace” (2Thess 2:16).
Our fallen condition is such that we not only would not come unto Christ for salvation, but we could not come to Him unless we are drawn unto Him (Jn 6:44,65; 14:16-17; 3:3; 1Cor 2:14). It is said of the religiously pious Lydia that “the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). If the Lord had not opened her heart, she would have continued to be just another religiously pious unbeliever like many of us were before we came to saving faith in Christ. Saving faith is a gift of God:
“For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ… to believe in Him….” (Phil 1:29)
The word translated “granted” is charitzomai which is a derivative of the Greek word for “grace” (charis), indicating that it was graciously given to us to believe in Him. We cannot even boast in our faith since it was given unto us to believe by God Himself. That is why Paul says that all boasting is excluded with saving faith (Rom 3:27).
So, we see in Scripture that the provision of our salvation was a unilateral transaction carried out entirely within the Godhead 2,000 years ago at the cross. However, the personal appropriation of that salvation is seen to be bilateral, requiring our voluntary participation, receiving God’s salvation by faith.
However, even the faith we exercise unto salvation is bilateral since it must be granted unto us to believe and receive God’s unilateral provision of salvation. While one must believe in order to be saved, we only believe because we were first drawn by God and graciously given faith in order to receive that salvation. The good news is that all of mankind, each one in his own time, will be willingly and irresistibly drawn unto Christ, bowing the knee to Him, confessing Him as Lord (Jn 12:32; 1Cor 15:22-23; Php 2:10-11).
[1] There are some today who argue that our sins do not separate us from God. I consider this view in my blog: “The Blurring of Biblical Distinctions.”
[2] Bradley Jersak: https://www.ptm.org/salvation-three-perspectives-brad-jersak
[3] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 100). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
Don Keathley also 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.’” (Don Keathley. Unmasking the Gospel. Video 29:10).
“Faith is like the hand of the beggar that takes the gift while adding nothing to it.”
Thomas Chalmers
Is our salvation transactional, unilateral, relational, or is it a combination of these?
Is the salvation of mankind a bilateral transaction in which God does His part and it is now up to man to do his part, or is it a unilateral transaction in which God saves all without the necessity of any response on man’s part? Some would argue that we shouldn’t even be using such mechanistic, forensic terms since salvation is a relational matter, not a legal one.
God’s Unilateral Provision of Salvation is Transactional – not Relational
While it is certainly true that salvation’s primary purpose and end result is a restored relationship, the relationship of the redeemed with their Creator and Judge wouldn’t have even been a possibility if Christ hadn’t first unilaterally carried upon Himself the sins of the world in order to pay the redemptive price for our sins which had caused separation between us and God (Isa 59:1-2). [1]
We see numerous references to just such a transaction throughout Scripture. Paul said, “for you were bought with a price,” referring to the precious blood of Jesus which was shed for the remission or forgiveness of our sins (cf. 1Cor 6:20; Col 1:14; Matt 26:28; 20:28; Heb 9:22; 1Peter 1:18-19).
The eternal Son of God took upon Himself humanity in order to bear our sins in Himself as the Last Adam, thereby redeeming us through the shedding of His pure innocent blood on our behalf (2Cor 5:21). The transactional, substitutionary nature of Christ’s salvation of mankind is emphasized in 1Timothy 2:5-6 where Paul says:
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom (antilutron) for all, to be testified in due time.” (1Tim 2:5,6)
Paul here presents the Man Christ Jesus as the only Mediator between God and man who gave Himself a ransom (antilutron, “a substitutionary redemptive price”) for all. This word rendered “ransom” in English is from the Greek antilutron – anti meaning “instead of or in substitution for” and lutron, “redemptive price.” The innocent blood of the God-Man, Christ Jesus, was presented to the Father, thereby procuring the eternal redemption of all humanity (Heb 9:11-15).
Many today mock the truth of Christ’s substitutionary death in which He bore the penalty for our sins on our behalf, seeking to reduce Christ’s atoning sacrifice of Himself on the cross to nothing more than a moral example for us to follow. But according to the Scriptures His precious blood made propitiation to God for our sins. As our High Priest He presented His own blood in the heavenly Holy Place. As the writer of Hebrews states, “with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12).
While it is common today to hear Progressive authors mock the doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, that is precisely what is presented to us in the Scriptures. Jesus presented His blood to God as payment for our sins. Paul says, referring to Christ’s sacrifice: “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood” (Rom 3:25). The precious blood of Jesus was more than sufficient to make propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2).
To mock the holy transaction by which God unilaterally procured our redemption through Christ’s own shed blood, calling His substitutionary death “a mechanistic, legal fiction,” [2] is tantamount to denying the Lord who bought us and counting the blood of the covenant shed for the remission of our sins as a common thing (2 Peter 2:1; Heb 10:29).
I consider with more detail the subject of Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement in my book: “The Ways of God,” and in my blog: “Did Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross change God’s Attitude towards Us?” Also in my blog, “The Early Fathers and the Penal Substitutionary Atonement” I show that the penal substitutionary aspect of the atonement was not a later invention contrived by John Calvin, as some claim, but was central to the Early Father’s understanding of the atonement.
Clearly, in Scripture our salvation is seen to have been made possible through a unilateral transaction carried out by our triune God. Even as Adam’s sin brought condemnation and death upon all, the Son of God became the Last Adam in order that through His one righteous act He might bring justification and life to all:
“Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.” (Rom 5:18)
The Appropriation of God’s Unilateral Provision of Salvation is Bilateral
Some Inclusivists argue that since Christ died for all, then all were unilaterally saved, justified and made alive 2,000 years ago at the cross. However, while it is true that provision was made for all at the cross, and before Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father every knee will have bowed in humble submission to Him as Lord and Savior, the salvific work of the cross is not applied to the individual until the Good News of salvation is received by faith. There is an “already” and a “not yet” in the outworking of God’s plan of salvation since it will require ages for every knee to willingly bow to the lordship of Christ, freely receiving God’s gift of righteousness by faith. As the writer of Hebrews says:
“You have put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.” (Heb 2:8)
If subjection to Christ was by divine imposition, or if His salvation was automatically applied to everyone without the need for each individual to come to an end of themselves and personally and willingly receive that salvation which only comes through Christ, there would be no need for such a long interval of time between the moment when Christ cried from the cross “it is finished” and when all will have finally been irresistibly drawn to Him, resulting in God becoming all in all.
Jesus said: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” (Jn 12:32). The first part of this verse is the “already.” He was already lifted up 2,000 years ago upon the cross. But the second part is the “not yet.” Christ by His Spirit has been drawing men unto Himself, each in their own time, and He will continue drawing all unto Himself until all will have finally bowed the knee, confessing Him as Lord and Savior. At that time, and only at that time, God will relationally become all in all (1Cor 15:28; Eph 1:10).
The provision of salvation made at the cross was a unilateral transaction within the Godhead between the Father and Christ, the Last Adam. However, the application of Christ’s provision of salvation is bilateral in the sense that it requires the free response of each individual, personally appropriating God’s free gift of salvation by faith.
However, the term “transaction” is an inaccurate term to describe our necessary response, often intentionally employed so as to present our response to the Gospel as something mechanical rather than personal and relational. A more accurate term to describe our necessary response to the Gospel would be “reception,” instead of “transaction” (Jn 1:12).
Throughout the entire New Testament we see the need for our response of faith in order to be saved (Rom 3:25-26,28; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:24-25, etc.). When Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature He said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16; cf. Jn 3:18). When the Philippian jailor asked Paul what he had to do to be saved, Paul didn’t tell him that he was already saved at the cross, as some do today, but rather said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31). Paul says: “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor 1:21). In Romans 10:9,10 Paul emphasized the need for a genuine faith from the heart in order to be saved, saying:
“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; see also James 2:19 for an example of mere mental assent which does not result in salvation).
The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the gospel is of no benefit to those who do not believe. He said: “For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.” (Heb 4:2). Is the gospel good news? Yes! But it is of no benefit to anyone until they believingly receive it for themselves.
Some Inclusivists, such as Don Keathley, insist that there is no such distinction as the saved and the unsaved – that all were unilaterally saved at the cross and it is therefore unnecessary for one to subsequently be saved in order to receive God’s eternal life. He says: “Believing has nothing to do with being saved, Christ is the Savior of ALL men, everyone is saved…” [3] However, throughout the New Testament the distinction is repeatedly made between those who are saved and have eternal life and those who still need to respond to the gospel in order to be saved, receiving God’s life. The Apostol John clearly distinguishes between those who presently possess God’s life and those who are yet dead in their sins. He says:
“And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” (1John 5:11-13)
John here makes a clear distinction between the saved and the unsaved: Those who have the Son, have eternal life, whereas those who do not have the Son, do not have life. And how is it that we come to have the Son? John elsewhere tells us that we come to have the Son and His eternal life by personally receiving Him:
“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 1:12-13)
John says that all those who receive the Son by faith have been born of God unto life eternal. All those (and only those) who have received the Son have the Son and therefore possess His own eternal resurrection life as their very life (Col 3:3-4; Gal 2:20).
The Faith which receives God’s Salvation is not Meritorious
Strangely, in spite of the many Scriptures which say otherwise, some argue that since salvation is by God’s grace alone apart from works, then faith could not be necessary since faith is a work. However, this argument fails on more than one account. In the first place, rather than faith being presented in Scripture as a work, it is presented as the opposite of works. Paul presented faith as being antonymous with works on numerous occasions:
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Rom 4:5)
“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:27-28)
“knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Gal 2:16; cf. Gal 3:2; Eph 2:8-9).
Saving faith has no merit. It simply receives the salvation which God unilaterally provided for us and offers to all as a free gift of His grace. To quote Thomas Chalmers, “Faith is like the hand of the beggar that takes the gift while adding nothing to it.” A beggar makes no contribution to the gift. Neither does he do anything to deserve it. He simply receives what is being freely offered to him, just as the repentant sinner receives by faith God’s free gift of salvation offered to him by grace through faith alone.
Not only is faith seen to be antonymous with works and therefore in no way contributing to our salvation, but also we see that true saving faith is itself a gift of God’s grace and not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9). I develop this theme in more detail in my book: “The Universal Solution,” as well as in my blog: “The Faith of Jesus.” In Acts it refers to believers as “those who have believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). Paul says that we “hope by grace” (2Thess 2:16).
Our fallen condition is such that we not only would not come unto Christ for salvation, but we could not come to Him unless we are drawn unto Him (Jn 6:44,65; 14:16-17; 3:3; 1Cor 2:14). It is said of the religiously pious Lydia that “the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). If the Lord had not opened her heart, she would have continued to be just another religiously pious unbeliever like many of us were before we came to saving faith in Christ. Saving faith is a gift of God:
“For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ… to believe in Him….” (Phil 1:29)
The word translated “granted” is charitzomai which is a derivative of the Greek word for “grace” (charis), indicating that it was graciously given to us to believe in Him. We cannot even boast in our faith since it was given unto us to believe by God Himself. That is why Paul says that all boasting is excluded with saving faith (Rom 3:27).
So, we see in Scripture that the provision of our salvation was a unilateral transaction carried out entirely within the Godhead 2,000 years ago at the cross. However, the personal appropriation of that salvation is seen to be bilateral, requiring our voluntary participation, receiving God’s salvation by faith.
However, even the faith we exercise unto salvation is bilateral since it must be granted unto us to believe and receive God’s unilateral provision of salvation. While one must believe in order to be saved, we only believe because we were first drawn by God and graciously given faith in order to receive that salvation. The good news is that all of mankind, each one in his own time, will be willingly and irresistibly drawn unto Christ, bowing the knee to Him, confessing Him as Lord (Jn 12:32; 1Cor 15:22-23; Php 2:10-11).
[1] There are some today who argue that our sins do not separate us from God. I consider this view in my blog: “The Blurring of Biblical Distinctions.”
[2] Bradley Jersak: https://www.ptm.org/salvation-three-perspectives-brad-jersak
[3] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 100). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
Don Keathley also 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.’” (Don Keathley. Unmasking the Gospel. Video 29:10).
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
Is God’s justice retributive, restorative, or both?
by George Sidney Hurd
The nature of God’s justice has been the topic of much debate in recent years, alongside of the polemic concerning the nature of Christ’s atonement. Some Conservative scholars only seem to acknowledge God’s retributive justice, whereas many Progressives insist that all of His judgments are purely restorative in nature.
Brian Zahnd, in his typically sardonic and polemic communicative style, is representative of a growing number of Progressives who mock any idea of Christ’s death involving a payment for our sins as our substitute in order to save us from God’s retributive justice. He says:
“The cross is not a picture of payment; the cross is a picture of forgiveness… The justice of God is not retributive; the justice of God is restorative… The cross is not where God finds a whipping boy to vent his rage upon; the cross is where God saves the world through self-sacrificing love. The only thing God will call justice is setting the world right, not punishing an innocent substitute for the petty sake of appeasement.” [1]
Although Brian deliberately mischaracterizes the beliefs of his opponents with false dichotomies and inflammatory statements rather than reasoning from the Scriptures, he is nevertheless representative of a growing number of Progressive scholars. This group offhandedly rejects both the notion of God’s justice being retributive and the concept of Christ’s death satisfying divine justice in our stead—a substitution that ultimately enables God to justly justify sinners. I consider the arguments for Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement in my blog “Did Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross change God’s Attitude toward Us?” and also in my book “The Ways of God (As seen through the eyes of a Conservative Restorationist)”. In this blog I simply want to briefly consider their claim that God’s justice is in no way retributive.
First, I would like to define the terms being used. Our word “retribution” is from the Latin re- + tribuere “to pay,” thus meaning “payback or retribution.” The term “retributive justice” refers both to the just reward of the righteous as well as the just penalty or payback for the sins of the unrepentant (cf. Rom 2:5-11; Rev 22:12; 2Thess 1:8 ).
Until now, our judicial systems have operated almost exclusively based upon retributive justice in which the wrongdoer is penalized, and the innocent victims receive compensation for damages inflicted upon them. However, shortly after the criminal psychologist Albert Eglash presented his thesis in favor of replacing retributive justice with a humanistic form of restorative justice in 1977, there has been a major shift away from retributive justice in favor of restorative justice.
Just as with Communism, the concept of restorative justice sounds good in theory, but in practice our whole justice system would fall apart if we were to abandon retributive justice in favor of a purely restorative justice, since it fails to take into account man’s fallen sinful nature. In order for restorative justice to work, both the offender and the victims must not only be willing to meet together in group sessions, but also the offender must truly repent and the victims must forgive the offender – something that rarely occurs in real life. The Progressive logic behind restorative justice goes hand-in-hand with recent arguments in favor of defunding law enforcement.
In my youth during the 1960s, before coming to the Lord, I served more than three years in correctional institutions and saw firsthand how often inmates managed to make parole early by playing the system, feigning repentance just to get back on the streets in order to continue their life of crime. It’s not hard to imagine how these same individuals would use this so-called restorative justice therapy to their own advantage.
In reality, the traditional justice system is not purely retributive but has restoration as its ultimate objective. If the judge sees that the offender is repentant and not likely to repeat the same crime it is taken into account during the trial. Also, within the penal institutions there are regular group counseling sessions designed to reform the inmates. Additionally, each inmate is periodically reviewed by the parole board, and if they feel that the individual has been adequately rehabilitated, they grant him an early parole.
As I hope to demonstrate, while ultimately God’s justice is restorative in that it culminates in restoration rather than eternal condemnation, it is more comparable to the retributive justice of our traditional penal system than it is to the progressive model of a purely restorative justice. God’s justice is best seen as retributive justice with a view to the restoration of the transgressor.
The main difference between our justice system and God’s justice is that He knows our hearts and judges with perfect judgment according to truth and not appearances. No one can play the system with God, feigning repentance. His punishments always fit the crime, and in His judgments He always remembers mercy. As soon as man repents, God relents.
God’s Retributive Justice seen in History
While God’s retributive justice is primarily eschatological, being “treasured up” for the day of judgment (Rom 2:5), His retributive justice can also be seen in history. While many examples could be cited, here I want to focus upon four major examples in the Old Testament: 1) the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, 2) the flood 3) Sodom and Gomorra and 4) the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity in 568 B.C.
God’s Retributive Justice seen in Eden
In the very beginning we see God’s retributive justice being carried out when Adam and Eve transgressed God’s command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were warned that it would result in their certain death, and just as God had warned them, they, as well as all of their descendants, were deprived of the tree of life and died as a consequence of their original sin. Also, the woman’s pain in childbirth was greatly increased and the ground was cursed, requiring man to toil all the days of his life until he returned to the dust from which he came (Gen 3:16-19). Here we can clearly see God’s retributive judgment. He sent them out of the Garden and placed Cherubim there to keep them from partaking of the tree of life (Gen 3:23-24).
God’s Retributive Justice seen in the Flood
The universal flood is another primary example of God’s retributive justice. God sent the flood in judgment because the whole earth had become corrupt and filled with violence (Gen 6:11-13). The Lord said to Noah: “the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” In His patience, God gave them 120 more years to repent while Noah prepared the ark (Gen 6:3; 1Pet 3:20). Then the Lord shut the doors of the ark and sent the flood. Jesus warns that the judgment at His Second Coming will be similar to that which took place in the days of Noah (Luke 17:26-27; Matt 25:31-46).
