- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
“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. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt 7:21–23)
“I never knew you; depart from Me.” These are some of the most sobering words ever spoken by Jesus, and it would be folly not to take them seriously. However, I have found that, all too often, those to whom Jesus was actually addressing this warning shrug it off as not being applicable to them, while many sensitive and sincere believers, being acutely aware of their own imperfections, live in constant fear, dreading that when they stand before Jesus He will say to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me.” However, I believe that a careful consideration of the context, taking into account those whom Jesus was addressing, will bring a renewed confidence and assurance to many of God’s children.
Context of Matthew 5 – 7 The Sermon on the Mount
1) Grace to the Humble (Matt 5:1-11)
The passage we are considering in Matthew 7:21-23 are Christ’s closing statements in His Sermon on the Mount. In His sermon He was addressing a great multitude of people, ranging from the harlots and tax collectors to the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees. In keeping with our Lord’s stated mission, He began His sermon with the beatitudes, reaching out to those who knew they were sinners in need of a Savior, not those who were under the false illusion of having a righteousness of their own without any need of the Physician (Luke 6:31-32).
If you are a believer who has a broken and contrite spirit, acutely aware of your need for Christ, the part of the Sermon on the Mount that is specifically directed towards you is the beatitudes at the beginning, not the rest of the sermon, which was primarily intended to rebuke and convict the complacent and the self-righteous who merely profess to be Christians.
In the beatitudes Jesus says that you are blessed if you are among those who are meek, recognizing your own spiritual poverty, mourning over remaining sin in your life and hungering and thirsting for righteousness instead of being complacent and self-satisfied. To you, Jesus speaks words of comfort and blessing, saying that your desire for righteousness will be satisfied with His own righteousness, and that it is you, not those who feel sufficient in themselves, who will inherit the kingdom of heaven.
To the broken He is tender, speaking words of consolation and hope, extending forgiveness and offering freely the water of life, just as He did to the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, Zacchaeus the tax collector and the thief on the cross. As the Scripture says concerning Jesus:
“A bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench, till He sends forth justice to victory.” (Matt 12:20)
He sent forth justice to victory by going to the cross on our behalf, in love bearing in His own body the just penalty due to us for our sins in order that God could justly justify the ungodly who simply put their trust in Him (1Peter 2:24-25; Rom 3:25-26; 4:5). If you are weary and heavy laden, His words to you are not “depart from Me,” but “come unto Me, and I will give you rest for your soul” (Matt 11:28-30). While God resists the proud, the indifferent and the self-righteous, He gives grace to the humble who hunger and thirst for righteousness (James 4:6).
2) Law applied to the Self-Righteous (Matt 5:17-48).
In the second part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus directs His words towards those who are under the false illusion that they are righteous under the Law of Moses. The Scriptures say, “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). The Law wasn’t given for man to live by, but to die by (2Cor 3:6-7). In this part of the sermon, Jesus lifts the bar impossibly high for the religiously self-righteous diehards.
To those who would claim they never broke the fifth commandment, “you shall not kill,” Jesus said that just being angry with someone without a just cause would make one guilty of murder (Matt 5:21-22). To those who say that they have never committed adultery, Jesus said that just looking at a woman to lust for her makes one guilty of adultery (27-28).
He then confronts some of the rabbinical loopholes used by the Jews to justify not fulfilling the Law on issues such as divorce, breaking of oaths, taking vengeance and hating one’s enemy, showing all such exception clauses to be unjustifiable (31-48). Reading this passage, we all, without exception, must acknowledge our hopeless condition. None of us have even come close to attaining to the righteousness which is by the Law.
What was Jesus’ motive in this discourse? It was to bring them to see their own guilt and need for the remission of sins which He would obtain for us on the cross (Matt 26:28; Rom 3:23-26). As Paul explains concerning the purpose of the Law:
“Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” (Rom 3:19)
We must come to realize our own depravity before we will look to Christ for salvation. The Law was given to condemn us, not to justify us (2Cor 3:7-11). The rich young ruler, seeking to justify himself, asked Jesus what he must DO to inherit eternal life, claiming that he had kept the Law from his youth (something no one, except for Christ Himself, has ever done).
Instead of commending him, Jesus placed a unique demand on him that He knew he would not be willing to obey – “sell what you have and give to the poor” (Matt 19:16-22). In contrast, the tax collector who simply cried out saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner,” went down to his home justified (Luke 18:13-14). Ultimately, God will have mercy on all, but one must first come to see their own disobedience and hopeless state of depravity before they will look to God for mercy (Rom 11:32). No one will experience salvation without first coming to see their need for salvation and looking to Christ to save them. The Law served as our tutor to reveal our true condition and bring us to Christ, and that is the way in which Jesus uses it in the Sermon on the Mount (Gal 3:24).
3) Rebuke to the Religious Hypocrites (Matt 6:1-7:6).
Just as the second part of the Sermon on the Mount wasn’t directed towards the poor in spirit who already knew they were sinners in need of the Savior, neither was the third part directed towards them, but primarily exposes the religious hypocrites like the scribes and Pharisees who did their good deeds in order to be seen of men (6:1-18) and censured others for minor defects while they themselves had the greater sin (7:1-6).
4) Warning against False Prophets (Matt 7:15-27).
This brings us to the close of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus uttered the words we are considering: “I never knew you; depart from Me.” It is important to note that these words are not spoken to the meek and poor in spirit who hunger and thirst after righteousness, but they are primarily a warning against false prophets who profess to speak for God, while their life and message demonstrate otherwise.
A false prophet (ψευδοπροφήτης, pseudoprophētēs), is not simply someone who makes false predictions of future events, but anyone who falsely claims to be speaking for God. The title is associated with false teachers who secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them (2Peter 2:1). Jesus said that we will know them by their fruits – not merely referring to their lifestyle, but also to their teachings which cause many to depart from the Holy Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:13-17).
It is in this context of Jesus warning against false teachers who would come among us in sheep’s clothing, that Jesus uttered the sobering words we are considering in this article. He said:
“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. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt 7:21–23)
Many sincere and sensitive believers, aware of their own shortcomings, are terrified by these words, thinking that they are applicable to them. In fact, more often than not, it is the poor in spirit who hunger and thirst after righteousness that care about their relationship with the Lord, not the unrepentant or self-righteous. However, it is important that we understand that Jesus here is not addressing born-again believers, but empty professors and false prophets who worship the Lord with their lips while their hearts are far from Him. Since, as James said, even as believers “we all stumble in many things” (James 3:2), if we are not careful, we can fall prey to the accuser who is an expert at quoting scripture out of context in order to destroy our confidence we have in the Lord.
Jesus could never say of a born-again believer who has put their trust in Him that He never knew them. Instead, to us as born-again believers He would say, “do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30). Jesus knows His sheep and He says that they will never perish (John 10:14; 10:27-29).
Many misunderstand His words “he who does the will of My Father in heaven” as teaching that we are saved by works. But what is the will of the Father according to Jesus? In John 6:40 Jesus said:
“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).
So, we see that it is the will of the Father that everyone who simply looks to His Son and believes in (εἰς, believe into or receive) Him should have everlasting life. Likewise, in His reply to those who asked Him what they had to do to work the works of God, Jesus made it clear that we do the will of the Father by trusting in Him. He said to them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:28-29). It is faith alone, in Christ alone, that saves us. Good works are the fruit of salvation, not that which procures it (Eph 2:8-10).