God’s Retributive Justice seen in the Destruction of Sodom
The third major judgment was that of Sodom. Their wickedness reached the point where there were not even ten righteous among them. The two angels said to Lot: “the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it” (Gen 19:13). The outcry of their victims against them became so great that God intervened and sent fire and brimstone from heaven, destroying them all. I consider the nature of this judgment with more detail in my blog: “Who Destroyed Sodom and Why?” Peter makes it clear that this is retributive justice, saying that God “condemned them (katakrino “to judge against, to sentence”) to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly” (2 Peter 2:6). Likewise, Jude says that they were “set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance (dike ‘justice’) of eternal fire (pur aionios, ‘age during fire’).” (Jude 7) The word dike, translated “vengeance” means justice. However, in the context it is clearly retributive justice and not restorative.
God’s Retributive Justice seen in the Destruction of Jerusalem in 568 B.C.
The final example of judgment which I would like to consider is that of the destruction of Jerusalem followed by the Babylonian captivity. God declared His judgment against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying:
“And you, even yourself, shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; and I will cause you to serve your enemies in the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger which shall burn forever.” (Jer 17:4)
“behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, ‘says the Lord,’ and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants, and against these nations all around, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, a hissing, and perpetual (olam) desolations.” (Jer 25:9)
Clearly, there is no hint of restorative justice in these pronouncements of judgement against Jerusalem and its inhabitants. If we were to stop here, it would appear that God’s justice is purely retributive. The same could be said of what we have seen so far in all the previous examples of God’s judgments.
God’s Judgments are Temporal, culminating in Restoration.
While it is true that God’s justice is retributive, many fail to see beyond God’s temporal judgments. They have mistakenly concluded that the end-result of God’s judgments for the great majority of mankind is an unending retribution, as if such a logical and moral contradiction were possible. Such reasoning fails to take into account the end of the Lord which is restoration – not eternal retribution. As James says:
“You have seen the end of the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful.” (James 5:11 ASV)
While the Church during the time of the Apostles apparently saw that the end of the Lord is good, sadly, upon entering the Dark Ages, the Church in general lost sight of the truth of God’s immutable goodness, even in the midst of His most severe judgments.
Reading the above passages in Jeremiah concerning God’s judgment which resulted in Jerusalem’s destruction and their captivity in Babylon in isolation from the rest of Scripture gives the impression that retribution rather than mercy was the end of the Lord in their case. However, “eternal wrath” and “perpetual destruction” in this instance are clearly only for a time (olam). In the case of Judah, He specifies that olam, which was mistranslated “eternal” and “perpetual,” would only last seventy years, as we see in the following verses:
“And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 'Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord; and I will make it a perpetual desolation.” (Jer 25:11-12)
Then, in chapter 29, even before carrying out His judgment against Judah, He assures them that His plans for them, even in His most severe judgments, were for their own good:
“For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.” (Jer 29:10-14)
Even in the midst of God’s judgments against them, the prophet Jeremiah did not lose sight of the goodness of God. In Lamentations, when all looked hopeless, he could still declare:
“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)
Jeremiah understood a universal truth concerning God’s nature which applies, not merely to the Jews, but to all “the children of men” – the end of the Lord is good, He will not cast off forever because He is good and His mercy endures forever. Even in the judgments mentioned in Scripture without any specific mention of a final restoration, we know that the end of the Lord is always good and ends with the final restoration of all the children of men (Acts 3:21).
God’s Judgment of the Fall culminates in Restoration
This restorative end-result of God’s retributive judgments can be seen from the very beginning. The same day that Adam and Eve sinned, God shed innocent blood to clothe them, foreshadowing Christ’s offering of His own blood in order to take away our sins and clothe us with His own righteousness. Furthermore, God implicitly promised Eve that her seed would destroy the power of the serpent and reverse the fall (Gen 3:15). This Jesus did as our Last Adam. All who were condemned in Adam are justified in Christ and all who die in Adam will be made alive in Him (Rom 5:18; 1Cor 15:22). In the future New Jerusalem we see the tree of life and those still outside invited to wash their robes so as to be able to enter and eat of its leaves for their healing (Rev 22:1-2;14).
God’s Judgment of the Flood culminates in Restoration
While the judgment of the flood was indisputably retributive, we also see the Holy Spirit emphasizing through Peter that even those who perished in the flood will finally be restored. Peter said concerning those who perished in the flood:
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.” (1Peter 3:18-20)
Here we see that Christ descended into Hades and preached the gospel to those who were formerly disobedient in the days of Noah. We can see that they were persistently and obstinately disobedient since God in His longsuffering waited 120 years while Noah prepared the ark before finally destroying them in the flood (Gen 6:3).
Some argue that the word “preached” (kerusso) doesn’t have reference to the preaching of the gospel to the spirits of those who were destroyed in the flood, but rather they take it as meaning that He went and proclaimed His victory over the angels who left their first estate and are being kept in Tartarus until the day of judgment (2Peter 2:4; Jude 6). However, there are at least three reasons why we should understand this as having reference to Christ preaching the gospel to the people who perished in the flood rather than Him proclaiming the defeat of the fallen angels held in Tartarus.
In the first place, 59 of the 61 times kerusso appears in the New Testament it clearly refers to the preaching of the gospel, and not once is it used to announce someone’s defeat. In the second place, while it is true that angels are spirits, the term “spirit” is not normally used to refer to angels. Spirits are actually distinguished from angels in Acts 23:9. When reference is made to a spirit in the New Testament it is either a demon spirit or the spirit of a dead person. In the third place, within the context of 1Peter 3:18-20, Peter further clarifies that the gospel was preached to the dead and not merely to fallen angels. Only eight verses later Peter gives more specific details concerning the proclamation made to the spirits in prison. He said:
“For this reason, the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1Peter 4:6)
Here the phrase “the gospel was preached” is the single word “euaggelizo” which literally means “to bring good news.” What Jesus preached to the spirits in prison was the good news of the gospel in order that, even though they had previously been judged for being disobedient in the flesh, they might live to God in the spirit. Clearly, if the gospel is preached to the dead after having been judged in the flesh, God’s justice ends in restoration and not in eternal condemnation as traditionally believed.
God’s Judgment of Sodom culminates in Restoration.
Sodom is perhaps one of the clearest demonstrations that even God’s most severe retributive judgments culminate in restoration rather than eternal damnation as traditionally taught. As we saw earlier, Sodom’s destruction is a clear example of God’s retributive justice. However, we see in Scripture that the end of the Lord for Sodom is restoration, not eternal retribution.
In Ezekiel 16 the Lord tells the inhabitants of Jerusalem that they had become worse than Samaria and Sodom, and for that reason His retribution against them was impending. However, His pronouncement of judgment is immediately followed-up by a promise that they, along with Samaria and Sodom, will ultimately be restored. He said:
“Nevertheless, I will restore their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, and along with them your own captivity, 54 in order that you may bear your humiliation and feel ashamed for all that you have done when you become a consolation to them. 55 ‘Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state.” (Ezek 16:53-55 NASU) [2]
This restoration of Sodom can only refer to the very same individuals who were destroyed by fire in Lot’s day since no inhabitant of Sodom survived its destruction. Likewise, Samaria, referring to the 10 northern tribes of Israel (often erroneously referred to as “the 10 lost tribes”), will also be restored. Some, in spite of this text and many other passages to the contrary, still insist that neither Judah nor the 10 northern tribes will ever be restored. I counter their arguments in a series of blogs entitled: “Has God Rejected Israel?” God has sworn by Himself that all will finally be restored unto Himself, bowing the knee and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Isa 45:22-24; Phil 2:10-11; 1Cor 15:28; Ps 22:27; Ps 66:3-4; Ps 86:9, etc.).
In conclusion, God’s justice is presented throughout the entire Bible as retributive, and if we are going to be true to Scripture, we must emphasize it as such, even though it is rejected by our Postmodern culture (2Tim 4:2-5). Paul warns us saying: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Gal 6:7). It is a grave error to tell those who persist in willful sin that God’s justice for them will only be restorative, when in reality they are treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his deeds (Rom 2:5-6).
God’s immutable justice requires retribution. That is why the cross was necessary. If God were loving but not just, He would simply look the other way when we sin. If He were just but not loving, He would have never sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins in order to be able to pardon or justify us without violating His immutable justice (1Jn 4:10; Rom 3:25-26).
Jesus saves us from the coming wrath (1Thess 1:10). He said that whoever believes on Him is not condemned, but the one who does not believe is already condemned and the wrath of God remains upon him because he has not believed on Him – the only way to the Father. (Jn 3:18,36; Jn 14:6).
Rather than reassuring the unrepentant that all is well and there is no need to fear God’s retributive justice since it is purely restorative, we need to call them to repent and look to Jesus who alone saves us from the wrath to come (God’s retributive justice). As Paul says, knowing the terror (phobos) of the Lord we should persuade men (2Cor 5:11; cf. Heb 10:30-31).
[1] Zahnd, Brian. Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God (p. 86). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[2] I quote here from a version other than the King James Version for a good reason. The King James translators changed the beginning of verse 53, making it read: “When I restore…,” which would leave open the possibility that the Lord didn’t really mean that He was actually going to restore them. However, most recent translators, even though they are not Universalists, have corrected this apparently intentional mistranslation of the text, making it correctly read: “I will restore…”
- Published on
Do you really want to go there?
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
There is an unprecedented shift currently taking place within Evangelical Christianity, primarily among Millennials, in which traditionally held beliefs are being reexamined and more often than not abandoned altogether. This process is what is commonly referred to by them as the deconstruction of their faith, or deconversion. It is accompanied by a mass exodus from the local churches on a much larger scale than that which occurred in Europe during the last century.
One of the many support groups for the Deconstructionist Movement that goes by the name Deconstruction Network claims that presently 81,000 disenchanted individuals are leaving the church every month within the U.S. alone! According to this source, unchurched deconstructed Evangelicals are the fastest growing group in the Western Church and it is growing exponentially at a phenomenal rate. To quote them, “the Deconstruction/Dechurched movement is growing at at least double the rate of the evangelical church.” [1]
Many who are swept up in this movement are not consciously aware that their faith is being deconstructed. In fact, many who are deconstructing in their faith probably are not even familiar with the term. Spiritual Deconstruction is a process in which one begins to question their entire belief system, beginning with the reliability of the very Scriptures upon which it was founded.
Deconstructionism is an integral part of Postmodernism which denies the existence of absolute objective truth. The philosophical concept of Deconstruction was introduced into higher education in the 60’s and 70’s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida who argued that the meanings of written literature are fluid and undefinable. From that he argued that there can be no definitive metanarrative (big story), such as that presented to us in the Bible, through which we can define reality and find meaning and purpose. He opposed what he referred to as the Westernization of our culture and advocated for the deconstruction of history, society and institutions, including the Church.
After a generation of university students had been indoctrinated in this new relativistic thought it began to filter down, resulting in the deconstruction we are presently witnessing in our society, in politics, and most importantly within the Church – especially among the Millennials. Deconstructionism was primarily introduced into the Church by the Emergent Church Movement through the influence of Progressive thinkers such as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt. A more subtle and reserved move towards Deconstruction is being introduced into Evangelical Christianity by scholars like N.T. Wright, resulting in many otherwise Conservative Christians questioning long-held beliefs.
Constructive Deconstruction
What may confuse some is that there is a legitimate and even necessary form of deconstruction that we all must undergo if we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (1Thess 5:21; Rom 12:2; Eph 4:22-23). We have accumulated beliefs and practices which are not according to the truth that need to be identified and corrected. But how do we determine truth?
I have heard many share how their quest for truth led them away from Christianity into agnosticism or atheism. A prominent Deconstruction network said of themselves: “This group of people love the truth, they are no longer happy to accept things given to them at face value.” [2] However, the crux of the matter lies in our definition of truth. All too often what they regard as truth is nothing more than the truth-claims made by philosophers and secular scientists or the claims of the higher critics of the biblical text – all of whom tend to have a bias against the true truth which is God’s Word (Ps 119:160).
Many who have rejected the authority of Scripture as the only infallible source of truth say that they are followers of the Word, Jesus, and not the written word. However, in order to be a true follower of Jesus one must see the written Word through His eyes, and when Jesus prayed to the Father on our behalf He said of the Scriptures: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). He said that the Scriptures cannot be broken and that not one jot nor tittle could pass without being fulfilled (Jn 10:35; Matt 5:18; cf. Matt 26:54; Mark 14:49; Luke 24:44). Just as the apostles after Him, Jesus said that the Scriptures were God-breathed and that we were to live by them (Matt 4:4; cf. 2Tim 3:16). When He was challenged concerning an issue He would appeal to the Scriptures as authoritative (Matt 19:4-6; 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:24). I consider Jesus’ affirmation of the Scriptures in my blog, “What does the word Word mean to Jesus?”
When Jesus said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” He was referring to the truth of God’s Word, not finite man’s truth-claims. That is why Paul said, “let God be true though every man be found a liar.” (Rom 3:4). Paul in 2Timothy 4:2-4 equates truth with the written Word of God:
“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, 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.”
Foreseeing our day, Paul said that the time would come when men would no longer be willing to hear the truth of God’s Word because it goes against their own sinful desires. Instead they will have an insatiable appetite for teachers who will tell them what they want to hear – teachers who mythicize the plain truths of Scriptures in order to accommodate their sinful lifestyles. They will be “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” since the false teachers will only tell them things that tickle their ears (2Tim 3:7).
So, those who have been caught up in this new wave of Deconstructionism have been deceived into thinking that they are on a quest for truth while at the same time denying the very truths of God’s Word which is the only objective and infallible source of truth. Many of them think we are entering into a new renaissance when in reality the very opposite is true.
I believe that what we are witnessing is actually the great falling away which Paul said would prepare the way for the revelation of the Antichrist, the man of sin (2Thess 2:3). To me, it is tragic that prominent scholars like N.T. Wright have deceived many within the Church, saying that Paul’s warning here only had application to the generation prior to 70 A.D. and that we are now living in the new age of the Millennium. Nero wasn’t the man of sin and Satan is not presently bound in the abyss. Nero committed suicide in 68 A.D. In contrast, Paul says that the man of sin will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s Second Coming (2Thess 2:8). The man of sin was not Nero, and Christ did not return in 70 A.D.
Paul says that God will continue to restrain the mystery of iniquity until the time of the manifestation of the Antichrist. I believe that the present Deconstruction of faith, or to use biblical terms the falling away from the faith is the precursor to the manifestation of the man of sin. The deception will be so powerful that only those who love the truth enough to go against the flow and suffer for holding fast to God’s Word will be saved from this great apostacy. Paul says of this time:
“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Thess 2:9-12 cf. Dan 11:32)
Constructive deconstruction is based upon a love for the truth of Scripture rather than an abandonment of it. Indeed, in order to avoid falling away from the faith in these final hours it is imperative that we carefully examine all truth-claims presented to us in the light of God’s truth, and if they do not align with the truth of God’s Word we must deconstruct and expose them as error rather than embracing them, even if it means that we must go against the flow of mainstream thought. The Bereans were commended because they deconstructed their former beliefs in the light of the Scriptures. It says of them:
“These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
In order for the Bereans to receive what Paul presented to them they had to be willing to deconstruct former beliefs. However, contrary to what we often see today, they didn’t measure Paul’s truth claims by the wisdom of the age, but rather they searched the Scriptures in order to compare Paul’s message with what God Himself had to say. To them, the plain, straightforward teaching of God’s Word was what separated truth from error.
In contrast with the Postmodern relativistic mindset of our time where all truth is relative and one’s opinion is just as valid as another’s, those whom Paul preached to believed in absolute truth. That is why Paul could reason with them from the Scriptures, resulting in some repenting and believing the truth (Acts 17:2,17; 18:4; 24:25). In doing this he was simply following Jesus’ example since Jesus also convinced by reasoning from the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27).
Destructive Deconstruction
Postmodern Deconstructionism is a destructive dismantling of one’s faith in God and His Word rather than a perfecting of it. It undermines the very pillars upon which our faith is built, which is God’s written Word, and it leaves the individual afloat in a sea of relativity without anything to lay hold of.
Wrett and Link who are known for their popular YouTube channel Good Mythical Morning share how they deconstructed from being actively involved in an Evangelical church to becoming hopeful agnostics. [3] Wrett shares how he has remained in a sea of uncertainty along with his wife and children since the day he abandoned faith in Christ and Christianity upon deconstructing his faith. He confessed that he was an agnostic who had lost his appetite for certainty. This is what Paul refers to as making shipwreck of the faith (1Tim 1:18-19).
It is inevitable that we at times struggle with doubts, but doubt is not to be embraced but rather replaced with faith in God and His Word. Doubt is not a virtue to be nurtured as many Deconstructionists would claim. A believer may struggle with doubt from time to time, and if our doubts drive us to seek the Lord for clarity and conviction it can be useful. However, once we begin to embrace doubt as if it were a virtue, we become a skeptic rather than a believer.
Jesus on more than one occasion rebuked His disciples for doubting (Matt 14:31; 16:8; John 20:27-29; Luke 12:28; 24:25; Mark 11:22-23). If you are struggling with doubts, confess it to God and pray for revelation and grace to trust Him in the area where your faith is being tested. The father whose son was possessed with a spirit of epilepsy was struggling with doubt when the disciples of Jesus had attempted to cast the demon out without success. When Jesus came on the scene his faith was at an all-time low. He said to Jesus: “if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus responded: “If You can?' All things are possible to him who believes.” I love the father’s response to Jesus in the midst of his doubt because it shows us the proper attitude we should have in the face of doubt:
“Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, ‘Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!’” (Mark 9:24; cf. Jn 6:60-69)
If we have a heart after God and a desire to believe Him in spite of our doubts, God will extend His grace to us and deliver us, just as Jesus did for the father, delivering his son to him whole. Most of the Psalms, as well as the book of Lamentations, are similar cries to God for the ability to believe in the midst of doubt, and they always end with God’s gracious intervention. God graciously responds when our heart’s disposition is to believe Him.
The testing of our faith in this life is an essential part of our spiritual development and for that reason God often allows our faith to be severely tested even as gold is refined in the fire (1Peter 1:6-7). However, without faith it is impossible to please God since our relationship with Him remains superficial and we never grow strong in faith as He intended (Heb 11:6).
The Scriptures exhort us to build up one another in the faith. Jude, the half-brother of our Lord, said:
“But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.” (Jude 20-23)
In spite of this, Deconstructionists speak of the deconstruction of their faith as though it were essential to one’s own spiritual progress. Paul says in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. In contrast to this, Deconstructionists consider the undermining of our faith in the written Word of God as being essential to one's process of deconstruction.
A Deconstructionist by the name of Keith Giles wrote an article in the Progressive Deconstructionist group Patheos, entitled The 6 Pillars of Religious Deconstruction. In it he speaks of six pillars of the Christian faith which must be demolished in order to be able to advance spiritually. As always, the first pillar and foundation of the Christian faith which they say must be demolished in order to advance spiritually is our belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. He says:
“Because Christians tend to base their faith on the Bible, they also feel the need to overstate its importance, making it the linchpin for everything they hold dear. Therefore, once you start to doubt their claims that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, the rest of your faith is soon to crumble.” [4]
They understand that, once one’s faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God is undermined, every other truth becomes relative and the process of deconstruction in all other essential Christian doctrines will naturally follow. They often insist that they are followers of Jesus and not the Bible. However, the name “Jesus” becomes nebulous once it has been removed from its biblical context. There are many so-called ascended masters who claim to be Jesus or the Christ, but they are antichrist and nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible warned us saying:
“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt 24:24)
The Muslims believe in Jesus, but if you declare that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh as the Bible does they would adamantly deny it, and according to Scripture, that makes them antichrist. John said:
“every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.” (1John 4:3; cf. Matt 1:23; Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6))
Paul warned that in the latter days many would deconstruct the faith making themselves susceptible to demonic deception. He said:
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1Tim 4:1-2)
Just as Jesus warned, today there are many spirits claiming to be the Christ spirit, but when examined in the light of Scripture we can discern that they are in reality antichrist and are communicating doctrines of demons rather than the sound doctrines of the Scriptures. Not every spirit who reveals himself as the Christ is in reality the Christ. That is why John said in 1John 4:1: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God.” If we have deconstructed our faith in God’s written Word as infallible, by what standard can we test the spirits? How do you know that your mystical encounter with Christ is the true Christ and not an antichrist spirit posing as Him? Or, how do we know that the spirit who is giving you revelation is indeed the Holy Spirit and not another spirit passing as Him?
That is why Paul in 2Timothy 4:2-4 said that we are to insistently preach the Word even when our culture says it is obsolete. That is why Jude, referring to the Scriptures said: “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3).
In closing, I am convinced that we are living in the last days and that the Second Coming of the Christ of Scripture is in our near future, and I believe that it is essential that the Church recognize this. However, this belief is under assault as never before. The fifth pillar of the Christian faith that the Deconstructionist Keith Giles says must be demolished is the belief that we are living in the last days. A new eschatology that is being put forth by Deconstructionists is Preterism or the belief that the last days ended and Jesus came with power and great glory in 70 A.D., destroying Jerusalem through the Roman armies. In my book “Last Days – Past or Present?” I demonstrate from Scripture that this new doctrine is unbiblical. This doctrine is causing many Christians to ignore the very signs Jesus and the Apostles gave us in order to avoid being deceived in this final hour. Also, it will doubtlessly result in many deconstructing into atheism as we enter into the prophesied times of great tribulation instead of the world progressively getting better, as Preterists have led them to believe.
To Paul it was revealed that in the last days many would depart from the faith, and that is the expressed objective of Deconstructionism. Jesus poses the rhetorical question: “when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). The Church in this final hour needs to insistently preach the Word of God more than ever, earnestly contending for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, instead of seeking to deconstruct it. Paul said that the “Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation” (2Tim 3:15). As Jude says, rather than allowing ourselves to be caught up in the spirit of this age, we should build up one another in our most holy faith. As Paul said in Titus 2:13, let us continue looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
[1] https://thedeconstructionnetwork.com/
[2] https://thedeconstructionnetwork.com/
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qbna6t1bzw
[4] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2019/08/the-6-pillars-of-religious-deconstruction/
There is an unprecedented shift currently taking place within Evangelical Christianity, primarily among Millennials, in which traditionally held beliefs are being reexamined and more often than not abandoned altogether. This process is what is commonly referred to by them as the deconstruction of their faith, or deconversion. It is accompanied by a mass exodus from the local churches on a much larger scale than that which occurred in Europe during the last century.
One of the many support groups for the Deconstructionist Movement that goes by the name Deconstruction Network claims that presently 81,000 disenchanted individuals are leaving the church every month within the U.S. alone! According to this source, unchurched deconstructed Evangelicals are the fastest growing group in the Western Church and it is growing exponentially at a phenomenal rate. To quote them, “the Deconstruction/Dechurched movement is growing at at least double the rate of the evangelical church.” [1]
Many who are swept up in this movement are not consciously aware that their faith is being deconstructed. In fact, many who are deconstructing in their faith probably are not even familiar with the term. Spiritual Deconstruction is a process in which one begins to question their entire belief system, beginning with the reliability of the very Scriptures upon which it was founded.
Deconstructionism is an integral part of Postmodernism which denies the existence of absolute objective truth. The philosophical concept of Deconstruction was introduced into higher education in the 60’s and 70’s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida who argued that the meanings of written literature are fluid and undefinable. From that he argued that there can be no definitive metanarrative (big story), such as that presented to us in the Bible, through which we can define reality and find meaning and purpose. He opposed what he referred to as the Westernization of our culture and advocated for the deconstruction of history, society and institutions, including the Church.
After a generation of university students had been indoctrinated in this new relativistic thought it began to filter down, resulting in the deconstruction we are presently witnessing in our society, in politics, and most importantly within the Church – especially among the Millennials. Deconstructionism was primarily introduced into the Church by the Emergent Church Movement through the influence of Progressive thinkers such as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt. A more subtle and reserved move towards Deconstruction is being introduced into Evangelical Christianity by scholars like N.T. Wright, resulting in many otherwise Conservative Christians questioning long-held beliefs.
Constructive Deconstruction
What may confuse some is that there is a legitimate and even necessary form of deconstruction that we all must undergo if we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (1Thess 5:21; Rom 12:2; Eph 4:22-23). We have accumulated beliefs and practices which are not according to the truth that need to be identified and corrected. But how do we determine truth?
I have heard many share how their quest for truth led them away from Christianity into agnosticism or atheism. A prominent Deconstruction network said of themselves: “This group of people love the truth, they are no longer happy to accept things given to them at face value.” [2] However, the crux of the matter lies in our definition of truth. All too often what they regard as truth is nothing more than the truth-claims made by philosophers and secular scientists or the claims of the higher critics of the biblical text – all of whom tend to have a bias against the true truth which is God’s Word (Ps 119:160).
Many who have rejected the authority of Scripture as the only infallible source of truth say that they are followers of the Word, Jesus, and not the written word. However, in order to be a true follower of Jesus one must see the written Word through His eyes, and when Jesus prayed to the Father on our behalf He said of the Scriptures: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). He said that the Scriptures cannot be broken and that not one jot nor tittle could pass without being fulfilled (Jn 10:35; Matt 5:18; cf. Matt 26:54; Mark 14:49; Luke 24:44). Just as the apostles after Him, Jesus said that the Scriptures were God-breathed and that we were to live by them (Matt 4:4; cf. 2Tim 3:16). When He was challenged concerning an issue He would appeal to the Scriptures as authoritative (Matt 19:4-6; 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:24). I consider Jesus’ affirmation of the Scriptures in my blog, “What does the word Word mean to Jesus?”
When Jesus said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” He was referring to the truth of God’s Word, not finite man’s truth-claims. That is why Paul said, “let God be true though every man be found a liar.” (Rom 3:4). Paul in 2Timothy 4:2-4 equates truth with the written Word of God:
“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, 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.”
Foreseeing our day, Paul said that the time would come when men would no longer be willing to hear the truth of God’s Word because it goes against their own sinful desires. Instead they will have an insatiable appetite for teachers who will tell them what they want to hear – teachers who mythicize the plain truths of Scriptures in order to accommodate their sinful lifestyles. They will be “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” since the false teachers will only tell them things that tickle their ears (2Tim 3:7).
So, those who have been caught up in this new wave of Deconstructionism have been deceived into thinking that they are on a quest for truth while at the same time denying the very truths of God’s Word which is the only objective and infallible source of truth. Many of them think we are entering into a new renaissance when in reality the very opposite is true.
I believe that what we are witnessing is actually the great falling away which Paul said would prepare the way for the revelation of the Antichrist, the man of sin (2Thess 2:3). To me, it is tragic that prominent scholars like N.T. Wright have deceived many within the Church, saying that Paul’s warning here only had application to the generation prior to 70 A.D. and that we are now living in the new age of the Millennium. Nero wasn’t the man of sin and Satan is not presently bound in the abyss. Nero committed suicide in 68 A.D. In contrast, Paul says that the man of sin will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s Second Coming (2Thess 2:8). The man of sin was not Nero, and Christ did not return in 70 A.D.
Paul says that God will continue to restrain the mystery of iniquity until the time of the manifestation of the Antichrist. I believe that the present Deconstruction of faith, or to use biblical terms the falling away from the faith is the precursor to the manifestation of the man of sin. The deception will be so powerful that only those who love the truth enough to go against the flow and suffer for holding fast to God’s Word will be saved from this great apostacy. Paul says of this time:
“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Thess 2:9-12 cf. Dan 11:32)
Constructive deconstruction is based upon a love for the truth of Scripture rather than an abandonment of it. Indeed, in order to avoid falling away from the faith in these final hours it is imperative that we carefully examine all truth-claims presented to us in the light of God’s truth, and if they do not align with the truth of God’s Word we must deconstruct and expose them as error rather than embracing them, even if it means that we must go against the flow of mainstream thought. The Bereans were commended because they deconstructed their former beliefs in the light of the Scriptures. It says of them:
“These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
In order for the Bereans to receive what Paul presented to them they had to be willing to deconstruct former beliefs. However, contrary to what we often see today, they didn’t measure Paul’s truth claims by the wisdom of the age, but rather they searched the Scriptures in order to compare Paul’s message with what God Himself had to say. To them, the plain, straightforward teaching of God’s Word was what separated truth from error.
In contrast with the Postmodern relativistic mindset of our time where all truth is relative and one’s opinion is just as valid as another’s, those whom Paul preached to believed in absolute truth. That is why Paul could reason with them from the Scriptures, resulting in some repenting and believing the truth (Acts 17:2,17; 18:4; 24:25). In doing this he was simply following Jesus’ example since Jesus also convinced by reasoning from the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27).
Destructive Deconstruction
Postmodern Deconstructionism is a destructive dismantling of one’s faith in God and His Word rather than a perfecting of it. It undermines the very pillars upon which our faith is built, which is God’s written Word, and it leaves the individual afloat in a sea of relativity without anything to lay hold of.
Wrett and Link who are known for their popular YouTube channel Good Mythical Morning share how they deconstructed from being actively involved in an Evangelical church to becoming hopeful agnostics. [3] Wrett shares how he has remained in a sea of uncertainty along with his wife and children since the day he abandoned faith in Christ and Christianity upon deconstructing his faith. He confessed that he was an agnostic who had lost his appetite for certainty. This is what Paul refers to as making shipwreck of the faith (1Tim 1:18-19).
It is inevitable that we at times struggle with doubts, but doubt is not to be embraced but rather replaced with faith in God and His Word. Doubt is not a virtue to be nurtured as many Deconstructionists would claim. A believer may struggle with doubt from time to time, and if our doubts drive us to seek the Lord for clarity and conviction it can be useful. However, once we begin to embrace doubt as if it were a virtue, we become a skeptic rather than a believer.
Jesus on more than one occasion rebuked His disciples for doubting (Matt 14:31; 16:8; John 20:27-29; Luke 12:28; 24:25; Mark 11:22-23). If you are struggling with doubts, confess it to God and pray for revelation and grace to trust Him in the area where your faith is being tested. The father whose son was possessed with a spirit of epilepsy was struggling with doubt when the disciples of Jesus had attempted to cast the demon out without success. When Jesus came on the scene his faith was at an all-time low. He said to Jesus: “if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus responded: “If You can?' All things are possible to him who believes.” I love the father’s response to Jesus in the midst of his doubt because it shows us the proper attitude we should have in the face of doubt:
“Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, ‘Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!’” (Mark 9:24; cf. Jn 6:60-69)
If we have a heart after God and a desire to believe Him in spite of our doubts, God will extend His grace to us and deliver us, just as Jesus did for the father, delivering his son to him whole. Most of the Psalms, as well as the book of Lamentations, are similar cries to God for the ability to believe in the midst of doubt, and they always end with God’s gracious intervention. God graciously responds when our heart’s disposition is to believe Him.
The testing of our faith in this life is an essential part of our spiritual development and for that reason God often allows our faith to be severely tested even as gold is refined in the fire (1Peter 1:6-7). However, without faith it is impossible to please God since our relationship with Him remains superficial and we never grow strong in faith as He intended (Heb 11:6).
The Scriptures exhort us to build up one another in the faith. Jude, the half-brother of our Lord, said:
“But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.” (Jude 20-23)
In spite of this, Deconstructionists speak of the deconstruction of their faith as though it were essential to one’s own spiritual progress. Paul says in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. In contrast to this, Deconstructionists consider the undermining of our faith in the written Word of God as being essential to one's process of deconstruction.
A Deconstructionist by the name of Keith Giles wrote an article in the Progressive Deconstructionist group Patheos, entitled The 6 Pillars of Religious Deconstruction. In it he speaks of six pillars of the Christian faith which must be demolished in order to be able to advance spiritually. As always, the first pillar and foundation of the Christian faith which they say must be demolished in order to advance spiritually is our belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. He says:
“Because Christians tend to base their faith on the Bible, they also feel the need to overstate its importance, making it the linchpin for everything they hold dear. Therefore, once you start to doubt their claims that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, the rest of your faith is soon to crumble.” [4]
They understand that, once one’s faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God is undermined, every other truth becomes relative and the process of deconstruction in all other essential Christian doctrines will naturally follow. They often insist that they are followers of Jesus and not the Bible. However, the name “Jesus” becomes nebulous once it has been removed from its biblical context. There are many so-called ascended masters who claim to be Jesus or the Christ, but they are antichrist and nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible warned us saying:
“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt 24:24)
The Muslims believe in Jesus, but if you declare that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh as the Bible does they would adamantly deny it, and according to Scripture, that makes them antichrist. John said:
“every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.” (1John 4:3; cf. Matt 1:23; Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6))
Paul warned that in the latter days many would deconstruct the faith making themselves susceptible to demonic deception. He said:
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1Tim 4:1-2)
Just as Jesus warned, today there are many spirits claiming to be the Christ spirit, but when examined in the light of Scripture we can discern that they are in reality antichrist and are communicating doctrines of demons rather than the sound doctrines of the Scriptures. Not every spirit who reveals himself as the Christ is in reality the Christ. That is why John said in 1John 4:1: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God.” If we have deconstructed our faith in God’s written Word as infallible, by what standard can we test the spirits? How do you know that your mystical encounter with Christ is the true Christ and not an antichrist spirit posing as Him? Or, how do we know that the spirit who is giving you revelation is indeed the Holy Spirit and not another spirit passing as Him?
That is why Paul in 2Timothy 4:2-4 said that we are to insistently preach the Word even when our culture says it is obsolete. That is why Jude, referring to the Scriptures said: “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3).
In closing, I am convinced that we are living in the last days and that the Second Coming of the Christ of Scripture is in our near future, and I believe that it is essential that the Church recognize this. However, this belief is under assault as never before. The fifth pillar of the Christian faith that the Deconstructionist Keith Giles says must be demolished is the belief that we are living in the last days. A new eschatology that is being put forth by Deconstructionists is Preterism or the belief that the last days ended and Jesus came with power and great glory in 70 A.D., destroying Jerusalem through the Roman armies. In my book “Last Days – Past or Present?” I demonstrate from Scripture that this new doctrine is unbiblical. This doctrine is causing many Christians to ignore the very signs Jesus and the Apostles gave us in order to avoid being deceived in this final hour. Also, it will doubtlessly result in many deconstructing into atheism as we enter into the prophesied times of great tribulation instead of the world progressively getting better, as Preterists have led them to believe.
To Paul it was revealed that in the last days many would depart from the faith, and that is the expressed objective of Deconstructionism. Jesus poses the rhetorical question: “when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). The Church in this final hour needs to insistently preach the Word of God more than ever, earnestly contending for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, instead of seeking to deconstruct it. Paul said that the “Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation” (2Tim 3:15). As Jude says, rather than allowing ourselves to be caught up in the spirit of this age, we should build up one another in our most holy faith. As Paul said in Titus 2:13, let us continue looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
[1] https://thedeconstructionnetwork.com/
[2] https://thedeconstructionnetwork.com/
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qbna6t1bzw
[4] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2019/08/the-6-pillars-of-religious-deconstruction/
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
Does the Hebrew word Sheol in the Old Testament and its Greek equivalent Hades refer to the realm of the souls of the dead, or does it merely refer to the grave? Some believe that the soul is inseparable from the body and therefore all consciousness ceases at death. If this were true, then these terms could not mean anything more than the grave.