Note that those whom Jesus addressed saying, “I never knew you; depart from me,” did not respond by saying: “Lord, Lord, did we not believe on you?” Instead of appealing to their trust in Christ for their acceptance before God, they made their appeal based upon their own works: “have WE not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” Instead of saying: “Lord, Lord, did YOU not die for our sins?”, they made their plea based upon what they themselves had done, albeit in His name.
Here we see that supernatural manifestations are not the litmus test for a genuine born-again believer. Judas Iscariot was among the 12 Apostles who were given power to heal the sick and cast out demons even though Jesus called him “the son of perdition” and “a devil” (Jn 6:70-71; 17:12). Especially in these last days we must be careful to not assume that every evangelist, prophet or teacher who works signs and wonders is of God. Jesus forewarned us saying:
“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.” (Mark 13:22-23)
Likewise, we must guard against basing our assurance of salvation upon whether or not we are having supernatural encounters or healing the sick and casting out demons. Our salvation is based solely upon what Christ did for us on the cross when He cried out “it is finished,” not upon what the Lord may or may not be doing through you at any given moment. The moment you first believed and received Christ you were regenerated, justified and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of your redemption (Rom 5:1-2; Eph 1:13-14).
God’s processes to bring about your conformity to the image of Christ will vary throughout the course of your lifetime. Revivals are glorious, but where our faith really grows strong is not during times of revival, but in the wilderness where our faith is tested (James 1:2-4). It is wonderful to be used to heal the sick and cast out demons, but not even the Apostles or Jesus Himself were always experiencing supernatural manifestations (Luke 5:17; Jn 5:19; Phil 2:27).
What will be important on that day is not our list of life achievements, but whether or not we have put our trust in Him alone, whether we have known Him and He has known us. As Paul said:
“If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.” (Phil 3:4-9)
“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. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt 7:21–23)
“I never knew you; depart from Me.” These are some of the most sobering words ever spoken by Jesus, and it would be folly not to take them seriously. However, I have found that, all too often, those to whom Jesus was actually addressing this warning shrug it off as not being applicable to them, while many sensitive and sincere believers, being acutely aware of their own imperfections, live in constant fear, dreading that when they stand before Jesus He will say to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me.” However, I believe that a careful consideration of the context, taking into account those whom Jesus was addressing, will bring a renewed confidence and assurance to many of God’s children.
Context of Matthew 5 – 7 The Sermon on the Mount
1) Grace to the Humble (Matt 5:1-11)
The passage we are considering in Matthew 7:21-23 are Christ’s closing statements in His Sermon on the Mount. In His sermon He was addressing a great multitude of people, ranging from the harlots and tax collectors to the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees. In keeping with our Lord’s stated mission, He began His sermon with the beatitudes, reaching out to those who knew they were sinners in need of a Savior, not those who were under the false illusion of having a righteousness of their own without any need of the Physician (Luke 6:31-32).
If you are a believer who has a broken and contrite spirit, acutely aware of your need for Christ, the part of the Sermon on the Mount that is specifically directed towards you is the beatitudes at the beginning, not the rest of the sermon, which was primarily intended to rebuke and convict the complacent and the self-righteous who merely profess to be Christians.
In the beatitudes Jesus says that you are blessed if you are among those who are meek, recognizing your own spiritual poverty, mourning over remaining sin in your life and hungering and thirsting for righteousness instead of being complacent and self-satisfied. To you, Jesus speaks words of comfort and blessing, saying that your desire for righteousness will be satisfied with His own righteousness, and that it is you, not those who feel sufficient in themselves, who will inherit the kingdom of heaven.
To the broken He is tender, speaking words of consolation and hope, extending forgiveness and offering freely the water of life, just as He did to the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, Zacchaeus the tax collector and the thief on the cross. As the Scripture says concerning Jesus:
“A bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench, till He sends forth justice to victory.” (Matt 12:20)
He sent forth justice to victory by going to the cross on our behalf, in love bearing in His own body the just penalty due to us for our sins in order that God could justly justify the ungodly who simply put their trust in Him (1Peter 2:24-25; Rom 3:25-26; 4:5). If you are weary and heavy laden, His words to you are not “depart from Me,” but “come unto Me, and I will give you rest for your soul” (Matt 11:28-30). While God resists the proud, the indifferent and the self-righteous, He gives grace to the humble who hunger and thirst for righteousness (James 4:6).
2) Law applied to the Self-Righteous (Matt 5:17-48).
In the second part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus directs His words towards those who are under the false illusion that they are righteous under the Law of Moses. The Scriptures say, “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). The Law wasn’t given for man to live by, but to die by (2Cor 3:6-7). In this part of the sermon, Jesus lifts the bar impossibly high for the religiously self-righteous diehards.
To those who would claim they never broke the fifth commandment, “you shall not kill,” Jesus said that just being angry with someone without a just cause would make one guilty of murder (Matt 5:21-22). To those who say that they have never committed adultery, Jesus said that just looking at a woman to lust for her makes one guilty of adultery (27-28).
He then confronts some of the rabbinical loopholes used by the Jews to justify not fulfilling the Law on issues such as divorce, breaking of oaths, taking vengeance and hating one’s enemy, showing all such exception clauses to be unjustifiable (31-48). Reading this passage, we all, without exception, must acknowledge our hopeless condition. None of us have even come close to attaining to the righteousness which is by the Law.
What was Jesus’ motive in this discourse? It was to bring them to see their own guilt and need for the remission of sins which He would obtain for us on the cross (Matt 26:28; Rom 3:23-26). As Paul explains concerning the purpose of the Law:
“Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” (Rom 3:19)
We must come to realize our own depravity before we will look to Christ for salvation. The Law was given to condemn us, not to justify us (2Cor 3:7-11). The rich young ruler, seeking to justify himself, asked Jesus what he must DO to inherit eternal life, claiming that he had kept the Law from his youth (something no one, except for Christ Himself, has ever done).
Instead of commending him, Jesus placed a unique demand on him that He knew he would not be willing to obey – “sell what you have and give to the poor” (Matt 19:16-22). In contrast, the tax collector who simply cried out saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner,” went down to his home justified (Luke 18:13-14). Ultimately, God will have mercy on all, but one must first come to see their own disobedience and hopeless state of depravity before they will look to God for mercy (Rom 11:32). No one will experience salvation without first coming to see their need for salvation and looking to Christ to save them. The Law served as our tutor to reveal our true condition and bring us to Christ, and that is the way in which Jesus uses it in the Sermon on the Mount (Gal 3:24).
3) Rebuke to the Religious Hypocrites (Matt 6:1-7:6).
Just as the second part of the Sermon on the Mount wasn’t directed towards the poor in spirit who already knew they were sinners in need of the Savior, neither was the third part directed towards them, but primarily exposes the religious hypocrites like the scribes and Pharisees who did their good deeds in order to be seen of men (6:1-18) and censured others for minor defects while they themselves had the greater sin (7:1-6).
4) Warning against False Prophets (Matt 7:15-27).
This brings us to the close of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus uttered the words we are considering: “I never knew you; depart from Me.” It is important to note that these words are not spoken to the meek and poor in spirit who hunger and thirst after righteousness, but they are primarily a warning against false prophets who profess to speak for God, while their life and message demonstrate otherwise.
A false prophet (ψευδοπροφήτης, pseudoprophētēs), is not simply someone who makes false predictions of future events, but anyone who falsely claims to be speaking for God. The title is associated with false teachers who secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them (2Peter 2:1). Jesus said that we will know them by their fruits – not merely referring to their lifestyle, but also to their teachings which cause many to depart from the Holy Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:13-17).
It is in this context of Jesus warning against false teachers who would come among us in sheep’s clothing, that Jesus uttered the sobering words we are considering in this article. He said:
“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. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt 7:21–23)
Many sincere and sensitive believers, aware of their own shortcomings, are terrified by these words, thinking that they are applicable to them. In fact, more often than not, it is the poor in spirit who hunger and thirst after righteousness that care about their relationship with the Lord, not the unrepentant or self-righteous. However, it is important that we understand that Jesus here is not addressing born-again believers, but empty professors and false prophets who worship the Lord with their lips while their hearts are far from Him. Since, as James said, even as believers “we all stumble in many things” (James 3:2), if we are not careful, we can fall prey to the accuser who is an expert at quoting scripture out of context in order to destroy our confidence we have in the Lord.
Jesus could never say of a born-again believer who has put their trust in Him that He never knew them. Instead, to us as born-again believers He would say, “do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30). Jesus knows His sheep and He says that they will never perish (John 10:14; 10:27-29).
Many misunderstand His words “he who does the will of My Father in heaven” as teaching that we are saved by works. But what is the will of the Father according to Jesus? In John 6:40 Jesus said:
“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).
So, we see that it is the will of the Father that everyone who simply looks to His Son and believes in (εἰς, believe into or receive) Him should have everlasting life. Likewise, in His reply to those who asked Him what they had to do to work the works of God, Jesus made it clear that we do the will of the Father by trusting in Him. He said to them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:28-29). It is faith alone, in Christ alone, that saves us. Good works are the fruit of salvation, not that which procures it (Eph 2:8-10).
Note that those whom Jesus addressed saying, “I never knew you; depart from me,” did not respond by saying: “Lord, Lord, did we not believe on you?” Instead of appealing to their trust in Christ for their acceptance before God, they made their appeal based upon their own works: “have WE not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” Instead of saying: “Lord, Lord, did YOU not die for our sins?”, they made their plea based upon what they themselves had done, albeit in His name.
Here we see that supernatural manifestations are not the litmus test for a genuine born-again believer. Judas Iscariot was among the 12 Apostles who were given power to heal the sick and cast out demons even though Jesus called him “the son of perdition” and “a devil” (Jn 6:70-71; 17:12). Especially in these last days we must be careful to not assume that every evangelist, prophet or teacher who works signs and wonders is of God. Jesus forewarned us saying:
“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.” (Mark 13:22-23)
Likewise, we must guard against basing our assurance of salvation upon whether or not we are having supernatural encounters or healing the sick and casting out demons. Our salvation is based solely upon what Christ did for us on the cross when He cried out “it is finished,” not upon what the Lord may or may not be doing through you at any given moment. The moment you first believed and received Christ you were regenerated, justified and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of your redemption (Rom 5:1-2; Eph 1:13-14).
God’s processes to bring about your conformity to the image of Christ will vary throughout the course of your lifetime. Revivals are glorious, but where our faith really grows strong is not during times of revival, but in the wilderness where our faith is tested (James 1:2-4). It is wonderful to be used to heal the sick and cast out demons, but not even the Apostles or Jesus Himself were always experiencing supernatural manifestations (Luke 5:17; Jn 5:19; Phil 2:27).
What will be important on that day is not our list of life achievements, but whether or not we have put our trust in Him alone, whether we have known Him and He has known us. As Paul said:
“If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.” (Phil 3:4-9)
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
Throughout the Scriptures we see that we are saved by faith alone. In Ephesians 2:8-9 it most emphatically says:
“For by grace you have been saved (perfect passive) through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph 2:8–9)
Paul could say to the believers at Ephesus that they had been saved exclusively by God’s grace the moment they believed. The phrase “have been saved” is the perfect participle of σώζω (σεσῳσμένοι). The perfect tense in Greek expresses an action completed in the past with results continuing into the present. No one can be saved by works since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:20,23). Yet, from the moment that we simply believe, we can confidently say that we have been saved by faith alone apart from works. Some think it is presumptuous for anyone to say, “I am saved.” However, far from being presumptuous, it is simply a matter of believing the clear declarations of God’s word.
The question that I will be considering in this article is, what is true saving faith? Is the object of our faith important? It is becoming more and more common to hear people say that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you have faith. Inclusivists say that it is not necessary for one to hear and believe the gospel in order to be saved – that one can be saved by simply believing in some general revelation of God’s existence without ever having actually heard of Christ and what He accomplished for us on the cross. I examine the modern doctrine of Inclusivism in my article: What Must I do to be Saved?
Is saving faith merely mental assent, as many within the Free Grace Movement claim, or does saving faith of necessity also consist of one putting their trust in Christ as their Savior? The first of the Fathers to do a comprehensive inductive study of the Scriptures concerning the subject of saving faith was Saint Augustine in the late 4th century. He distinguished between three distinct ways in which one can believe: 1) Credere Deum: to believe that God exists, 2) Credere Deo: to believe in God, and 3) Credere in Deum: to believe into God or entrust oneself to God. He emphasized that only those who have believed into God have believed unto salvation.
In a similar manner, the Reformers pointed out three essential elements to true saving faith: 1) notitia: “information or knowledge,” involving our intellect; 2) assensus: “assent or agreement,” involving our emotion and 3) fiducia: “trust or confidence,” involving our will. The following is a consideration of these three elements of saving faith with particular emphasis upon Augustine’s third level of faith, considering what it means to believe into Christ.
1) Notitia
The Latin word notitia means knowledge or information. In order for one to have saving faith, they must first hear and have at least a rudimentary understanding of the gospel that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again for our justification (1Cor 15:1-4). Faith is not some ethereal mystical essence. Our faith is only as efficacious as the objective truth upon which it is built. We must first hear the gospel in order to have saving faith. As Paul said:
“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14)
While knowing the truth alone does not save, notitia is foundational to saving faith. Contrary to the claims of Inclusivists, saving faith isn’t possible without the notitia of the gospel message. As Paul said: “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17 DRB).
This first element of saving faith, notitia, is at times referred to in Scripture as “the faith,” (i.e. that body of objective truth upon which our faith is based). These foundational truths are essential to saving faith. For this reason, Satan, the deceiver, has always sought to undermine the notitia or the faith. That is why Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, enjoins us to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Much of what is today referred to as “deconstruction” is actually a departure from the faith, the notitia. I believe that what we are witnessing is that which Paul prophesied would occur in the last days. 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.” (1Tim 4:1)
More than ever, in our present Postmodern relativistic culture in which the objective truths of God’s Word – the foundational notitia of our faith, is being undermined, we need to do what Paul enjoined Timothy to do: Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have received (2Tim 1:13). However, as important as notitia is, it is only the first element of saving faith.