There are two doctrinal camps today which argue that Sheol and Hades simply refer to the grave. The first is that of Annihilationists, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, as well as a growing number of Evangelicals who argue that the dead remain in an unconscious state until the resurrection, at which time the just are granted immortality and the unjust are annihilated. For a more in-depth consideration of the doctrine of Annihilation as opposed to that of Universal Restoration I recommend my book, “Extermination or Restoration, (a Restorationist’s Response to Annihilationism).”
The second group is a modern variation of syncretistic Universalists, who, in order to deny the reality of Hell, or any form of postmortem retribution, argue that Sheol and Hades only have reference to the grave. They also argue that Jesus’ references to Gehenna fire (Matt 5:22-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:33) only had application to the Jews prior to 70 AD., and referred to the destruction of Jerusalem at that time [1]
Don Keathley presents their arguments in his recent book “Hell’s Illusion (Exposing the Myth of Hell).” He says that the only Hell that anyone will ever experience is the Hell we undergo in our own minds when we have been programmed by religion to believe in the myth of Hell. He claims that there is no need to receive Christ in order to be saved from sin, Hell and the wrath to come, because we were never separated from God to begin with. Our sins are not against God, according to him, but only against ourselves and therefore there is no divine retribution for the unrepentant in Hell. He says: “There is no such destination after we pass from the physical realm to a place called Hell, even if you didn’t pray the magic prayer!” [2] The “magic prayer” he refers to is the prayer of repentance and faith when we receive Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. I consider their deconstruction of the biblical doctrines concerning sin, separation and salvation in my blog: “The Blurring of Biblical Distinctions.” I also consider in detail what the Scriptures have to say concerning Gehenna, often translated as “Hell,” and the Lake of Fire in my book “The Triumph of Mercy (The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ).” The objective of this blog is to respond to their claim that Sheol and Hades do not have reference to the conscious intermediate state of the souls of the dead, but simply refer to the grave or tomb.
Don Keathley makes the claim that the Early Church knew nothing of a place called Hell – that it was a later invention of Church leaders in order to control the people through fear. He claims that it originated with the Reformers. He says: “I will give you a little history on where this belief that Hell exists originated. It has roots in Calvinism and Arminianism, and they taught this to gain and keep people.” [3] Actually, he later attributes the origin of Hell to Augustine whom he also says invented other myths, such as the “myth” of inbred sin. [4] However, nowhere in his book does he substantiate this claim from Church history.
Most would agree that it was Augustine who first popularized the belief in unending torments in Hell, but prior to Augustine the belief in a just postmortem retribution in some form of Hell was unanimously held by the Early Church, including the intermediate state of the dead in a place referred to as Hades. Actually, I was unable to find even one reference in the writings of the Early Church Fathers presenting Hades as the grave. I will here cite a few examples from the Fathers demonstrating that they believed that, while the bodies of the dead remain in the graves until the resurrection, their souls continue in a conscious state in Hades. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD.) says concerning those who had previously died in their sins:
“it is likely enough that they themselves are now lamenting in Hades, and repenting with a too late repentance; and if it were possible for them to show you thence what had befallen them after the termination of this life, ye would know from what fearful ills they desired to deliver you.” [5]
It is evident that Justin Martyr did not regard Hades as being the grave but rather the place where the souls of the dead went upon leaving their bodies. Irenaeus (130-202 AD.), referring to those who rose from the dead after Christ’s descent into Hades, makes a clear distinction between their souls in Hades and their bodies which were raised from the dead: “This event was also an indication of the fact that when the holy soul of Christ descended to Hades, many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies.” [6] Referring to Matthew 27:52-53, Irenaeus says that the soul of Christ descended into Hades after His death, and when He rose from the dead He brought many souls with Him who were afterwards seen in their bodies. Hippolytus (170-235 AD) explains the nature of Hades in the following manner:
“But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. This locality has been destined to be as it were a guard-house for souls, at which the angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one's deeds the temporary punishments for (different) characters… But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and un-fading kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous.” [7]
The belief that both the righteous and the wicked were kept in Sheol or Hades, awaiting the resurrection was common belief, both among the Christians and the Jews of that time. Later I will demonstrate that this belief is not mythical but rather was derived from the Scriptures themselves. However, my objective here is merely to show that it is not a recent belief, as Keathley affirms, but was universally held by the Early Church Fathers prior to Augustine and certainly before the influence of Calvinism and Arminianism much later in the 16th century.
There are too many references to Hades in the Church Fathers to quote in this short blog. I would just like to cite one more example from Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD.) where, making reference to 1Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6, he not only shows that the souls of both the righteous and those who were wicked in life are conscious in Hades, but that God’s postmortem punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion in their day of visitation when the gospel is preached to them:
“Do not the Scriptures show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood…?’ And it has been shown also…that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades… If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel…then all who believe shall be saved…on making their profession there (ie. in Hades); since God's punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion…and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.” [8]
While Clement, as with the majority of the Church Fathers prior to Augustine in the 5th century, clearly believed in the apocatastasis or the final restoration of all, [9] he, like all other Universalists of his day, believed that Hades was the place of departed souls and not the grave, and they also believed that the wicked undergo corrective punishments in Hades, eventually leading to their conversion.
Etymology of Sheol and Hades
The etymology of the Hebrew word “Sheol” has been debated. Some argue that its Assyro-Babylonian counterpart is “Shu'alu,” which meant, “the place where the dead are consulted or gathered.” Vine’s says that it is from the Hebrew word “sha’al,” which means “to ask, consult or enquire.” [10] Either way, the idea expressed implies that Sheol was considered to be a place where the dead were congregated and could be consulted. Consulting the dead on behalf of the living was a much more common practice in the Ancient Middle East than it is today, and it was a practice strictly forbidden by God (Deut 18:10-11). The Lord says to His people, “should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” (Isa 8:19). If indeed Sheol were nothing more than the grave and the dead lay unconscious, such a prohibition would have been superfluous.
The Hebrew word “Sheol” in the Old Testament was translated as “Hades” both in the Greek Old Testament LXX and also in the New Testament when it cites the Old Testament. The etymology of Hades is less obscure than that of Sheol. It is a composite word, made up of the negative particle a, meaning “no” and eido which means “to see.” Even outside of Scripture it refers to the invisible unseen realm of the dead.
Many object to the rendering “Hell” for Sheol or Hades. However, when Hades was originally translated as “Hell” in the Old English, it meant essentially the same thing as Hades. The old word hel or Helle simply meant “that which is covered or concealed,” i.e. the invisible realm of the dead. [11] It is unfortunate that Greek Mythology and Dante’s version of Hell has been read into the word, but, etymologically speaking, the word Hell is totally consistent with the meaning of Sheol or Hades which is the unseen or hidden realm of the dead.
Meaning of Sheol determined by Usage
Much of the confusion concerning the meaning of Sheol is the result of the inconsistency of the translators of the King James Version. Sheol appears 66 times in the King James Version. It is translated as “the grave” 32 times, as “the pit” 3 times and as “Hell” 31 times. Some more recent versions, such as the New American Standard Version, avoid these interpretive renderings of Sheol, rendering it literally as Sheol in every instance.
A careful examination of each occurrence of Sheol in context makes it clear that it is referring to the unseen realm of the souls of the dead and not the grave. The substantive for grave, qeber, and its cognates qeburah and qabar “to bury” appear 215 times in the Old Testament, and in every instance, they clearly refer to the grave or graves where the bodies of the dead are laid to rest. On the other hand, Sheol consistently refers to a singular region where all souls are gathered at death.
There are several contrasts between Sheol and qeber which make it clear that Sheol does not refer to the grave. The following contrasts can be seen:
1) The living are said “to bury” (qabar) the body of their dead in a grave or graves (qeber) 132 times. In contrast, there is no verb form for Sheol which could be defined as, “to bury,” and no one is said to bury (qabar) their dead in Sheol.
2) Qeber appears 29 times in the plural, referring to more than one grave. In contrast, Sheol is only used in the singular form, referring to one region.
3) Man is said to have dug or made a qeber 6 times. Man is never said to have dug or made Sheol.
4) One’s body is said to be laid in a qeber 37 times. No one’s body is ever said to be in Sheol.
5) It is never said that one “goes down into” a qeber. Men are said to “go down into” Sheol 11 times. A soul may go somewhere after death, but a dead body cannot “go” anywhere.
6) Man is said to be able to touch a qeber 5 times. Man is never said to have touched Sheol.
7) Reference is made to an individual’s qeber 5 times. There is no reference whatsoever to someone’s Sheol.
Each of these seven contrasts taken together demonstrate that “grave” is not the correct meaning of Sheol. Also, in determining the meaning of words we should take into consideration a law of hermeneutics referred to as the law of first mention. The law of first mention states that the meaning of a word can normally be determined by what it meant in its first occurrence in Scripture.
The first occurrence of the word Sheol is when Joseph’s brothers told their father Jacob that they had found Joseph’s bloodstained coat. Jacob concluded that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast and he refused to be comforted. He said: “I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning.” (Gen 37:35 ASV). While the King James Version reads, “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning,” a careful consideration of the passage makes it clear that Jacob wasn’t referring to the grave.
In the first place, he says “I will go down.” As pointed out previously, a dead body could not literally be said to go into a qeber or grave. Whenever someone dies, they are taken to their grave (qeber) and buried (qabar) there – they don’t go there. It is the soul which goes to Sheol or Hades upon leaving the body (Luke 16:22-23).
In the second place, Jacob said that he would go down “unto his son” in Sheol. He couldn’t have been thinking of being buried with his son, since he thought that Joseph had been devoured by wild beasts, making it impossible to be buried with him. This expectation of being reunited with departed loved ones in Sheol is common throughout Scripture.
An expression we see repeated numerous times in the Old Testament is to say of the deceased that one breathed his last and was “gathered unto his people,” or instead of telling someone they will die they said: “you will go unto your fathers.” (Gen 15:15; 25:8; 25:18; 35:29; 49:33; Nu 20:26; Deut 32:49-50; 34:5-6). Obviously, it is not the cadaver that is being referred to, since a dead body cannot go anywhere. That these expectations were real and not simply empty euphemisms can be seen in David’s response when his baby son died. He said: “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Sam 12: 23).
Also, it says that when Jacob died that he “breathed his last and was gathered to his people.” (Gen 49:33). After being gathered to his people Joseph’s servants embalmed his body for forty days and the Egyptians mourned for him for seventy days. Only after the time of mourning had ended, did they begin the journey back to the land of Canaan where they finally buried his body. He was gathered to his people in Sheol upon breathing his last, but it was not until some three months had passed that his body was finally buried in his “burial place” (qeber) (50:13). So, upon breathing his last he was gathered to paradise or Abraham’s bosom in Sheol (even as was the case with the beggar Lazarus as well as the thief upon the cross), even though Jacob’s body had not yet been buried (Luke 16:22-23; 23:43).
Another characteristic of Sheol which is not true of the grave is that its inhabitants can communicate with each other. In Isaiah 14 it begins speaking of the death of the king of Babylon and it says that the inhabitants of Sheol would rise to meet him and taunt him as he descended into Sheol:
“Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones. 10 ‘They will all respond and say to you, ‘Even you have been made weak as we, you have become like us. 11 ‘Your pomp and the music of your harps have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you and worms are your covering… All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb. 19 But you have been cast out of your tomb (qeber) like a rejected branch, clothed with the slain who are pierced with a sword, who go down to the stones of the pit like a trampled corpse. 20 You will not be united with them in burial (qeburah)… “(Isa 14:9-11, 18-20 NASU).
Here we see the leaders and kings of the nations who had previously died, coming up to meet the great king of Babylon – the most powerful empire of ancient times, as he descends into Sheol after having died in shame and dishonor. They said to him: “We were all buried with honor in our own tombs, but your corpse was thrown in a pit or mass grave and left to the maggots, buried under the corpses of all those slain with the sword.” Here, we see a clear distinction between the souls in Sheol and the body buried in a mass grave without an honorable burial in his royal tomb.
Another passage which makes a clear distinction between Sheol and the grave is when Saul sought out a medium to call up Samuel who had previously died in order to consult him concerning an impending battle with the Philistines. The Lord sent Samuel up to inform Saul that he and his sons would be killed and would be with him on the following day:
“Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’ And Saul answered, ‘I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.’ 16 Samuel said, ‘Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has departed from you and has become your adversary? 17 ‘The Lord has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David. 18 ‘As you did not obey the Lord and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 ‘Moreover the Lord will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the Lord will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!” (1Sam 28:15-19)
Here we see Samuel coming up to talk to Saul – something that would not be possible if he were unconscious in the grave. God forbids the practice of consulting the dead. Such a prohibition would not make sense if it were impossible to do so. Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would be with him the next day and on that day they were killed in battle just as Samuel had said. But he could not have been referring to being with him in the grave on the next day since they were not buried the next day. It wasn’t until two days later that the Philistines found their bodies. They beheaded Saul and their bodies were hung from the city wall where they remained for another night before finally being taken down and buried, but not in the place where Samuel was buried. So, clearly, the reference is to the souls of Saul and his sons which would be with Samuel in Sheol the very next day, rather than their bodies which were only later placed in their graves.
Hades in the New Testament
Hades appears 10 times in the Greek New Testament and in every instance it was translated as “Hell” by the King James translators with the exception of 1Corinthians 15:55 which they rendered “grave.” We have already seen that Hell has essentially the same literal meaning as Hades. As stated earlier, the translators of the LXX Greek Old Testament, which was in use in Jesus’ day, consistently rendered Sheol as Hades, which literally means “the invisible or unseen” and therefore, “the invisible realm of the souls of the dead.” Just as we have seen with Sheol, both the just and the unjust remain in Hades until the resurrection.
In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 we see that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels – not to his tomb, but to Abraham’s bosom or Paradise. The rich man also died and his body was buried in the grave (v.22). However, the next thing we see is the rich man in torments in Hades, calling out to Abraham and Lazarus and conversing back and forth with them.
Some argue that this is simply a parable and therefore should not be taken literally. In some ways I would agree. Lazarus was not literally in Abraham’s bosom, and fire in Scripture normally refers to fiery trials meant to purify and therefore should not be understood as literal flames (see my blog “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire”). However, while Jesus often made use of parables, hyperboles and figures of speech in His teachings, He never used falsehood to illustrate truth. In the light of this parable, to say that Hades is nothing more than the grave and that the souls of the dead cannot communicate with each other is tantamount to calling Jesus a false teacher. It would also make Him out to be delusional, since He spoke with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3).
Death and Hades
There is a distinction drawn in Scripture between death, in which the flesh is given over to decay, and Hades, which is the habitation of the souls of the dead. Psalm 16:10 is prophetic of Christ’s burial and His descent into Hades: “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.” On the Day of Pentecost, Peter quoted this Psalm and then applied it to Christ, saying that, “His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption” (Acts 2:31). Here there is a contrast between the soul, which goes to Hades, and the flesh or body which decays in the grave.
Just as the Early Church Fathers repeatedly state, during the three days in which His body lay in the tomb, Christ’s soul was in Hades or the invisible world of the dead where He preached the gospel to those who were formerly disobedient in order that, having been judged in the flesh, they might live with Him in the spirit (1Peter 3:18-20; 4:6). His body was laid in the tomb and preserved from decay until the resurrection, but His soul descended deep down into “the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40). The reference to “the heart of the earth” is not referring to the grave, but to the deepest pit of Sheol, also referred to as Tartarus (2Peter 2:4), a region reserved for the most wicked (cf. Ezek. 31:16). It is referred to as “the bottomless pit” or “the abyss” seven times in the book of Revelation.
Jesus didn’t merely descend into the region of Hades where Paradise or Abraham’s bosom was located, but He went way down into the lowest parts of Hades, preaching the gospel even to those who had perished in the flood. In Ephesians 4:8-10 Paul says the following concerning His descent:
“When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.’ 9 (Now this, ‘He ascended’ — what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)” (Eph 4:8-10).
I understand this to be telling us that, when Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, He released those who were in captivity and ascended with them on high, that He might fill all things. This is the idea expressed in Today’s English Version: “When he went up to the very heights, he took many captives with him; he gave gifts to mankind." (Eph 4:8 TEV). Compare this with Luke 4:18 where it says that Jesus was anointed “to proclaim [kerusso] freedom to the captives.” Also, 1Peter 3:19-20 where Jesus “preached,” (kerusso) in Hades. He took the keys of Hades from Satan, preached the good news to those who were in captivity, and took them with Him when He ascended. Paul here is quoting from Psalms 68:18 where we see that He not only took with Him those who were in Paradise who had lived saintly lives, but also those who were once disobedient:
“Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.” (Ps 68:18 KJV)
Before Christ’s resurrection and ascension, Paradise was not in the presence of the Lord as it is now. Both Jesus and the thief on the cross descended into Sheol when they breathed their last and Jesus remained in Hades, the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Yet, as promised, the thief was with Him in Paradise the same day they died. Jesus said to him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43).