2) Assensus
The second element of saving faith is assensus which means assent or agreement with the notitia or information. It is not enough to know the truth-claims of the gospel, we must also agree that they are true.
Yet, contrary to what many “Free Grace” teachers claim, mere mental affirmation does not save anyone. One could be a theologian able to articulate every major doctrine of Scripture with precision – he could even agree with the Scriptures, affirming them as being entirely true, and yet not have saving faith.
James wrote his epistle to the Jews of the dispersion. No doubt, in their daily prayers they still repeated the Shema: “The LORD our God, the LORD is One..” He made what to them would have been a shocking statement. He said: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” (Jas 2:19).
He did this to emphasize that a mere affirmation of truth never saved anyone. In fact, the demons have never doubted who Jesus is. On more than one occasion demons addressed Jesus saying things like, “I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” or “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matt 8:29; Lk 4:41; Mk 1:24). So, while both the knowledge (notitia) and assent (assensus) of the gospel are essential to saving faith, it is not effectual to the saving of the soul without the third element of saving faith.
3) Fiducia
While notitia and assensus involve one’s intellect and emotions, fiducia or trust primarily involves the will. It is when one goes beyond knowing about Christ and agreeing that He is who He says He is, and believing that He can do what He says He can do, to actually putting their trust in Christ for their salvation. Paul makes mention of all three elements of saving faith, knowing, becoming convinced, and entrusting oneself to Christ in one sentence. He says:
“I know in whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted until that day.” (2Tim 1:12).
I think that the best illustration that shows the difference between mere belief and actually placing our trust in Christ to save us, is the Charles Blondin Story, which I cite here:
--
Throughout the Scriptures we see that we are saved by faith alone. In Ephesians 2:8-9 it most emphatically says:
“For by grace you have been saved (perfect passive) through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph 2:8–9)
Paul could say to the believers at Ephesus that they had been saved exclusively by God’s grace the moment they believed. The phrase “have been saved” is the perfect participle of σώζω (σεσῳσμένοι). The perfect tense in Greek expresses an action completed in the past with results continuing into the present. No one can be saved by works since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:20,23). Yet, from the moment that we simply believe, we can confidently say that we have been saved by faith alone apart from works. Some think it is presumptuous for anyone to say, “I am saved.” However, far from being presumptuous, it is simply a matter of believing the clear declarations of God’s word.
The question that I will be considering in this article is, what is true saving faith? Is the object of our faith important? It is becoming more and more common to hear people say that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you have faith. Inclusivists say that it is not necessary for one to hear and believe the gospel in order to be saved – that one can be saved by simply believing in some general revelation of God’s existence without ever having actually heard of Christ and what He accomplished for us on the cross. I examine the modern doctrine of Inclusivism in my article: What Must I do to be Saved?
Is saving faith merely mental assent, as many within the Free Grace Movement claim, or does saving faith of necessity also consist of one putting their trust in Christ as their Savior? The first of the Fathers to do a comprehensive inductive study of the Scriptures concerning the subject of saving faith was Saint Augustine in the late 4th century. He distinguished between three distinct ways in which one can believe: 1) Credere Deum: to believe that God exists, 2) Credere Deo: to believe in God, and 3) Credere in Deum: to believe into God or entrust oneself to God. He emphasized that only those who have believed into God have believed unto salvation.
In a similar manner, the Reformers pointed out three essential elements to true saving faith: 1) notitia: “information or knowledge,” involving our intellect; 2) assensus: “assent or agreement,” involving our emotion and 3) fiducia: “trust or confidence,” involving our will. The following is a consideration of these three elements of saving faith with particular emphasis upon Augustine’s third level of faith, considering what it means to believe into Christ.
1) Notitia
The Latin word notitia means knowledge or information. In order for one to have saving faith, they must first hear and have at least a rudimentary understanding of the gospel that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again for our justification (1Cor 15:1-4). Faith is not some ethereal mystical essence. Our faith is only as efficacious as the objective truth upon which it is built. We must first hear the gospel in order to have saving faith. As Paul said:
“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14)
While knowing the truth alone does not save, notitia is foundational to saving faith. Contrary to the claims of Inclusivists, saving faith isn’t possible without the notitia of the gospel message. As Paul said: “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17 DRB).
This first element of saving faith, notitia, is at times referred to in Scripture as “the faith,” (i.e. that body of objective truth upon which our faith is based). These foundational truths are essential to saving faith. For this reason, Satan, the deceiver, has always sought to undermine the notitia or the faith. That is why Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, enjoins us to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Much of what is today referred to as “deconstruction” is actually a departure from the faith, the notitia. I believe that what we are witnessing is that which Paul prophesied would occur in the last days. 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.” (1Tim 4:1)
More than ever, in our present Postmodern relativistic culture in which the objective truths of God’s Word – the foundational notitia of our faith, is being undermined, we need to do what Paul enjoined Timothy to do: Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have received (2Tim 1:13). However, as important as notitia is, it is only the first element of saving faith.
2) Assensus
The second element of saving faith is assensus which means assent or agreement with the notitia or information. It is not enough to know the truth-claims of the gospel, we must also agree that they are true.
Yet, contrary to what many “Free Grace” teachers claim, mere mental affirmation does not save anyone. One could be a theologian able to articulate every major doctrine of Scripture with precision – he could even agree with the Scriptures, affirming them as being entirely true, and yet not have saving faith.
James wrote his epistle to the Jews of the dispersion. No doubt, in their daily prayers they still repeated the Shema: “The LORD our God, the LORD is One..” He made what to them would have been a shocking statement. He said: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” (Jas 2:19).
He did this to emphasize that a mere affirmation of truth never saved anyone. In fact, the demons have never doubted who Jesus is. On more than one occasion demons addressed Jesus saying things like, “I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” or “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matt 8:29; Lk 4:41; Mk 1:24). So, while both the knowledge (notitia) and assent (assensus) of the gospel are essential to saving faith, it is not effectual to the saving of the soul without the third element of saving faith.
3) Fiducia
While notitia and assensus involve one’s intellect and emotions, fiducia or trust primarily involves the will. It is when one goes beyond knowing about Christ and agreeing that He is who He says He is, and believing that He can do what He says He can do, to actually putting their trust in Christ for their salvation. Paul makes mention of all three elements of saving faith, knowing, becoming convinced, and entrusting oneself to Christ in one sentence. He says:
“I know in whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted until that day.” (2Tim 1:12).
I think that the best illustration that shows the difference between mere belief and actually placing our trust in Christ to save us, is the Charles Blondin Story, which I cite here:
An Acrobat, A Wheelbarrow, and a Challenge of Faith
“Can you imagine a tightrope stretched over a quarter of a mile and spanning the breadth of Niagara Falls? The thundering sound of the pounding water drowning out all other sounds as you watch a man step onto the rope and walk across!
This stunning feat made Charles Blondin famous in the summer of 1859. He walked 160 feet above the falls several times back and forth between Canada and the United States as huge crowds on both sides looked on with shock and awe. Once he crossed in a sack, once on stilts, another time on a bicycle, and once he even carried a stove and cooked an omelet!
On July 15, Blondin walked backward across the tightrope to Canada and returned pushing a wheelbarrow.”
The Blondin story is told that it was after pushing a wheelbarrow across while blindfolded that Blondin asked for some audience participation. The crowds had watched and ‘Ooooohed’ and ‘Aaaaahed!’ He had proven that he could do it; of that, there was no doubt. But now he was asking for a volunteer to get into the wheelbarrow and take a ride across the Falls with him!
It is said that he asked his audience, ‘Do you believe I can carry a person across in this wheelbarrow?’ Of course the crowd shouted that yes, they believed!
It was then that Blondin posed the question – ‘Who will get in the wheelbarrow?'
Of course...none did.
(Later in August of 1859, his manager, Harry Colcord, did ride on Blondin's back across the Falls.)” [i]
True saving faith is comparable to getting into the wheelbarrow. It is trusting Jesus to carry you safely to the other side. Any faith that stops short of actually entrusting the salvation of our soul to Christ is not saving faith. According to James, the faith of mere mental assent is demonic faith (Jas 2:19). The author of Hebrews contrasts the faith that draws back, with those who have faith unto the saving of the soul, (i.e., saving faith) (Heb 10:39).
Believing into Jesus
This brings us to an important distinction between believing in Jesus and believing into Jesus, pointed out by St. Augustine of Hippo and others after him, such as St. Bede of England in the 7th century and Peter Lombard in the 12th century. It wasn’t until the 13th century under the influence of Thomas Aquinas that saving faith came to be seen as more of a mental exercise, believing in a proposition, rather than relational, believing into Jesus or receiving Him as one’s personal Savior, becoming one with Him. Augustine emphasized the crucial difference between believing in Jesus and believing into Jesus. Alluding to James 2:19, he said:
“But it makes plenty of difference, whether someone believes in Christ, or whether they believe into Christ. For even the demons believed him to be actually Christ, nevertheless the demons did not believe into Christ.” [ii]
Are there any Scriptures which actually present saving faith as believing into Christ? There are many passages which speak of our union with Christ, which is the result of believing into Christ, becoming one spirit with Him through regeneration. But, additionally, there are numerous passages which, literally translated, speak of believing into Him (πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν). The following are some examples: (Matt 18:6; John 1:12; John 3:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 6:29; John 7:5; John 9:35; John 9:36; John 11:26; John 11:48; John 12:36; Php 1:29).
However, most modern translations do not properly translate the numerous verses which speak of believing into Christ. They render the preposition εἰς (eis) as “in” or “on” instead of “into.” The only Bible translations I could find which rendered πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν literally as “believing into Him” were the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV), and the Holy Bible Recovery Version.
Greek scholars agree that the preposition εἰς most commonly means “into” and εἰς is always used with the accusative which normally suggests motion. [iii] The most common argument for rendering it “believe in or on Him” rather than “into Him” is that it doesn’t make sense to speak of someone believing into another person. It is true that it would be impossible for one to believe into any person outside of God Himself and Christ His Son. However, as Augustine points out, believing into Christ is unique in that it results in our justification and organically unites us with Christ:
“Again also, of his own apostles we are able to say, ‘We believe Paul’ but not ‘We believe into Paul;’ ‘We believe Peter’ but not ‘We believe into Peter.’ For whoever believes into him who justifies the wicked, their faith is reckoned as justice.” [iv]
“When you believe into Christ, therefore, by your believing into Christ, Christ comes into you, and you are in some way made one with him (literally “united into him”) and made a member in his body.” [v]
In John 1:12 we see that believing into Christ is equivalent to receiving Him:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name.” (Jn 1:12 LITV)
It is upon receiving Christ, believing into His name, that we become united to Christ, being baptized into His body by the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:3-4; 1Cor 6:17; Eph 1:13). Augustine said that believing into God is believing to go into God, being incorporated into Him:
“To believe into God, is by believing to love, by believing to go into God, by believing to cling to God and to be incorporated in God’s members.” [vi]
This believing into Christ, thereby becoming one with Him is what the Fathers referred to as the theosis or the divinization of man. I discuss this subject further in The Theosis or the Divinization of Man.
From what I have been able to gather, the Church during its first centuries didn’t see saving faith as merely believing in Jesus, embracing a proposition as true, but as embracing the person of Christ, believing into Him, and being united to Him in a vital union, just as Jesus prayed for in the upper room during the last supper with His disciples:
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe into Me (εἰς ἐμέ) through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.” (Jn 17:20–23)
If you have believed in your heart, receiving Christ, or believing into Him, then you have been united to Christ, becoming one spirit with Him (1Cor 6:17)
For a more thorough and scholarly treatment of this subject, I recommend Believing into Christ, by Natalya Cherry. While she is not a Conservative author, she is a Latin scholar and quotes extensively from the Church Fathers.
[i] https://www.creativebiblestudy.com/Blondin-story.html
[ii] Augustine, sermon. CXLIV
[iii] Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research:
“The accusative indeed normally suggests motion (extension), and that did come to be the common usage of εἰς plus the accusative. The resultant idea would often be ‘into,’ but this was by no means always true.”
[iv] Augustine, Tractatus XXV (Homily 25)
.
[v] Augustine, sermon. CXLIV,
.
[vi] Peter Lombard, Sententiae, p. 143 quoting Augustine in Tract. Ev. Jo. XXIX
“Can you imagine a tightrope stretched over a quarter of a mile and spanning the breadth of Niagara Falls? The thundering sound of the pounding water drowning out all other sounds as you watch a man step onto the rope and walk across!
This stunning feat made Charles Blondin famous in the summer of 1859. He walked 160 feet above the falls several times back and forth between Canada and the United States as huge crowds on both sides looked on with shock and awe. Once he crossed in a sack, once on stilts, another time on a bicycle, and once he even carried a stove and cooked an omelet!
On July 15, Blondin walked backward across the tightrope to Canada and returned pushing a wheelbarrow.”
The Blondin story is told that it was after pushing a wheelbarrow across while blindfolded that Blondin asked for some audience participation. The crowds had watched and ‘Ooooohed’ and ‘Aaaaahed!’ He had proven that he could do it; of that, there was no doubt. But now he was asking for a volunteer to get into the wheelbarrow and take a ride across the Falls with him!
It is said that he asked his audience, ‘Do you believe I can carry a person across in this wheelbarrow?’ Of course the crowd shouted that yes, they believed!
It was then that Blondin posed the question – ‘Who will get in the wheelbarrow?'
Of course...none did.
(Later in August of 1859, his manager, Harry Colcord, did ride on Blondin's back across the Falls.)” [i]
True saving faith is comparable to getting into the wheelbarrow. It is trusting Jesus to carry you safely to the other side. Any faith that stops short of actually entrusting the salvation of our soul to Christ is not saving faith. According to James, the faith of mere mental assent is demonic faith (Jas 2:19). The author of Hebrews contrasts the faith that draws back, with those who have faith unto the saving of the soul, (i.e., saving faith) (Heb 10:39).