On the third day He arose from the dead, having made propitiation for the sins of the world, including all the sins previously committed (Rom 3:25-26). When He arose, He ascended unto the throne of God and took Paradise with Him, including all the repentant who responded to His preaching of the Gospel in Hades as far down as the lowest parts of the earth. That is why, when Paul was caught up into the third heaven Paradise was there (2Cor 12:2-4). Now, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2Cor 5:8). The very moment our soul leaves our body we are with Him in Paradise, just like the thief on the cross, except that now Paradise is in the very presence of the Lord in the third heaven!
If we die before Christ returns, our souls remain in the presence of the Lord until His Second Coming, at which time we will accompany Him to be reunited with our bodies, which have remained “sleeping in the dust,” but will be raised unto immortality:
“But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will BRING WITH HIM those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.” (1Thess 4:13-17)
Some have been confused by the reference to the dead as having “fallen asleep” or “sleeping,” concluding from this that the dead are in an unconscious state. I consider this with more detail in my book “Extermination or Restoration ),” but these are demonstrably euphemisms, intended to soften the blow when a loved one dies, much as we would say today that the dead person “departed,” “is at rest,” “is at peace,” “has passed away,” “is deceased,” “went to be with the Lord,” etc. It is considered very insensitive to simply say: “he is dead,” so we have developed a vocabulary of euphemisms which are not always meant to be taken in a strictly literal sense, but rather are intended to soften the blow. Some, ignoring the many evidences in Scripture to the contrary, insist that the souls of the dead are unconscious until the resurrection, rather than being present with the Lord and coming with Him when He returns.
The first resurrection is the resurrection unto life when Christ returns. The second resurrection takes place 1,000 years later and is a resurrection unto judgment (Jn 5:29; Rev 20:5-6). At that time Death and Hades will deliver up all their inhabitants to appear before the White Throne Judgment:
“The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:13-15)
The reference to “Death and Hades” means that all the bodies of the dead (Death), will be reunited with their souls in Hades in order to be judged according to the deeds done in their bodies while they were alive. The reference to the sea giving up the dead emphasizes that even those whose bodies have been consumed and dispersed in the sea will have to face judgment.
When it says that Death and Hades were cast into the Lake of fire, some, in an attempt to eliminate all postmortem judgment, claim that it is only Death and Hades as entities which are cast into the Lake of Fire, ceasing to exist at that time. However, what it is saying is that every individual who inhabited Death and Hades will be resurrected and judged according to their works and then they (i.e. all the inhabitants of Death and Hades) will be cast into the Lake of Fire to undergo the second death (Rev 2:11). The last enemy – death, is not destroyed until all have been made alive, when every knee will have finally bowed in voluntary submission to Jesus Christ as Lord, at which time He will subject Himself to the Father and God will be all in all (1Cor 15:22,25-28; cf. Php 2:10-11).
So, in conclusion, clearly Sheol or Hades is the unseen realm of disembodied souls and not the qeber or grave, as some have sought to argue. Hades, by its very definition is the invisible realm of the souls of the dead. The just are gathered unto their people in Paradise and the unjust go each to their own respective place, awaiting judgment before the Great White Throne (cf. Acts 1:25). While the doctrine of Hell was greatly distorted entering into the Dark Ages, it is nevertheless real and not an illusion. Even though the Lake of Fire is a purifying fire and therefore not eternal, it is nevertheless an age during reality which should be avoided at all cost. Jesus said that it would be better to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand if it causes one to sin, rather than to be cast into Gehenna fire.
There is no condemnation awaiting those who are in Christ Jesus, but he who does not believe will be condemned at the White Throne Judgment, receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire, not getting out of there “until” they have paid in full (Rom 8:1; Mark 16:16; Jn 3:18; Rev 20:15; Rev 21:8; Matt 5:26). There are some Inclusivists (those who say that everyone is already saved) who would tell the unrepentant that they are already in Christ without ever having received Him.
False teachers like Don Keathley would have us believe that it is not necessary to believe on Christ in order to be saved. He says: “Believing has nothing to do with being saved, Christ is the Savior of ALL men, everyone is saved…” [12] He says this in spite of the fact that Jesus clearly stated, “he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). While it is true that He died for all, and all will be made alive in Christ – each in his own order, it is necessary to personally receive Him, being born again as a new creation in order to be in Christ and be found free from all condemnation in the day of Jesus Christ (Jn 1:12; Php 3:8-9; 2Cor 5:17; Jn 3:3).
[1] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 41). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[2] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 46). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[3] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 22). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[4] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 59). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[5] Justin Martyr Chapter 35 - Appeal to the Greeks
[6] Irenaeus, fragments, XXVIII.
[7] Hippolytus, Against Plato on the cause of the universe, §1
[8] Clement of Alexandria, Book 6, Chapter 6 - The Gospel Was Preached to Jews and Gentiles in Hades
[9] The great Church historian, Philip Schaff, although not a Universalist, said: “In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria… Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.”
“Under the instruction of these great teachers [Clement, Origen, Gregory, and Theodore of Mopsuestia] many other theologians believed in universal salvation; and indeed the whole Eastern Church until after AD 500 was inclined to it.”
[10] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, OT:7585 she°ol OT:7585, "place of the dead." Sha°al (ask, consult, inquire) seems to be the basis for an important noun in the Old Testament, she°ol.
[11] https://www.etymonline.com/word/Hell
[12] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 100). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
Does the Hebrew word Sheol in the Old Testament and its Greek equivalent Hades refer to the realm of the souls of the dead, or does it merely refer to the grave? Some believe that the soul is inseparable from the body and therefore all consciousness ceases at death. If this were true, then these terms could not mean anything more than the grave.
There are two doctrinal camps today which argue that Sheol and Hades simply refer to the grave. The first is that of Annihilationists, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, as well as a growing number of Evangelicals who argue that the dead remain in an unconscious state until the resurrection, at which time the just are granted immortality and the unjust are annihilated. For a more in-depth consideration of the doctrine of Annihilation as opposed to that of Universal Restoration I recommend my book, “Extermination or Restoration, (a Restorationist’s Response to Annihilationism).”
The second group is a modern variation of syncretistic Universalists, who, in order to deny the reality of Hell, or any form of postmortem retribution, argue that Sheol and Hades only have reference to the grave. They also argue that Jesus’ references to Gehenna fire (Matt 5:22-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:33) only had application to the Jews prior to 70 AD., and referred to the destruction of Jerusalem at that time [1]
Don Keathley presents their arguments in his recent book “Hell’s Illusion (Exposing the Myth of Hell).” He says that the only Hell that anyone will ever experience is the Hell we undergo in our own minds when we have been programmed by religion to believe in the myth of Hell. He claims that there is no need to receive Christ in order to be saved from sin, Hell and the wrath to come, because we were never separated from God to begin with. Our sins are not against God, according to him, but only against ourselves and therefore there is no divine retribution for the unrepentant in Hell. He says: “There is no such destination after we pass from the physical realm to a place called Hell, even if you didn’t pray the magic prayer!” [2] The “magic prayer” he refers to is the prayer of repentance and faith when we receive Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. I consider their deconstruction of the biblical doctrines concerning sin, separation and salvation in my blog: “The Blurring of Biblical Distinctions.” I also consider in detail what the Scriptures have to say concerning Gehenna, often translated as “Hell,” and the Lake of Fire in my book “The Triumph of Mercy (The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ).” The objective of this blog is to respond to their claim that Sheol and Hades do not have reference to the conscious intermediate state of the souls of the dead, but simply refer to the grave or tomb.
Don Keathley makes the claim that the Early Church knew nothing of a place called Hell – that it was a later invention of Church leaders in order to control the people through fear. He claims that it originated with the Reformers. He says: “I will give you a little history on where this belief that Hell exists originated. It has roots in Calvinism and Arminianism, and they taught this to gain and keep people.” [3] Actually, he later attributes the origin of Hell to Augustine whom he also says invented other myths, such as the “myth” of inbred sin. [4] However, nowhere in his book does he substantiate this claim from Church history.
Most would agree that it was Augustine who first popularized the belief in unending torments in Hell, but prior to Augustine the belief in a just postmortem retribution in some form of Hell was unanimously held by the Early Church, including the intermediate state of the dead in a place referred to as Hades. Actually, I was unable to find even one reference in the writings of the Early Church Fathers presenting Hades as the grave. I will here cite a few examples from the Fathers demonstrating that they believed that, while the bodies of the dead remain in the graves until the resurrection, their souls continue in a conscious state in Hades. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD.) says concerning those who had previously died in their sins:
“it is likely enough that they themselves are now lamenting in Hades, and repenting with a too late repentance; and if it were possible for them to show you thence what had befallen them after the termination of this life, ye would know from what fearful ills they desired to deliver you.” [5]
It is evident that Justin Martyr did not regard Hades as being the grave but rather the place where the souls of the dead went upon leaving their bodies. Irenaeus (130-202 AD.), referring to those who rose from the dead after Christ’s descent into Hades, makes a clear distinction between their souls in Hades and their bodies which were raised from the dead: “This event was also an indication of the fact that when the holy soul of Christ descended to Hades, many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies.” [6] Referring to Matthew 27:52-53, Irenaeus says that the soul of Christ descended into Hades after His death, and when He rose from the dead He brought many souls with Him who were afterwards seen in their bodies. Hippolytus (170-235 AD) explains the nature of Hades in the following manner:
“But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. This locality has been destined to be as it were a guard-house for souls, at which the angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one's deeds the temporary punishments for (different) characters… But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and un-fading kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous.” [7]
The belief that both the righteous and the wicked were kept in Sheol or Hades, awaiting the resurrection was common belief, both among the Christians and the Jews of that time. Later I will demonstrate that this belief is not mythical but rather was derived from the Scriptures themselves. However, my objective here is merely to show that it is not a recent belief, as Keathley affirms, but was universally held by the Early Church Fathers prior to Augustine and certainly before the influence of Calvinism and Arminianism much later in the 16th century.
There are too many references to Hades in the Church Fathers to quote in this short blog. I would just like to cite one more example from Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD.) where, making reference to 1Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6, he not only shows that the souls of both the righteous and those who were wicked in life are conscious in Hades, but that God’s postmortem punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion in their day of visitation when the gospel is preached to them:
“Do not the Scriptures show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood…?’ And it has been shown also…that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades… If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel…then all who believe shall be saved…on making their profession there (ie. in Hades); since God's punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion…and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.” [8]
While Clement, as with the majority of the Church Fathers prior to Augustine in the 5th century, clearly believed in the apocatastasis or the final restoration of all, [9] he, like all other Universalists of his day, believed that Hades was the place of departed souls and not the grave, and they also believed that the wicked undergo corrective punishments in Hades, eventually leading to their conversion.
Etymology of Sheol and Hades
The etymology of the Hebrew word “Sheol” has been debated. Some argue that its Assyro-Babylonian counterpart is “Shu'alu,” which meant, “the place where the dead are consulted or gathered.” Vine’s says that it is from the Hebrew word “sha’al,” which means “to ask, consult or enquire.” [10] Either way, the idea expressed implies that Sheol was considered to be a place where the dead were congregated and could be consulted. Consulting the dead on behalf of the living was a much more common practice in the Ancient Middle East than it is today, and it was a practice strictly forbidden by God (Deut 18:10-11). The Lord says to His people, “should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” (Isa 8:19). If indeed Sheol were nothing more than the grave and the dead lay unconscious, such a prohibition would have been superfluous.
The Hebrew word “Sheol” in the Old Testament was translated as “Hades” both in the Greek Old Testament LXX and also in the New Testament when it cites the Old Testament. The etymology of Hades is less obscure than that of Sheol. It is a composite word, made up of the negative particle a, meaning “no” and eido which means “to see.” Even outside of Scripture it refers to the invisible unseen realm of the dead.
Many object to the rendering “Hell” for Sheol or Hades. However, when Hades was originally translated as “Hell” in the Old English, it meant essentially the same thing as Hades. The old word hel or Helle simply meant “that which is covered or concealed,” i.e. the invisible realm of the dead. [11] It is unfortunate that Greek Mythology and Dante’s version of Hell has been read into the word, but, etymologically speaking, the word Hell is totally consistent with the meaning of Sheol or Hades which is the unseen or hidden realm of the dead.
Meaning of Sheol determined by Usage
Much of the confusion concerning the meaning of Sheol is the result of the inconsistency of the translators of the King James Version. Sheol appears 66 times in the King James Version. It is translated as “the grave” 32 times, as “the pit” 3 times and as “Hell” 31 times. Some more recent versions, such as the New American Standard Version, avoid these interpretive renderings of Sheol, rendering it literally as Sheol in every instance.
A careful examination of each occurrence of Sheol in context makes it clear that it is referring to the unseen realm of the souls of the dead and not the grave. The substantive for grave, qeber, and its cognates qeburah and qabar “to bury” appear 215 times in the Old Testament, and in every instance, they clearly refer to the grave or graves where the bodies of the dead are laid to rest. On the other hand, Sheol consistently refers to a singular region where all souls are gathered at death.
There are several contrasts between Sheol and qeber which make it clear that Sheol does not refer to the grave. The following contrasts can be seen:
1) The living are said “to bury” (qabar) the body of their dead in a grave or graves (qeber) 132 times. In contrast, there is no verb form for Sheol which could be defined as, “to bury,” and no one is said to bury (qabar) their dead in Sheol.
2) Qeber appears 29 times in the plural, referring to more than one grave. In contrast, Sheol is only used in the singular form, referring to one region.
3) Man is said to have dug or made a qeber 6 times. Man is never said to have dug or made Sheol.
4) One’s body is said to be laid in a qeber 37 times. No one’s body is ever said to be in Sheol.
5) It is never said that one “goes down into” a qeber. Men are said to “go down into” Sheol 11 times. A soul may go somewhere after death, but a dead body cannot “go” anywhere.
6) Man is said to be able to touch a qeber 5 times. Man is never said to have touched Sheol.
7) Reference is made to an individual’s qeber 5 times. There is no reference whatsoever to someone’s Sheol.
Each of these seven contrasts taken together demonstrate that “grave” is not the correct meaning of Sheol. Also, in determining the meaning of words we should take into consideration a law of hermeneutics referred to as the law of first mention. The law of first mention states that the meaning of a word can normally be determined by what it meant in its first occurrence in Scripture.
The first occurrence of the word Sheol is when Joseph’s brothers told their father Jacob that they had found Joseph’s bloodstained coat. Jacob concluded that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast and he refused to be comforted. He said: “I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning.” (Gen 37:35 ASV). While the King James Version reads, “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning,” a careful consideration of the passage makes it clear that Jacob wasn’t referring to the grave.
In the first place, he says “I will go down.” As pointed out previously, a dead body could not literally be said to go into a qeber or grave. Whenever someone dies, they are taken to their grave (qeber) and buried (qabar) there – they don’t go there. It is the soul which goes to Sheol or Hades upon leaving the body (Luke 16:22-23).
In the second place, Jacob said that he would go down “unto his son” in Sheol. He couldn’t have been thinking of being buried with his son, since he thought that Joseph had been devoured by wild beasts, making it impossible to be buried with him. This expectation of being reunited with departed loved ones in Sheol is common throughout Scripture.
An expression we see repeated numerous times in the Old Testament is to say of the deceased that one breathed his last and was “gathered unto his people,” or instead of telling someone they will die they said: “you will go unto your fathers.” (Gen 15:15; 25:8; 25:18; 35:29; 49:33; Nu 20:26; Deut 32:49-50; 34:5-6). Obviously, it is not the cadaver that is being referred to, since a dead body cannot go anywhere. That these expectations were real and not simply empty euphemisms can be seen in David’s response when his baby son died. He said: “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Sam 12: 23).
Also, it says that when Jacob died that he “breathed his last and was gathered to his people.” (Gen 49:33). After being gathered to his people Joseph’s servants embalmed his body for forty days and the Egyptians mourned for him for seventy days. Only after the time of mourning had ended, did they begin the journey back to the land of Canaan where they finally buried his body. He was gathered to his people in Sheol upon breathing his last, but it was not until some three months had passed that his body was finally buried in his “burial place” (qeber) (50:13). So, upon breathing his last he was gathered to paradise or Abraham’s bosom in Sheol (even as was the case with the beggar Lazarus as well as the thief upon the cross), even though Jacob’s body had not yet been buried (Luke 16:22-23; 23:43).
Another characteristic of Sheol which is not true of the grave is that its inhabitants can communicate with each other. In Isaiah 14 it begins speaking of the death of the king of Babylon and it says that the inhabitants of Sheol would rise to meet him and taunt him as he descended into Sheol:
“Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones. 10 ‘They will all respond and say to you, ‘Even you have been made weak as we, you have become like us. 11 ‘Your pomp and the music of your harps have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you and worms are your covering… All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb. 19 But you have been cast out of your tomb (qeber) like a rejected branch, clothed with the slain who are pierced with a sword, who go down to the stones of the pit like a trampled corpse. 20 You will not be united with them in burial (qeburah)… “(Isa 14:9-11, 18-20 NASU).
Here we see the leaders and kings of the nations who had previously died, coming up to meet the great king of Babylon – the most powerful empire of ancient times, as he descends into Sheol after having died in shame and dishonor. They said to him: “We were all buried with honor in our own tombs, but your corpse was thrown in a pit or mass grave and left to the maggots, buried under the corpses of all those slain with the sword.” Here, we see a clear distinction between the souls in Sheol and the body buried in a mass grave without an honorable burial in his royal tomb.
Another passage which makes a clear distinction between Sheol and the grave is when Saul sought out a medium to call up Samuel who had previously died in order to consult him concerning an impending battle with the Philistines. The Lord sent Samuel up to inform Saul that he and his sons would be killed and would be with him on the following day:
“Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’ And Saul answered, ‘I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.’ 16 Samuel said, ‘Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has departed from you and has become your adversary? 17 ‘The Lord has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David. 18 ‘As you did not obey the Lord and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 ‘Moreover the Lord will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the Lord will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!” (1Sam 28:15-19)
Here we see Samuel coming up to talk to Saul – something that would not be possible if he were unconscious in the grave. God forbids the practice of consulting the dead. Such a prohibition would not make sense if it were impossible to do so. Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would be with him the next day and on that day they were killed in battle just as Samuel had said. But he could not have been referring to being with him in the grave on the next day since they were not buried the next day. It wasn’t until two days later that the Philistines found their bodies. They beheaded Saul and their bodies were hung from the city wall where they remained for another night before finally being taken down and buried, but not in the place where Samuel was buried. So, clearly, the reference is to the souls of Saul and his sons which would be with Samuel in Sheol the very next day, rather than their bodies which were only later placed in their graves.
Hades in the New Testament
Hades appears 10 times in the Greek New Testament and in every instance it was translated as “Hell” by the King James translators with the exception of 1Corinthians 15:55 which they rendered “grave.” We have already seen that Hell has essentially the same literal meaning as Hades. As stated earlier, the translators of the LXX Greek Old Testament, which was in use in Jesus’ day, consistently rendered Sheol as Hades, which literally means “the invisible or unseen” and therefore, “the invisible realm of the souls of the dead.” Just as we have seen with Sheol, both the just and the unjust remain in Hades until the resurrection.
In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 we see that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels – not to his tomb, but to Abraham’s bosom or Paradise. The rich man also died and his body was buried in the grave (v.22). However, the next thing we see is the rich man in torments in Hades, calling out to Abraham and Lazarus and conversing back and forth with them.
Some argue that this is simply a parable and therefore should not be taken literally. In some ways I would agree. Lazarus was not literally in Abraham’s bosom, and fire in Scripture normally refers to fiery trials meant to purify and therefore should not be understood as literal flames (see my blog “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire”). However, while Jesus often made use of parables, hyperboles and figures of speech in His teachings, He never used falsehood to illustrate truth. In the light of this parable, to say that Hades is nothing more than the grave and that the souls of the dead cannot communicate with each other is tantamount to calling Jesus a false teacher. It would also make Him out to be delusional, since He spoke with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3).
Death and Hades
There is a distinction drawn in Scripture between death, in which the flesh is given over to decay, and Hades, which is the habitation of the souls of the dead. Psalm 16:10 is prophetic of Christ’s burial and His descent into Hades: “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.” On the Day of Pentecost, Peter quoted this Psalm and then applied it to Christ, saying that, “His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption” (Acts 2:31). Here there is a contrast between the soul, which goes to Hades, and the flesh or body which decays in the grave.
Just as the Early Church Fathers repeatedly state, during the three days in which His body lay in the tomb, Christ’s soul was in Hades or the invisible world of the dead where He preached the gospel to those who were formerly disobedient in order that, having been judged in the flesh, they might live with Him in the spirit (1Peter 3:18-20; 4:6). His body was laid in the tomb and preserved from decay until the resurrection, but His soul descended deep down into “the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40). The reference to “the heart of the earth” is not referring to the grave, but to the deepest pit of Sheol, also referred to as Tartarus (2Peter 2:4), a region reserved for the most wicked (cf. Ezek. 31:16). It is referred to as “the bottomless pit” or “the abyss” seven times in the book of Revelation.
Jesus didn’t merely descend into the region of Hades where Paradise or Abraham’s bosom was located, but He went way down into the lowest parts of Hades, preaching the gospel even to those who had perished in the flood. In Ephesians 4:8-10 Paul says the following concerning His descent:
“When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.’ 9 (Now this, ‘He ascended’ — what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)” (Eph 4:8-10).
I understand this to be telling us that, when Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, He released those who were in captivity and ascended with them on high, that He might fill all things. This is the idea expressed in Today’s English Version: “When he went up to the very heights, he took many captives with him; he gave gifts to mankind." (Eph 4:8 TEV). Compare this with Luke 4:18 where it says that Jesus was anointed “to proclaim [kerusso] freedom to the captives.” Also, 1Peter 3:19-20 where Jesus “preached,” (kerusso) in Hades. He took the keys of Hades from Satan, preached the good news to those who were in captivity, and took them with Him when He ascended. Paul here is quoting from Psalms 68:18 where we see that He not only took with Him those who were in Paradise who had lived saintly lives, but also those who were once disobedient:
“Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.” (Ps 68:18 KJV)
Before Christ’s resurrection and ascension, Paradise was not in the presence of the Lord as it is now. Both Jesus and the thief on the cross descended into Sheol when they breathed their last and Jesus remained in Hades, the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Yet, as promised, the thief was with Him in Paradise the same day they died. Jesus said to him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43).
On the third day He arose from the dead, having made propitiation for the sins of the world, including all the sins previously committed (Rom 3:25-26). When He arose, He ascended unto the throne of God and took Paradise with Him, including all the repentant who responded to His preaching of the Gospel in Hades as far down as the lowest parts of the earth. That is why, when Paul was caught up into the third heaven Paradise was there (2Cor 12:2-4). Now, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2Cor 5:8). The very moment our soul leaves our body we are with Him in Paradise, just like the thief on the cross, except that now Paradise is in the very presence of the Lord in the third heaven!
If we die before Christ returns, our souls remain in the presence of the Lord until His Second Coming, at which time we will accompany Him to be reunited with our bodies, which have remained “sleeping in the dust,” but will be raised unto immortality:
“But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will BRING WITH HIM those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.” (1Thess 4:13-17)
Some have been confused by the reference to the dead as having “fallen asleep” or “sleeping,” concluding from this that the dead are in an unconscious state. I consider this with more detail in my book “Extermination or Restoration ),” but these are demonstrably euphemisms, intended to soften the blow when a loved one dies, much as we would say today that the dead person “departed,” “is at rest,” “is at peace,” “has passed away,” “is deceased,” “went to be with the Lord,” etc. It is considered very insensitive to simply say: “he is dead,” so we have developed a vocabulary of euphemisms which are not always meant to be taken in a strictly literal sense, but rather are intended to soften the blow. Some, ignoring the many evidences in Scripture to the contrary, insist that the souls of the dead are unconscious until the resurrection, rather than being present with the Lord and coming with Him when He returns.
The first resurrection is the resurrection unto life when Christ returns. The second resurrection takes place 1,000 years later and is a resurrection unto judgment (Jn 5:29; Rev 20:5-6). At that time Death and Hades will deliver up all their inhabitants to appear before the White Throne Judgment:
“The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:13-15)
The reference to “Death and Hades” means that all the bodies of the dead (Death), will be reunited with their souls in Hades in order to be judged according to the deeds done in their bodies while they were alive. The reference to the sea giving up the dead emphasizes that even those whose bodies have been consumed and dispersed in the sea will have to face judgment.
When it says that Death and Hades were cast into the Lake of fire, some, in an attempt to eliminate all postmortem judgment, claim that it is only Death and Hades as entities which are cast into the Lake of Fire, ceasing to exist at that time. However, what it is saying is that every individual who inhabited Death and Hades will be resurrected and judged according to their works and then they (i.e. all the inhabitants of Death and Hades) will be cast into the Lake of Fire to undergo the second death (Rev 2:11). The last enemy – death, is not destroyed until all have been made alive, when every knee will have finally bowed in voluntary submission to Jesus Christ as Lord, at which time He will subject Himself to the Father and God will be all in all (1Cor 15:22,25-28; cf. Php 2:10-11).
So, in conclusion, clearly Sheol or Hades is the unseen realm of disembodied souls and not the qeber or grave, as some have sought to argue. Hades, by its very definition is the invisible realm of the souls of the dead. The just are gathered unto their people in Paradise and the unjust go each to their own respective place, awaiting judgment before the Great White Throne (cf. Acts 1:25). While the doctrine of Hell was greatly distorted entering into the Dark Ages, it is nevertheless real and not an illusion. Even though the Lake of Fire is a purifying fire and therefore not eternal, it is nevertheless an age during reality which should be avoided at all cost. Jesus said that it would be better to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand if it causes one to sin, rather than to be cast into Gehenna fire.
There is no condemnation awaiting those who are in Christ Jesus, but he who does not believe will be condemned at the White Throne Judgment, receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire, not getting out of there “until” they have paid in full (Rom 8:1; Mark 16:16; Jn 3:18; Rev 20:15; Rev 21:8; Matt 5:26). There are some Inclusivists (those who say that everyone is already saved) who would tell the unrepentant that they are already in Christ without ever having received Him.
False teachers like Don Keathley would have us believe that it is not necessary to believe on Christ in order to be saved. He says: “Believing has nothing to do with being saved, Christ is the Savior of ALL men, everyone is saved…” [12] He says this in spite of the fact that Jesus clearly stated, “he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). While it is true that He died for all, and all will be made alive in Christ – each in his own order, it is necessary to personally receive Him, being born again as a new creation in order to be in Christ and be found free from all condemnation in the day of Jesus Christ (Jn 1:12; Php 3:8-9; 2Cor 5:17; Jn 3:3).
[1] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 41). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[2] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 46). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[3] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 22). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[4] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 59). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
[5] Justin Martyr Chapter 35 - Appeal to the Greeks
[6] Irenaeus, fragments, XXVIII.
[7] Hippolytus, Against Plato on the cause of the universe, §1
[8] Clement of Alexandria, Book 6, Chapter 6 - The Gospel Was Preached to Jews and Gentiles in Hades
[9] The great Church historian, Philip Schaff, although not a Universalist, said: “In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria… Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.”
“Under the instruction of these great teachers [Clement, Origen, Gregory, and Theodore of Mopsuestia] many other theologians believed in universal salvation; and indeed the whole Eastern Church until after AD 500 was inclined to it.”
[10] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, OT:7585 she°ol OT:7585, "place of the dead." Sha°al (ask, consult, inquire) seems to be the basis for an important noun in the Old Testament, she°ol.
[11] https://www.etymonline.com/word/Hell
[12] Keathley, Don. Hell's Illusion (p. 100). Don Keathley. Kindle Edition.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Who Destroyed Sodom and Why?
by George Sidney Hurd
To the average Christian, this topic may seem irrelevant since they accept the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded for us in the Scriptures. However, we are living in a time in which most long-held beliefs are being deconstructed and reinterpreted in a manner less confrontational and offensive to the sensibilities of our postmodern permissive society. The God of the Scriptures is being repackaged so as to affirm and even approve of modern man’s sinful lifestyles rather than confronting and judging them.
The Evidence of Sodom’s Destruction
The Liberal Modernists of the past typically rejected the Bible outright, even denying that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed. However, sooner or later archeological discoveries usually uncover evidences which substantiate the biblical account, and the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is no exception. In 1964 a team of archaeologists discovered the remains of an ancient city in northern Syria which was later identified as Elba, the seat of an ancient empire contemporary with the Patriarchs. In the excavation they discovered more than 2,000 tablets written in cuneiform text. The tablets contain the names of many of the ancient cities mentioned in Genesis, including all five of the cities of the plain which are recorded as having been destroyed, and they were referred to in a tablet as “sin cities.” 1 These tablets date as far back as 2,300 B.C., some 450 years before Sodom and the cities of the plain were destroyed according to Genesis 19.
Today, most Postmodern Progressive scholars do not outright reject the Scriptures as did the Modernist Liberals. Instead they reinterpret and nuance the obvious meaning of the text so as to accommodate our present society’s moral standards and sensibilities. Some, without outright rejecting the biblical account, argue that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not a real historical event, but merely a story invented by men in order to control the people through fear. However, once again, the archeological evidence is not on their side. To me there is ample evidence to convince any unbiased individual that the ashen remains of each of the five cities still remain to this day.
The Genesis account says that Sodom and the cities of the plain were totally destroyed by fire and sulfur rained down from heaven:
“Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.” (Gen 19:24-25).
Both Peter and Jude make reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as being an observable sign in their day for all to see. Peter said of their destruction:
“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example (hupodeigma) to those who afterward would live ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:6)
Here Peter says that God made an example or “visible display” (hupodeigma) of Sodom and Gomorrah for future generations to see, so that they would not follow after the same immoral practices. The visible display is said to be the ashen remains of the cities. In like manner, Jude says:
“as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example (deigma), suffering the vengeance (dike ‘justice’) of eternal fire (pur aionios, 'eonian fire’).” (Jude 7)
Here Jude uses a form of the same Greek term as Peter, (deigma), which Vine’s Expository Dictionary defines as, “specimen, thing shown.” The emphasis of both Peter and Jude taken together is that Sodom and Gomorrah were an observable sign in the form of ashen remains, demonstrating that God will judge those who continue in the same sexually immoral practices as those of the Sodomites.
Peter and Jude are not the only ones of that time who spoke of the ashen remains of the cities of the plain which God had destroyed. The Jewish historian Josephus who was a contemporary of Peter and Jude said of their destruction:
“The country of Sodom borders upon it (Dead Sea). It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that Divine fire, and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen… And thus what is related of this land of Sodom hath these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us.” 2
Josephus, nearly 2,000 years after Sodom’s destruction, said that the formations or shadows of all five of the cities could still be seen. They were not buried in tells and partially preserved as some of the smaller communities on the eastern side of the Dead Sea were. Other cities were rebuilt on top of the ruins of those cities, but according to the Scriptures the cities of Sodom were reduced to ashes, never to be rebuilt, and they still remained visible on the surface as an example to those who afterward would live ungodly (Zeph 2:9; Isa 13:19-20; Jer 49:18).
Also, Strabo, the Greek geographer, philosopher and historian who lived from 63 B.C. to 23 A.D. says, “There were once inhabited cities in that region of the Dead Sea near Masada under the metropolis city of Sodom.” 3 The remains of Herod’s fortress Masada overlook the ashen remains of Gomorrah, one of the cities of the greater Sodomite metropolis. They can be clearly seen from that vantage point as we see in the following images:
To the average Christian, this topic may seem irrelevant since they accept the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded for us in the Scriptures. However, we are living in a time in which most long-held beliefs are being deconstructed and reinterpreted in a manner less confrontational and offensive to the sensibilities of our postmodern permissive society. The God of the Scriptures is being repackaged so as to affirm and even approve of modern man’s sinful lifestyles rather than confronting and judging them.
The Evidence of Sodom’s Destruction
The Liberal Modernists of the past typically rejected the Bible outright, even denying that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed. However, sooner or later archeological discoveries usually uncover evidences which substantiate the biblical account, and the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is no exception. In 1964 a team of archaeologists discovered the remains of an ancient city in northern Syria which was later identified as Elba, the seat of an ancient empire contemporary with the Patriarchs. In the excavation they discovered more than 2,000 tablets written in cuneiform text. The tablets contain the names of many of the ancient cities mentioned in Genesis, including all five of the cities of the plain which are recorded as having been destroyed, and they were referred to in a tablet as “sin cities.” 1 These tablets date as far back as 2,300 B.C., some 450 years before Sodom and the cities of the plain were destroyed according to Genesis 19.
Today, most Postmodern Progressive scholars do not outright reject the Scriptures as did the Modernist Liberals. Instead they reinterpret and nuance the obvious meaning of the text so as to accommodate our present society’s moral standards and sensibilities. Some, without outright rejecting the biblical account, argue that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not a real historical event, but merely a story invented by men in order to control the people through fear. However, once again, the archeological evidence is not on their side. To me there is ample evidence to convince any unbiased individual that the ashen remains of each of the five cities still remain to this day.
The Genesis account says that Sodom and the cities of the plain were totally destroyed by fire and sulfur rained down from heaven:
“Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.” (Gen 19:24-25).
Both Peter and Jude make reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as being an observable sign in their day for all to see. Peter said of their destruction:
“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example (hupodeigma) to those who afterward would live ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:6)
Here Peter says that God made an example or “visible display” (hupodeigma) of Sodom and Gomorrah for future generations to see, so that they would not follow after the same immoral practices. The visible display is said to be the ashen remains of the cities. In like manner, Jude says:
“as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example (deigma), suffering the vengeance (dike ‘justice’) of eternal fire (pur aionios, 'eonian fire’).” (Jude 7)
Here Jude uses a form of the same Greek term as Peter, (deigma), which Vine’s Expository Dictionary defines as, “specimen, thing shown.” The emphasis of both Peter and Jude taken together is that Sodom and Gomorrah were an observable sign in the form of ashen remains, demonstrating that God will judge those who continue in the same sexually immoral practices as those of the Sodomites.
Peter and Jude are not the only ones of that time who spoke of the ashen remains of the cities of the plain which God had destroyed. The Jewish historian Josephus who was a contemporary of Peter and Jude said of their destruction:
“The country of Sodom borders upon it (Dead Sea). It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that Divine fire, and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen… And thus what is related of this land of Sodom hath these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us.” 2
Josephus, nearly 2,000 years after Sodom’s destruction, said that the formations or shadows of all five of the cities could still be seen. They were not buried in tells and partially preserved as some of the smaller communities on the eastern side of the Dead Sea were. Other cities were rebuilt on top of the ruins of those cities, but according to the Scriptures the cities of Sodom were reduced to ashes, never to be rebuilt, and they still remained visible on the surface as an example to those who afterward would live ungodly (Zeph 2:9; Isa 13:19-20; Jer 49:18).