Believing into Jesus
This brings us to an important distinction between believing in Jesus and believing into Jesus, pointed out by St. Augustine of Hippo and others after him, such as St. Bede of England in the 7th century and Peter Lombard in the 12th century. It wasn’t until the 13th century under the influence of Thomas Aquinas that saving faith came to be seen as more of a mental exercise, believing in a proposition, rather than relational, believing into Jesus or receiving Him as one’s personal Savior, becoming one with Him. Augustine emphasized the crucial difference between believing in Jesus and believing into Jesus. Alluding to James 2:19, he said:
“But it makes plenty of difference, whether someone believes in Christ, or whether they believe into Christ. For even the demons believed him to be actually Christ, nevertheless the demons did not believe into Christ.” [ii]
Are there any Scriptures which actually present saving faith as believing into Christ? There are many passages which speak of our union with Christ, which is the result of believing into Christ, becoming one spirit with Him through regeneration. But, additionally, there are numerous passages which, literally translated, speak of believing into Him (πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν). The following are some examples: (Matt 18:6; John 1:12; John 3:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 6:29; John 7:5; John 9:35; John 9:36; John 11:26; John 11:48; John 12:36; Php 1:29).
However, most modern translations do not properly translate the numerous verses which speak of believing into Christ. They render the preposition εἰς (eis) as “in” or “on” instead of “into.” The only Bible translations I could find which rendered πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν literally as “believing into Him” were the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV), and the Holy Bible Recovery Version.
Greek scholars agree that the preposition εἰς most commonly means “into” and εἰς is always used with the accusative which normally suggests motion. [iii] The most common argument for rendering it “believe in or on Him” rather than “into Him” is that it doesn’t make sense to speak of someone believing into another person. It is true that it would be impossible for one to believe into any person outside of God Himself and Christ His Son. However, as Augustine points out, believing into Christ is unique in that it results in our justification and organically unites us with Christ:
“Again also, of his own apostles we are able to say, ‘We believe Paul’ but not ‘We believe into Paul;’ ‘We believe Peter’ but not ‘We believe into Peter.’ For whoever believes into him who justifies the wicked, their faith is reckoned as justice.” [iv]
“When you believe into Christ, therefore, by your believing into Christ, Christ comes into you, and you are in some way made one with him (literally “united into him”) and made a member in his body.” [v]
In John 1:12 we see that believing into Christ is equivalent to receiving Him:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name.” (Jn 1:12 LITV)
It is upon receiving Christ, believing into His name, that we become united to Christ, being baptized into His body by the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:3-4; 1Cor 6:17; Eph 1:13). Augustine said that believing into God is believing to go into God, being incorporated into Him:
“To believe into God, is by believing to love, by believing to go into God, by believing to cling to God and to be incorporated in God’s members.” [vi]
This believing into Christ, thereby becoming one with Him is what the Fathers referred to as the theosis or the divinization of man. I discuss this subject further in The Theosis or the Divinization of Man.
From what I have been able to gather, the Church during its first centuries didn’t see saving faith as merely believing in Jesus, embracing a proposition as true, but as embracing the person of Christ, believing into Him, and being united to Him in a vital union, just as Jesus prayed for in the upper room during the last supper with His disciples:
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe into Me (εἰς ἐμέ) through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.” (Jn 17:20–23)
If you have believed in your heart, receiving Christ, or believing into Him, then you have been united to Christ, becoming one spirit with Him (1Cor 6:17)
For a more thorough and scholarly treatment of this subject, I recommend Believing into Christ, by Natalya Cherry. While she is not a Conservative author, she is a Latin scholar and quotes extensively from the Church Fathers.
[i] https://www.creativebiblestudy.com/Blondin-story.html
[ii] Augustine, sermon. CXLIV
[iii] Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research:
“The accusative indeed normally suggests motion (extension), and that did come to be the common usage of εἰς plus the accusative. The resultant idea would often be ‘into,’ but this was by no means always true.”
[iv] Augustine, Tractatus XXV (Homily 25)
.
[v] Augustine, sermon. CXLIV,
.
[vi] Peter Lombard, Sententiae, p. 143 quoting Augustine in Tract. Ev. Jo. XXIX
- Published on
00:00
00:00
The Overcomers
by George Sidney Hurd
Who are the overcomers of Revelation 2 through 3? What does Jesus say to them, and how should we understand Him? Are His words promises intended to reassure the hearts of believers, or should we be troubled by them? Are all believers overcomers, or is it possible to be a saved born-again believer and yet not overcome in this life? These are some of the questions I will be addressing in this article.
We don’t have to speculate concerning the identity of the overcomers, since the Apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, tells us who the overcomers are in his first epistle.
Everyone who has been Born of God is an Overcomer
“Because everyone having been born of God overcomes (nika) the world. And this is the victory (nike) that overcomes (nikesasa) the world – our faith.” (1Jn 5:4)
Who are the overcomers? John says that everyone (without exception) who has been born of God is an overcomer. What is it about the regenerate child of God that makes him an overcomer? That which makes us an overcomer is a fruit of regeneration, a gift that was given to us upon being born again. You may have noticed that the Nike brand is taken from the Greek word nike, which means “conquest or victory.” But the gift we received at regeneration that makes us an overcomer is not a pair of Nike tennis shoes. Rather, John says that the nike that overcomes the world is our faith.
Overcoming Faith is a Result of Regeneration
I agree with the Calvinists when they say that regeneration of necessity must logically precede saving and overcoming faith, since, prior to having been made alive in Christ, we were dead in relation to God (Eph 2:4-6). For a more detailed treatment of this subject see my article: Total Depravity and Universal Reconciliation).
Here in 1John 5 the Apostle makes it clear that regeneration precedes true faith, rather than us being regenerated by God in response to our own independent faith. John begins by saying:
“Whoever is believing (present active) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (perfect passive), and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.” (1 Jn 5:1)
Here John is saying that those who presently believe that Jesus is the Christ are believing as a result of having first been born of God. Just as a newborn baby spontaneously breathes at birth, even so, one spontaneously believes upon being made alive spiritually. John says essentially the same thing in John 1:12 where he makes it clear that those who are believing are those who had previously been born again, not according to human volition, but according to the will of God:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe (present active “are believing”) in His name: who were born (aorist passive), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Jn 1:12–13)
Those who have saving faith in Christ are believing because they were first born by the will of God. This is in agreement with Paul when he said, “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Co 12:3). This of course is not merely a “repeat after me” confession, but a confession being made by one who has believed in their heart that Jesus Christ is Lord (Rom 10:9-10). Paul says that, when we initially believed unto justification, we “believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). In other words, our faith was graciously granted to us, it is not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9).
The faith that is granted to us by grace is not only the initial faith for our justification: it is a living faith that gives us the victory to overcome and persevere until the end. The faith granted to us at regeneration is just as sure to continue throughout one’s lifetime as a newborn is sure to continue breathing for the rest of their life after taking their first breath. A faith that doesn’t continue is what James called a dead faith (James 2:26). In 1John 5:5, just after saying that everyone who has been born of God overcomes and that the victory by which we overcome is our faith, emphasizes that it is a living faith which abides with us until the end. He said:
“Who is he who overcomes (present active “is overcoming”) the world, but he who believes (present active, “is believing”) that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 Jn 5:5)
Paul makes it clear that the same faith that was graciously granted to us in order to believe unto justification when we were regenerated continues with us. He said:
“For to you it has been granted (χαρίζομαι, “graced”) on behalf of Christ, not only to believe (present active “to be believing”) in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” (Php 1:29)
Some who would agree with Paul that we initially believed through grace, nevertheless deny that that same faith abides with those who have been born of God, enabling them to persevere in the faith until the end. Here Paul says that the gift of grace that we have received at regeneration also enables us to continue believing in the midst of the suffering we undergo for His sake.