Also, Strabo, the Greek geographer, philosopher and historian who lived from 63 B.C. to 23 A.D. says, “There were once inhabited cities in that region of the Dead Sea near Masada under the metropolis city of Sodom.” 3 The remains of Herod’s fortress Masada overlook the ashen remains of Gomorrah, one of the cities of the greater Sodomite metropolis. They can be clearly seen from that vantage point as we see in the following images:
Today, nearly 2,000 years after Josephus, its ashen remains still can be seen as a visible testimony to the judgment of God against persistent unbridled immorality. The closer one examines the remains, the more evident it becomes that they are indeed a solemn testimony to God’s judgment upon the cities of Sodom. The ashen remains are not found in the rest of the plain, but are confined to the sites of the five cities as indicated in the following images:
Other tells, such as Tall el-Hammam in the northeastern end of the Dead Sea, show signs of having been destroyed by fire as well, but they were not reduced to ashes as the biblical account says concerning the five cities of the plain which were utterly destroyed. Strabo indicates that there were other cities in the valley, apart from those of the Sodomite metropolis. He said: "there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis” 4
Upon closer examination of the ashen remains of the cities it becomes even more evident that they correspond with the Genesis account of their destruction. Genesis 19:24 says that the Lord “rained brimstone and fire” upon the cities. Brimstone is the old English word for sulfur. Imbedded within the layers of ash are an abundance of sulfur balls of varying sizes with a crystalized shell which formed when the burning balls of sulfur were extinguished in the ash before being fully consumed. This is the only place in the world where sulfur has been found in this form.
Upon closer examination of the ashen remains of the cities it becomes even more evident that they correspond with the Genesis account of their destruction. Genesis 19:24 says that the Lord “rained brimstone and fire” upon the cities. Brimstone is the old English word for sulfur. Imbedded within the layers of ash are an abundance of sulfur balls of varying sizes with a crystalized shell which formed when the burning balls of sulfur were extinguished in the ash before being fully consumed. This is the only place in the world where sulfur has been found in this form.
The sulfur from the sites is unique from any sulfur found in other parts of the world. The sulfur produced by geothermal activity is only around 40 percent pure, whereas numerous laboratory tests have found the white sulfur from the cities of the plain to be from 94 to 98 percent pure sulfur with trace amounts of magnesium which combined produce sufficient heat to melt even stainless steel. Additionally, naturally formed sulfur does not appear in balls as those found in these sites.
Also, occasionally charcoal, or partially burned wood, is found trapped in the layers of ash, having been deprived of oxygen before they could be fully consumed.
The ashen remains of these cities are pure calcium sulfate which is the byproduct of intense heat and sulfur consuming limestone which is composed of calcium carbonate. Most of the structures of that region were made of cut limestone. The ash formed in thin layers which easily crumble into powder.
In some areas the layers appear in swirling formations which would be the result of a firestorm or thermal ionization caused by electrons repelling and attracting under extreme heat as seen in the following images.
This divine fire is reminiscent of the fire of the Lord which fell upon the alter after Elijah had prayed, consuming not only the sacrifice, but also the wood and the very stones of the alter itself (1Kings 18:38). Aside from the fact that the Scriptures say that it was the Lord Himself who rained down brimstone and fire upon Sodom from heaven, the very details of the forensic evidence taken together indicate that these cities were destroyed by means not natural to this planet.
While those who do not wish to retain the knowledge of God will always seek to discredit the evidence, in my opinion, as Peter and Jude said, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a visible example to all subsequent generations, demonstrating that God will judge those who do not judge themselves (2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7; Heb 13:4). I believe that the evidence is so compelling as to leave man without excuse in the day of judgment. For a more detailed description, watch: Sodom & Gomorrah - true location found - Ross Patterson; Sodom and Gomorrah and The Search for Sodom and Gomorrah;.
Who Destroyed Sodom?
Some, while reluctantly conceding that cataclysmic events such as the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah actually took place, nevertheless attempt to argue that it wasn’t God Himself who destroyed the cities. This in spite of the specific terms attributing the destruction to God Himself. God said to Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if He found even ten righteous within the city (Gen 18:32). God clearly takes responsibility for Sodom’s destruction.
Progressives like Gregory Boyd argue that God is exclusively non-violent cruciform love, and therefore He would have never destroyed Sodom (I consider his arguments in my book “The Ways of God” As seen through the eyes of a Conservative Restorationist). Boyd argues that God simply “withdrew his protective hand to allow anti-creational forces that are ‘bent on destruction’” to carry out the judgment on the cities. 5 However, when the two angels told Lot that the cities were going to be destroyed, they said to him: “For we will destroy this place…the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” (Gen 19:13). Could we reasonably say that God’s angels are anti-creational forces that are bent on destruction? The language of Scripture does not allow us to separate God from Sodom’s destruction, as Boyd attempts to do. Genesis 19:24 emphatically says, “Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.” In light of this, how can we reasonably attribute Sodom’s destruction to malevolent destructive forces?
Some would argue that the human author of Genesis mistakenly presented God as being the one who destroyed the cities – that Moses simply interpreted the destruction event according to his own distorted perception of God. They would say that, in order to know how God truly is, we must learn from Jesus. However, Jesus consistently authenticates the entirety of the writings of Moses and the Prophets as inspired of God and infallible (Matt 4:4; Jn 10:35; Mark 14:49; Matt 5:18; 26:56; Luke 21:22; 24:44; John 13:18; 15:25, etc.). Additionally, in Luke 17 Jesus not only affirms the historicity of God’s judgment upon Sodom, but also warns that the circumstances surrounding His return will be similar:
“Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” (Luke 17:28-30 cf. Rev 6:15-17).
There is no indication that Jesus understood the destruction of Sodom to have been executed by malevolent forces rather than by God Himself. In fact, the New Testament uses similar language to describe the judgment that the Son of Man will Himself bring against the Antichrist and his followers when He is revealed from heaven:
“when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance (ekdikesis “executing justice”) on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with (diken tisousin, “shall pay the just penalty of”) everlasting (aionios “eonian”) destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” (2 Thess 1:7-9)
The God of the Old Testament is the same Lord Jesus Christ who comes in flaming fire, executing justice upon the ungodly at His Second Coming (cf. Rev 19:11-15). It is true that the just penalty is measured according to each man’s works and it will be eonian destruction, rather than an eternal destroying. Indeed, even Sodom will ultimately be restored (Ezek 16:53-55 ESV 6 ). But that doesn’t change the fact that it is God Himself who judges His people. As the writer of Hebrews says:
“For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb 10:30-31)
While it is true that in the coming ages, in the times of the restoration of all – the dispensation of the fullness of the times, all will have finally been restored, being reunited in Christ (Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10), the consequences of persisting in unrepentant sin are nevertheless very serious and age during. While the inhabitants of the cities of Sodom will eventually be restored, at least some of them have been in a conscious state in hades for more than 4,000 years awaiting their sentence on the day of judgment (Matt 10:15). While it is the subject of another blog, Hades, or Sheol in the Hebrew text is the invisible abode of the souls of the dead and not the grave where our bodies are laid to rest, as is claimed by some teachers such as Don Keathley. 7 For those who are interested, I demonstrate from the Scriptures that our souls continue in a conscious state after death in my blog: "Is Sheol the Grave?" and in my book “Extermination or Restoration? (A Restorationist’s response to Annihilationism)”
Contrary to modern popular opinion, affirming someone living in sin, rather than confronting them and warning them concerning God’s judgment upon the unrepentant, is not love. It is either unbelief concerning the warnings of God’s judgment given to us in Scripture – often by Jesus Himself, or else it is a lack of love and concern for the wellbeing of the unrepentant sinner. If we truly love someone and believe that God’s Word is true, we will not affirm them in their sinful lifestyle. We will warn them and earnestly intercede for them until they come to themselves and repent before God.
Affirming sinful behavior, rather than confronting it, is what characterizes all the false prophets. They are those who cry “peace and safety” instead of warning of impending judgment (1Thess 5:1-3; Ezek 13:16; Jer 14:14-16). This is what the false prophets did in the Old Testament whenever God warned through His prophets that judgments were impending. And Jesus warned that there would be many such false prophets just prior to His return:
“Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.” (Matt 24:11-13)
Many false teachers have recently arisen within the Church who “deconstruct” the Scriptures and its revelation of God’s nature and His ways so as to remove all fear of God. They rightly say that perfect love casts out all fear (1Jn 4:18). However, it is also true that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Ps 111:10).
Any child who loves and respects his father knows that fear and love are not incompatible. If we are privileged to have had a good father who loved us, we know the love/fear relationship to one in authority. As long as we were obedient, the only emotion we felt was a positive one of love and respect (reverential fear). However, when we stepped beyond his established boundaries, even though we knew that he loved us and for that very reason corrected us, our predominant emotion was a negative one of fear because we knew he would discipline us. In fact, as the writer of Hebrews says, God disciplines and scourges us precisely because of His love for us (Heb 12:5-7). A parent who does not set standards and enforce them is a negligent parent, not a loving one (Pro 13:24).
We are living in an increasingly hedonistic society that despises all authority and says, “if it feels good, do it.” And many who do not outright deny God’s existence, instead of repenting of their sins and submitting to God, seek out for themselves teachers who reconstruct God, presenting Him as though He were an all-consenting father who is totally okay with whatever one happens to be into (2Tim 4:1-4). The result is that “there is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:18). Jesus said that in the time of His return it will be as it was in the days of Lot. When the angels came into Lot’s house, all the men of the city gathered at the door and insisted that Lot send them out to them so that they could gang-rape them. When Lot reproached them for what they were doing, they condemned him for judging them (Gen 19:9). Even when they were supernaturally blinded by the angels, they did not fear God and repent, but continued groping for the door until they wore themselves out (Gen 19:4-11).
Clearly, God Himself takes responsibility for the destruction of Sodom. And Jesus, as well as Peter and Jude, warn that if we obstinately follow in their footsteps, God who is no respecter of persons will likewise judge us. Many who have been conditioned to see God as being an all-permissive father will no doubt protest against this. But Paul would respond saying: “Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?” (Rom 3:5-6). God will judge the world, even as He judged Sodom and Gomorrah. Don’t believe the false prophets when they cry peace and safety, contrary to the warnings of Jesus and all the Scriptures (1Thess 5:3).
Why was Sodom Destroyed?
Historically, it has been held by both Jews and Christians alike that, although Sodom was guilty of many sins, they were destroyed primarily because of their practice of homosexuality. This conclusion is largely based upon Genesis 19:4-5 where it says:
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Gen 19:4-5 KJV)
Among the Hebrews, to say that someone “knows” another in such contexts was a discreet way of referring to sexual intercourse (Gen 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26; Matt 1:25, etc.). Recently, some have sought to argue that the demand made by the men of Sodom was not to know them sexually but interrelationally. They point out that “know” is most commonly used in the Scriptures in a nonsexual manner. From this they argue that they were merely demanding that they be allowed to interview them. However, in the context it is clear that “know” is used in a sexual sense. When they insisted upon knowing them, Lot offered to send out to them his own virgin daughters who had never “known” a man (Gen 19:8). It is obvious that he wasn’t merely offering to let them converse with his daughters.
In Judges 19 there is a similar incident where an elderly man invited a man with his concubine to stay in his house for the night rather than spending the night in the open square. What took place afterwards is difficult to read but illustrates what is meant by the men wanting to “know” someone in this sense:
“As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!" 23 But the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter and the man's concubine; let me bring them out now. Humble them, and do with them as you please; but to this man do not do such a vile thing!" 25 But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.” (Judg 19:22-25)
This parallel incident demonstrates beyond doubt that the demand to be allowed to “know” someone in these contexts is in order to have sexual relations with them and not merely to be able to converse with them. Clearly, in the context of Genesis 19, the sin that finally resulted in Sodom’s destruction was homosexual activity or sodomy. That is why Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, names the sin of Sodom as being that of having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh (Jude 7). In a similar manner, Paul speaks of the homosexual relations of women with women or men with men as shameful vile passions against nature (Rom 1:24-28).
Some argue that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality rather than the sin of homosexuality. They cite Ezekiel 16 which says:
“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, as in Romans chapter one, we see a downward spiral. In this case we see that it began with pride and excess and spiraled into laziness, indifference and finally committing the abomination. Committing the abomination was what provoked the severe judgment of the Lord – not a lack of hospitality (“they…committed the abomination...therefore I…”
What is the abomination they committed? Certainly, it was not inhospitality. In the first place, inhospitality is a sin of omission - not commission. What sin is Sodom historically known to have committed that could be aptly described as an abomination? Homosexuality. That is why sodomy has historically been utilized as a synonym for the homosexual lifestyle.
Lack of hospitality is never referred to in Scripture as an “abomination” requiring the death penalty. God would have been acting outside of His own law if He were to inflict the death penalty upon them for failing to show hospitality. The law of God did not prescribe the death penalty for failing to give to the poor, but it did require the death penalty for the abomination of homosexual activity:
“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.” (Lev 20:13 cf. 18:22)
What abomination did Sodom commit that justified their death penalty as an example? This phrase “committed an abomination” as it appears here in singular form (Heb. tow`ebah) is the same as “committed abomination” in Ezekiel 16:50. In Scripture the expression “commit abomination” in the singular refers to the homosexual act. For this reason, Jude attributes their destruction to sexual immorality with strange flesh (Jude 7). “Strange flesh” (sarcos heteras) refers to any body of flesh except for that for which the man was designed to have sex. The male penis was designed for the woman’s vagina, but the anus is designed for elimination – not penetration. Paul, in similar manner, referred to same-sex relations as “vile,” and “that which is against nature.” (Rom 1:26). Apart from it being contrary to God’s design and an affront to Him, such practices against nature cause many severe health issues in addition to AIDS.
It is common to hear the proponents of homosexuality say, “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, so it must be okay.” However, there would have been no need for Him to address the issue since it was already understood in Judaism to be a grave sin. There was no incident of homosexuality presented to Him requiring His comments, as was the case with adultery. He didn’t address incest, pedophilia or bestiality either because they likewise were non-issues among the Jews of His time. Also, these sins, along with homosexuality, were explicitly forbidden in the Law, and Jesus upheld the Law. No doubt, if someone were to have questioned Him concerning homosexuality, He would have referred them to the Law, just as He did on more than one occasion (Matt 19:4; Luke 18:20). We must keep in mind that Jesus is God and therefore the divine Author of both the Old and New Testaments. Also, implicit in His description of Sodom’s destruction and their judgment when He returns is His condemnation of unrepentant homosexual activity (Luke 17:28-30; Matt 10:15).
Since I, as with most people in our times, have close relationships with people we love who are practicing homosexuals, I have sought to understand the issue from every different angle, reading books both for and against the homosexual lifestyle. Perhaps the most carefully thought out attempt to reconcile Christianity to the Gay lifestyle that I read was “God and the Gay Christian” by a young man named Matthew Vines. He acknowledges that the men of Sodom attempted to forcefully engage in anal sex with the two angels, thinking that they were men. However, he and other Gay advocates within the Church, argue that, that which God disapproves of is not the same sex act in and of itself, but rather promiscuous sexual activity with multiple mates outside of a loving committed relationship between two individuals. 8
However, the prohibition in Leviticus 18 and 20 is not merely that of promiscuous sex. It is against any man laying with a male as he lies with a woman (Lev 18:22). Likewise, what Paul refers to as being against nature is simply referred to as women with women and men with men (Rom 1:26-27). To say that Paul was only referring to sexual promiscuity is reading into the text that which is not stated.
Some point out that we are no longer under the Law, and from that they argue that the Levitical prohibition has no application to us. While it is true that in Christ we are no longer under the Law, the righteousness of the Law is nevertheless produced in us by the Holy Spirit as we walk in the Spirit and abide in Christ (Rom 8:4). What was immoral under the Law is still immoral today and that includes same-sex relations. Paul elsewhere explains that, while those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law, the Law still stands to convict transgressors:
“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 (arsenokoitēs), 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)
Here we see that the Law still stands to convict the practicing homosexual of his sin. The word translated here as “sodomite” is arsenokoitēs which is a composite word made up of arsen – “male” and koitē – “bed.” From koitē we derived our word coitus which means “sexual intercourse.” Paul here is making reference to the prohibition in Leviticus against any man laying with a male as with a woman (Lev 18:22).
Gay advocates often seek to deconstruct the sound doctrines of Scripture, disputing over definitions of words, so as to make the Scriptures appear to affirm one’s ungodly lifestyle. Paul confronted this same problem and told us to avoid those of corrupt minds who are destitute of the truth and resort to wrangling over the meaning of words instead of adhering to sound doctrine which leads to godliness (1Tim 6:3-5).
That this is a timeless prohibition and not something only applicable to the Jews under the Law is evident when one looks at the entire chapter of Leviticus 18. After forbidding several sexual sins including incest, homosexuality and bestiality, the Lord makes it clear that these were not only abominable acts for His people Israel under the Law, but that He also judges the nations who practice these abominations. After listing all the abominable acts, He says:
“(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.” (Lev 18:27-29)
So we see that, not only were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by God for these abominations, but these same abominations are also the reason why God drove the Canaanites out of the land. Homosexuality is a sin against God’s design, no matter which age you happen to be living in. In the beginning God made them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply (Matt 19:4-5; Gen 1:27-28). Homosexuality goes against God’s original design and intent, and while the Scriptures clearly teach that all will finally be restored (including even Sodom), it is equally clear that no immoral person will inherit the kingdom of God in his sinful condition. Paul says:
“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)
Paul says, “Don’t let anyone deceive you into thinking that you can inherit the kingdom of God while continuing in your sinful state.” If you are continually practicing any of the sinful activities listed here, rather than justifying your continuance in them and seeking out false teachers who will affirm you in sins which will exclude you from the kingdom, you need to repent of your sin before God and look to Him to cleanse and sanctify you in order that you may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, being spared from the Lake of Fire and the second death.
I have been accused of being unloving because I don’t affirm the homosexual lifestyle. However, knowing what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, and why, it would be unloving for me to be silent. There are people very close to me whom I love very much who are practicing homosexuals. If I could affirm them and love them at the same time, I would. But to affirm someone in their sin is not love – it is either ignorance, indifference or cowardice. Jesus said: “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten.” (Rev 3:19). Even God’s judgment against Sodom was a corrective intervention done out of love. It was a necessary judgment for the good of mankind but it culminates in Sodom’s restoration (Ezek 16:53-55). God is a God of justice, but He is also a God of mercy and His mercies never come to an end. In the end His mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13).
For a more in-depth treatment on the subject of homosexuality I highly recommend Mike Winger’s four part series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_5WvYcKv18&t=265
While those who do not wish to retain the knowledge of God will always seek to discredit the evidence, in my opinion, as Peter and Jude said, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a visible example to all subsequent generations, demonstrating that God will judge those who do not judge themselves (2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7; Heb 13:4). I believe that the evidence is so compelling as to leave man without excuse in the day of judgment. For a more detailed description, watch: Sodom & Gomorrah - true location found - Ross Patterson; Sodom and Gomorrah and The Search for Sodom and Gomorrah;.
Who Destroyed Sodom?
Some, while reluctantly conceding that cataclysmic events such as the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah actually took place, nevertheless attempt to argue that it wasn’t God Himself who destroyed the cities. This in spite of the specific terms attributing the destruction to God Himself. God said to Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if He found even ten righteous within the city (Gen 18:32). God clearly takes responsibility for Sodom’s destruction.
Progressives like Gregory Boyd argue that God is exclusively non-violent cruciform love, and therefore He would have never destroyed Sodom (I consider his arguments in my book “The Ways of God” As seen through the eyes of a Conservative Restorationist). Boyd argues that God simply “withdrew his protective hand to allow anti-creational forces that are ‘bent on destruction’” to carry out the judgment on the cities. 5 However, when the two angels told Lot that the cities were going to be destroyed, they said to him: “For we will destroy this place…the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” (Gen 19:13). Could we reasonably say that God’s angels are anti-creational forces that are bent on destruction? The language of Scripture does not allow us to separate God from Sodom’s destruction, as Boyd attempts to do. Genesis 19:24 emphatically says, “Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.” In light of this, how can we reasonably attribute Sodom’s destruction to malevolent destructive forces?
Some would argue that the human author of Genesis mistakenly presented God as being the one who destroyed the cities – that Moses simply interpreted the destruction event according to his own distorted perception of God. They would say that, in order to know how God truly is, we must learn from Jesus. However, Jesus consistently authenticates the entirety of the writings of Moses and the Prophets as inspired of God and infallible (Matt 4:4; Jn 10:35; Mark 14:49; Matt 5:18; 26:56; Luke 21:22; 24:44; John 13:18; 15:25, etc.). Additionally, in Luke 17 Jesus not only affirms the historicity of God’s judgment upon Sodom, but also warns that the circumstances surrounding His return will be similar:
“Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” (Luke 17:28-30 cf. Rev 6:15-17).
There is no indication that Jesus understood the destruction of Sodom to have been executed by malevolent forces rather than by God Himself. In fact, the New Testament uses similar language to describe the judgment that the Son of Man will Himself bring against the Antichrist and his followers when He is revealed from heaven:
“when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance (ekdikesis “executing justice”) on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with (diken tisousin, “shall pay the just penalty of”) everlasting (aionios “eonian”) destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” (2 Thess 1:7-9)
The God of the Old Testament is the same Lord Jesus Christ who comes in flaming fire, executing justice upon the ungodly at His Second Coming (cf. Rev 19:11-15). It is true that the just penalty is measured according to each man’s works and it will be eonian destruction, rather than an eternal destroying. Indeed, even Sodom will ultimately be restored (Ezek 16:53-55 ESV 6 ). But that doesn’t change the fact that it is God Himself who judges His people. As the writer of Hebrews says:
“For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb 10:30-31)
While it is true that in the coming ages, in the times of the restoration of all – the dispensation of the fullness of the times, all will have finally been restored, being reunited in Christ (Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10), the consequences of persisting in unrepentant sin are nevertheless very serious and age during. While the inhabitants of the cities of Sodom will eventually be restored, at least some of them have been in a conscious state in hades for more than 4,000 years awaiting their sentence on the day of judgment (Matt 10:15). While it is the subject of another blog, Hades, or Sheol in the Hebrew text is the invisible abode of the souls of the dead and not the grave where our bodies are laid to rest, as is claimed by some teachers such as Don Keathley. 7 For those who are interested, I demonstrate from the Scriptures that our souls continue in a conscious state after death in my blog: "Is Sheol the Grave?" and in my book “Extermination or Restoration? (A Restorationist’s response to Annihilationism)”
Contrary to modern popular opinion, affirming someone living in sin, rather than confronting them and warning them concerning God’s judgment upon the unrepentant, is not love. It is either unbelief concerning the warnings of God’s judgment given to us in Scripture – often by Jesus Himself, or else it is a lack of love and concern for the wellbeing of the unrepentant sinner. If we truly love someone and believe that God’s Word is true, we will not affirm them in their sinful lifestyle. We will warn them and earnestly intercede for them until they come to themselves and repent before God.
Affirming sinful behavior, rather than confronting it, is what characterizes all the false prophets. They are those who cry “peace and safety” instead of warning of impending judgment (1Thess 5:1-3; Ezek 13:16; Jer 14:14-16). This is what the false prophets did in the Old Testament whenever God warned through His prophets that judgments were impending. And Jesus warned that there would be many such false prophets just prior to His return:
“Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.” (Matt 24:11-13)
Many false teachers have recently arisen within the Church who “deconstruct” the Scriptures and its revelation of God’s nature and His ways so as to remove all fear of God. They rightly say that perfect love casts out all fear (1Jn 4:18). However, it is also true that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Ps 111:10).
Any child who loves and respects his father knows that fear and love are not incompatible. If we are privileged to have had a good father who loved us, we know the love/fear relationship to one in authority. As long as we were obedient, the only emotion we felt was a positive one of love and respect (reverential fear). However, when we stepped beyond his established boundaries, even though we knew that he loved us and for that very reason corrected us, our predominant emotion was a negative one of fear because we knew he would discipline us. In fact, as the writer of Hebrews says, God disciplines and scourges us precisely because of His love for us (Heb 12:5-7). A parent who does not set standards and enforce them is a negligent parent, not a loving one (Pro 13:24).
We are living in an increasingly hedonistic society that despises all authority and says, “if it feels good, do it.” And many who do not outright deny God’s existence, instead of repenting of their sins and submitting to God, seek out for themselves teachers who reconstruct God, presenting Him as though He were an all-consenting father who is totally okay with whatever one happens to be into (2Tim 4:1-4). The result is that “there is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:18). Jesus said that in the time of His return it will be as it was in the days of Lot. When the angels came into Lot’s house, all the men of the city gathered at the door and insisted that Lot send them out to them so that they could gang-rape them. When Lot reproached them for what they were doing, they condemned him for judging them (Gen 19:9). Even when they were supernaturally blinded by the angels, they did not fear God and repent, but continued groping for the door until they wore themselves out (Gen 19:4-11).
Clearly, God Himself takes responsibility for the destruction of Sodom. And Jesus, as well as Peter and Jude, warn that if we obstinately follow in their footsteps, God who is no respecter of persons will likewise judge us. Many who have been conditioned to see God as being an all-permissive father will no doubt protest against this. But Paul would respond saying: “Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?” (Rom 3:5-6). God will judge the world, even as He judged Sodom and Gomorrah. Don’t believe the false prophets when they cry peace and safety, contrary to the warnings of Jesus and all the Scriptures (1Thess 5:3).
Why was Sodom Destroyed?
Historically, it has been held by both Jews and Christians alike that, although Sodom was guilty of many sins, they were destroyed primarily because of their practice of homosexuality. This conclusion is largely based upon Genesis 19:4-5 where it says:
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Gen 19:4-5 KJV)
Among the Hebrews, to say that someone “knows” another in such contexts was a discreet way of referring to sexual intercourse (Gen 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26; Matt 1:25, etc.). Recently, some have sought to argue that the demand made by the men of Sodom was not to know them sexually but interrelationally. They point out that “know” is most commonly used in the Scriptures in a nonsexual manner. From this they argue that they were merely demanding that they be allowed to interview them. However, in the context it is clear that “know” is used in a sexual sense. When they insisted upon knowing them, Lot offered to send out to them his own virgin daughters who had never “known” a man (Gen 19:8). It is obvious that he wasn’t merely offering to let them converse with his daughters.
In Judges 19 there is a similar incident where an elderly man invited a man with his concubine to stay in his house for the night rather than spending the night in the open square. What took place afterwards is difficult to read but illustrates what is meant by the men wanting to “know” someone in this sense:
“As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!" 23 But the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter and the man's concubine; let me bring them out now. Humble them, and do with them as you please; but to this man do not do such a vile thing!" 25 But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.” (Judg 19:22-25)
This parallel incident demonstrates beyond doubt that the demand to be allowed to “know” someone in these contexts is in order to have sexual relations with them and not merely to be able to converse with them. Clearly, in the context of Genesis 19, the sin that finally resulted in Sodom’s destruction was homosexual activity or sodomy. That is why Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, names the sin of Sodom as being that of having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh (Jude 7). In a similar manner, Paul speaks of the homosexual relations of women with women or men with men as shameful vile passions against nature (Rom 1:24-28).
Some argue that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality rather than the sin of homosexuality. They cite Ezekiel 16 which says:
“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, as in Romans chapter one, we see a downward spiral. In this case we see that it began with pride and excess and spiraled into laziness, indifference and finally committing the abomination. Committing the abomination was what provoked the severe judgment of the Lord – not a lack of hospitality (“they…committed the abomination...therefore I…”
What is the abomination they committed? Certainly, it was not inhospitality. In the first place, inhospitality is a sin of omission - not commission. What sin is Sodom historically known to have committed that could be aptly described as an abomination? Homosexuality. That is why sodomy has historically been utilized as a synonym for the homosexual lifestyle.
Lack of hospitality is never referred to in Scripture as an “abomination” requiring the death penalty. God would have been acting outside of His own law if He were to inflict the death penalty upon them for failing to show hospitality. The law of God did not prescribe the death penalty for failing to give to the poor, but it did require the death penalty for the abomination of homosexual activity:
“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.” (Lev 20:13 cf. 18:22)
What abomination did Sodom commit that justified their death penalty as an example? This phrase “committed an abomination” as it appears here in singular form (Heb. tow`ebah) is the same as “committed abomination” in Ezekiel 16:50. In Scripture the expression “commit abomination” in the singular refers to the homosexual act. For this reason, Jude attributes their destruction to sexual immorality with strange flesh (Jude 7). “Strange flesh” (sarcos heteras) refers to any body of flesh except for that for which the man was designed to have sex. The male penis was designed for the woman’s vagina, but the anus is designed for elimination – not penetration. Paul, in similar manner, referred to same-sex relations as “vile,” and “that which is against nature.” (Rom 1:26). Apart from it being contrary to God’s design and an affront to Him, such practices against nature cause many severe health issues in addition to AIDS.
It is common to hear the proponents of homosexuality say, “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, so it must be okay.” However, there would have been no need for Him to address the issue since it was already understood in Judaism to be a grave sin. There was no incident of homosexuality presented to Him requiring His comments, as was the case with adultery. He didn’t address incest, pedophilia or bestiality either because they likewise were non-issues among the Jews of His time. Also, these sins, along with homosexuality, were explicitly forbidden in the Law, and Jesus upheld the Law. No doubt, if someone were to have questioned Him concerning homosexuality, He would have referred them to the Law, just as He did on more than one occasion (Matt 19:4; Luke 18:20). We must keep in mind that Jesus is God and therefore the divine Author of both the Old and New Testaments. Also, implicit in His description of Sodom’s destruction and their judgment when He returns is His condemnation of unrepentant homosexual activity (Luke 17:28-30; Matt 10:15).
Since I, as with most people in our times, have close relationships with people we love who are practicing homosexuals, I have sought to understand the issue from every different angle, reading books both for and against the homosexual lifestyle. Perhaps the most carefully thought out attempt to reconcile Christianity to the Gay lifestyle that I read was “God and the Gay Christian” by a young man named Matthew Vines. He acknowledges that the men of Sodom attempted to forcefully engage in anal sex with the two angels, thinking that they were men. However, he and other Gay advocates within the Church, argue that, that which God disapproves of is not the same sex act in and of itself, but rather promiscuous sexual activity with multiple mates outside of a loving committed relationship between two individuals. 8
However, the prohibition in Leviticus 18 and 20 is not merely that of promiscuous sex. It is against any man laying with a male as he lies with a woman (Lev 18:22). Likewise, what Paul refers to as being against nature is simply referred to as women with women and men with men (Rom 1:26-27). To say that Paul was only referring to sexual promiscuity is reading into the text that which is not stated.
Some point out that we are no longer under the Law, and from that they argue that the Levitical prohibition has no application to us. While it is true that in Christ we are no longer under the Law, the righteousness of the Law is nevertheless produced in us by the Holy Spirit as we walk in the Spirit and abide in Christ (Rom 8:4). What was immoral under the Law is still immoral today and that includes same-sex relations. Paul elsewhere explains that, while those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law, the Law still stands to convict transgressors:
“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 (arsenokoitēs), 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)
Here we see that the Law still stands to convict the practicing homosexual of his sin. The word translated here as “sodomite” is arsenokoitēs which is a composite word made up of arsen – “male” and koitē – “bed.” From koitē we derived our word coitus which means “sexual intercourse.” Paul here is making reference to the prohibition in Leviticus against any man laying with a male as with a woman (Lev 18:22).
Gay advocates often seek to deconstruct the sound doctrines of Scripture, disputing over definitions of words, so as to make the Scriptures appear to affirm one’s ungodly lifestyle. Paul confronted this same problem and told us to avoid those of corrupt minds who are destitute of the truth and resort to wrangling over the meaning of words instead of adhering to sound doctrine which leads to godliness (1Tim 6:3-5).
That this is a timeless prohibition and not something only applicable to the Jews under the Law is evident when one looks at the entire chapter of Leviticus 18. After forbidding several sexual sins including incest, homosexuality and bestiality, the Lord makes it clear that these were not only abominable acts for His people Israel under the Law, but that He also judges the nations who practice these abominations. After listing all the abominable acts, He says:
“(for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.” (Lev 18:27-29)
So we see that, not only were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by God for these abominations, but these same abominations are also the reason why God drove the Canaanites out of the land. Homosexuality is a sin against God’s design, no matter which age you happen to be living in. In the beginning God made them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply (Matt 19:4-5; Gen 1:27-28). Homosexuality goes against God’s original design and intent, and while the Scriptures clearly teach that all will finally be restored (including even Sodom), it is equally clear that no immoral person will inherit the kingdom of God in his sinful condition. Paul says:
“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)
Paul says, “Don’t let anyone deceive you into thinking that you can inherit the kingdom of God while continuing in your sinful state.” If you are continually practicing any of the sinful activities listed here, rather than justifying your continuance in them and seeking out false teachers who will affirm you in sins which will exclude you from the kingdom, you need to repent of your sin before God and look to Him to cleanse and sanctify you in order that you may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, being spared from the Lake of Fire and the second death.
I have been accused of being unloving because I don’t affirm the homosexual lifestyle. However, knowing what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, and why, it would be unloving for me to be silent. There are people very close to me whom I love very much who are practicing homosexuals. If I could affirm them and love them at the same time, I would. But to affirm someone in their sin is not love – it is either ignorance, indifference or cowardice. Jesus said: “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten.” (Rev 3:19). Even God’s judgment against Sodom was a corrective intervention done out of love. It was a necessary judgment for the good of mankind but it culminates in Sodom’s restoration (Ezek 16:53-55). God is a God of justice, but He is also a God of mercy and His mercies never come to an end. In the end His mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13).
For a more in-depth treatment on the subject of homosexuality I highly recommend Mike Winger’s four part series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_5WvYcKv18&t=265
[1] https://www.adefenceofthebible.com/2019/06/28/ebla-tablets/
2 Josephus: Wars of the Jews, Book IV, Chapter VIII, §54 [4.54]
3 Strabo. Geography. Book XVII
4 Strabo. Geography. Book XVI, Chapter 2:44.
5 Boyd, Gregory A.. The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2 (p. 1071). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.
6 I quote here from a version other than the King James Version for a good reason. The King James translators changed the beginning of verse 53, making it read: “When I restore…,” which would leave open the possibility that the Lord didn’t really mean that He was actually going to restore them. However, most recent translators, even though they are not Universalists, have corrected this apparently intentional mistranslation of the text, making it correctly read: “I will restore…”
7 Don Keathley, Hell’s Illusion part 2, 17:30 min.
8 Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (p. 113). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.