God is not simply the one who begins the good work in us: what He begins He perfects until we finish the course (Php 1:6). As the writer of Hebrews says, Jesus is not only the author of our faith, He is also the finisher of it (Heb 12:2). We believed and continue believing with the faith of Jesus which was granted to us at regeneration and continues with us until we cross the finish line (I further consider the source of our faith in my article The Faith of Jesus).
If you have been born according to the will of God, you can rest assured that you will also be granted the faith to overcome whatever the world may throw at you. Jesus said: “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). In what sense does Christ’s victory over the world give us reason to be cheerful? Because we have been born again with Christ’s own overcoming resurrection life, and it is His life in us that keeps us. John says:
“We know that no one who is born of God sins (present tense, “practices sin”); but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him.” (1 John 5:18 NASB)
The reason why those who are born of God overcome is because Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who is Himself the Overcomer, keeps us. As an aside, John is not saying here that we do not sin. That would be in contradiction to what he previously said in the first chapter (1Jn 1:8,10). The present tense of the word rendered “sin” (ἁμαρτάνω), speaks of a continual practice of sin. Although rather wordy, I like the Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest’s translation of 1John 5:18. It reads:
“We know absolutely that everyone who has been born of God and as a result is a regenerated individual does not keep on habitually sinning. But He who was born of God maintains a watchful guardianship over him, and the Pernicious One does not lay hold of him.”
As Peter also says, our God who caused us to be born again through His mercy unto an incorruptible inheritance, will also keep us by His power until the end:
“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, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (1 Pe 1:3–5).
As Peter would certainly testify, being kept by the power of God does not mean that we will never stumble, considering that he denied his Lord three times in the worst imaginable way. As James said: “we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). In what sense then did Jesus keep Peter? He interceded for him in order that his faith would not fail in spite of his bitter failure (Lu 22:32). The author and finisher of our faith is with us until the end: all those whom He makes alive He keeps by His power. Jesus said of His sheep:
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.” (Jn 10:28–29)
As His sheep we overcome, not because of our own ability to care for ourselves, but because we are under the watchful care of the Good Shepherd. Those who have been born of God overcome because they are kept by Christ, the Shepherd of our souls.
We are living under the New Covenant of promise in which God has given us a new heart and put a new spirit within us through regeneration, causing us to walk in His ways, something no one, except for Christ Himself, was ever able to do under the Old Covenant Law (Ezek 36:26-27).
Understanding the Exhortations to Overcome in Revelation
I believe that, armed with the knowledge that everyone who has been born of God will overcome, it becomes possible for us to correctly apply the exhortations to overcome which were given by Jesus in Revelation chapters 2 through 3. Seven times Jesus held out promises to those who overcome. They are as follows:
1) “To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev 2:7).
2) “He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” (Rev 2:11)
3) “To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it” (Rev 2:17).
4) “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).
5) “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev 3:5).
6) “He who overcomes I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name” (Rev 3:12).
7) “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev 3:21).
We know from 1John 5 that if we are born again believers, we are overcomers, and therefore each of these promises are sure to be fulfilled for us. So, the question to be answered is, why does Jesus precede each promise saying: “To him who overcomes?”
I believe that the answer to this question lies in the fact that, just as in the churches today, not all of those who were being addressed in the letters to the seven churches were born again believers. Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice (Jn 10:27). Yet Jesus had to say to each one of the seven churches, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” This presupposes that some within each of the seven churches were not yet of His sheep and therefore couldn’t hear His voice. Before being made alive in Christ we did not have ears to hear God: we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1-2). Jesus said: “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3). Being spiritually dead, we had neither eyes to see, nor ears to hear, the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God.
Jesus even said to the church at Sardis that, as a whole, they had a name that they were alive, but they were dead. He said that there were only a few in the church of Sardis who would walk with Him in white (Rev 3:4).
Can One’s Name be blotted out of the Book of Life?
Jesus also promised in Revelation 3:5 that He would never blot their names from the Book of Life. This has led some to conclude that one’s name could be written in the Book of Life, only to be blotted out later. However, as I point out in my article, The Book of Life, once one has been made alive and believed on Christ, they are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13-14). As those born of God, they already possess His imperishable life (John 5:24). Jesus said of those who believe:
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.” (Jn 10:28–29)
This being true, the regenerate overcomers could never have their names blotted out of the Book of Life. But why would Jesus say this if it weren’t a possibility? For me, the key to understanding this promise is found in the cultural context of that time. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) says the following about the secular and cultural significance of the term, book of life:
“Book of Life: The phrase is derived from the custom of the ancients of keeping genealogical records (Neh 7:5,64; 12:22-23) and of enrolling citizens for various purposes (Jer 22:30; Ezek 13:9).” [1]
Merrill Unger’s Complete Expository Dictionary says the same concerning the use of this term. Under the heading, The Book of Life, it says that it was: “a figurative expression taken from the custom of registering citizens in a society or maintaining genealogical records.”
Just as Adolf Hitler often expunged all public records which showed that his enemies had ever existed, believers in the time of persecution under the Roman Empire were in danger of having their names blotted out of the government’s public records, or their book of life. I believe that Jesus was reassuring those undergoing persecution that He would never do what their own governing authorities threatened to do to them if they didn’t renounce their faith in Christ.
In Revelation 3:5 Jesus uses the double emphatic negative οὐ μὴ. He literally said: “I will most certainly not (οὐ μὴ) blot out his name from the Book of Life.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen that everyone who has been born of God has been granted a living faith in Christ which makes us overcomers. Upon believing, we were sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13-14). God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Php 1:6).
[1] International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Book of Life
Who are the overcomers of Revelation 2 through 3? What does Jesus say to them, and how should we understand Him? Are His words promises intended to reassure the hearts of believers, or should we be troubled by them? Are all believers overcomers, or is it possible to be a saved born-again believer and yet not overcome in this life? These are some of the questions I will be addressing in this article.
We don’t have to speculate concerning the identity of the overcomers, since the Apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, tells us who the overcomers are in his first epistle.
Everyone who has been Born of God is an Overcomer
“Because everyone having been born of God overcomes (nika) the world. And this is the victory (nike) that overcomes (nikesasa) the world – our faith.” (1Jn 5:4)
Who are the overcomers? John says that everyone (without exception) who has been born of God is an overcomer. What is it about the regenerate child of God that makes him an overcomer? That which makes us an overcomer is a fruit of regeneration, a gift that was given to us upon being born again. You may have noticed that the Nike brand is taken from the Greek word nike, which means “conquest or victory.” But the gift we received at regeneration that makes us an overcomer is not a pair of Nike tennis shoes. Rather, John says that the nike that overcomes the world is our faith.
Overcoming Faith is a Result of Regeneration
I agree with the Calvinists when they say that regeneration of necessity must logically precede saving and overcoming faith, since, prior to having been made alive in Christ, we were dead in relation to God (Eph 2:4-6). For a more detailed treatment of this subject see my article: Total Depravity and Universal Reconciliation).
Here in 1John 5 the Apostle makes it clear that regeneration precedes true faith, rather than us being regenerated by God in response to our own independent faith. John begins by saying:
“Whoever is believing (present active) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (perfect passive), and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.” (1 Jn 5:1)
Here John is saying that those who presently believe that Jesus is the Christ are believing as a result of having first been born of God. Just as a newborn baby spontaneously breathes at birth, even so, one spontaneously believes upon being made alive spiritually. John says essentially the same thing in John 1:12 where he makes it clear that those who are believing are those who had previously been born again, not according to human volition, but according to the will of God:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe (present active “are believing”) in His name: who were born (aorist passive), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Jn 1:12–13)
Those who have saving faith in Christ are believing because they were first born by the will of God. This is in agreement with Paul when he said, “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Co 12:3). This of course is not merely a “repeat after me” confession, but a confession being made by one who has believed in their heart that Jesus Christ is Lord (Rom 10:9-10). Paul says that, when we initially believed unto justification, we “believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). In other words, our faith was graciously granted to us, it is not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9).
The faith that is granted to us by grace is not only the initial faith for our justification: it is a living faith that gives us the victory to overcome and persevere until the end. The faith granted to us at regeneration is just as sure to continue throughout one’s lifetime as a newborn is sure to continue breathing for the rest of their life after taking their first breath. A faith that doesn’t continue is what James called a dead faith (James 2:26). In 1John 5:5, just after saying that everyone who has been born of God overcomes and that the victory by which we overcome is our faith, emphasizes that it is a living faith which abides with us until the end. He said:
“Who is he who overcomes (present active “is overcoming”) the world, but he who believes (present active, “is believing”) that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 Jn 5:5)
Paul makes it clear that the same faith that was graciously granted to us in order to believe unto justification when we were regenerated continues with us. He said:
“For to you it has been granted (χαρίζομαι, “graced”) on behalf of Christ, not only to believe (present active “to be believing”) in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” (Php 1:29)
Some who would agree with Paul that we initially believed through grace, nevertheless deny that that same faith abides with those who have been born of God, enabling them to persevere in the faith until the end. Here Paul says that the gift of grace that we have received at regeneration also enables us to continue believing in the midst of the suffering we undergo for His sake.
God is not simply the one who begins the good work in us: what He begins He perfects until we finish the course (Php 1:6). As the writer of Hebrews says, Jesus is not only the author of our faith, He is also the finisher of it (Heb 12:2). We believed and continue believing with the faith of Jesus which was granted to us at regeneration and continues with us until we cross the finish line (I further consider the source of our faith in my article The Faith of Jesus).
If you have been born according to the will of God, you can rest assured that you will also be granted the faith to overcome whatever the world may throw at you. Jesus said: “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). In what sense does Christ’s victory over the world give us reason to be cheerful? Because we have been born again with Christ’s own overcoming resurrection life, and it is His life in us that keeps us. John says:
“We know that no one who is born of God sins (present tense, “practices sin”); but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him.” (1 John 5:18 NASB)
The reason why those who are born of God overcome is because Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who is Himself the Overcomer, keeps us. As an aside, John is not saying here that we do not sin. That would be in contradiction to what he previously said in the first chapter (1Jn 1:8,10). The present tense of the word rendered “sin” (ἁμαρτάνω), speaks of a continual practice of sin. Although rather wordy, I like the Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest’s translation of 1John 5:18. It reads:
“We know absolutely that everyone who has been born of God and as a result is a regenerated individual does not keep on habitually sinning. But He who was born of God maintains a watchful guardianship over him, and the Pernicious One does not lay hold of him.”
As Peter also says, our God who caused us to be born again through His mercy unto an incorruptible inheritance, will also keep us by His power until the end:
“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, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (1 Pe 1:3–5).
As Peter would certainly testify, being kept by the power of God does not mean that we will never stumble, considering that he denied his Lord three times in the worst imaginable way. As James said: “we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). In what sense then did Jesus keep Peter? He interceded for him in order that his faith would not fail in spite of his bitter failure (Lu 22:32). The author and finisher of our faith is with us until the end: all those whom He makes alive He keeps by His power. Jesus said of His sheep:
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.” (Jn 10:28–29)
As His sheep we overcome, not because of our own ability to care for ourselves, but because we are under the watchful care of the Good Shepherd. Those who have been born of God overcome because they are kept by Christ, the Shepherd of our souls.
We are living under the New Covenant of promise in which God has given us a new heart and put a new spirit within us through regeneration, causing us to walk in His ways, something no one, except for Christ Himself, was ever able to do under the Old Covenant Law (Ezek 36:26-27).
Understanding the Exhortations to Overcome in Revelation
I believe that, armed with the knowledge that everyone who has been born of God will overcome, it becomes possible for us to correctly apply the exhortations to overcome which were given by Jesus in Revelation chapters 2 through 3. Seven times Jesus held out promises to those who overcome. They are as follows:
1) “To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev 2:7).
2) “He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” (Rev 2:11)
3) “To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it” (Rev 2:17).
4) “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).
5) “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels” (Rev 3:5).
6) “He who overcomes I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name” (Rev 3:12).
7) “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev 3:21).
We know from 1John 5 that if we are born again believers, we are overcomers, and therefore each of these promises are sure to be fulfilled for us. So, the question to be answered is, why does Jesus precede each promise saying: “To him who overcomes?”
I believe that the answer to this question lies in the fact that, just as in the churches today, not all of those who were being addressed in the letters to the seven churches were born again believers. Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice (Jn 10:27). Yet Jesus had to say to each one of the seven churches, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” This presupposes that some within each of the seven churches were not yet of His sheep and therefore couldn’t hear His voice. Before being made alive in Christ we did not have ears to hear God: we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1-2). Jesus said: “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3). Being spiritually dead, we had neither eyes to see, nor ears to hear, the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God.
Jesus even said to the church at Sardis that, as a whole, they had a name that they were alive, but they were dead. He said that there were only a few in the church of Sardis who would walk with Him in white (Rev 3:4).
Can One’s Name be blotted out of the Book of Life?
Jesus also promised in Revelation 3:5 that He would never blot their names from the Book of Life. This has led some to conclude that one’s name could be written in the Book of Life, only to be blotted out later. However, as I point out in my article, The Book of Life, once one has been made alive and believed on Christ, they are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13-14). As those born of God, they already possess His imperishable life (John 5:24). Jesus said of those who believe:
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.” (Jn 10:28–29)
This being true, the regenerate overcomers could never have their names blotted out of the Book of Life. But why would Jesus say this if it weren’t a possibility? For me, the key to understanding this promise is found in the cultural context of that time. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) says the following about the secular and cultural significance of the term, book of life:
“Book of Life: The phrase is derived from the custom of the ancients of keeping genealogical records (Neh 7:5,64; 12:22-23) and of enrolling citizens for various purposes (Jer 22:30; Ezek 13:9).” [1]
Merrill Unger’s Complete Expository Dictionary says the same concerning the use of this term. Under the heading, The Book of Life, it says that it was: “a figurative expression taken from the custom of registering citizens in a society or maintaining genealogical records.”
Just as Adolf Hitler often expunged all public records which showed that his enemies had ever existed, believers in the time of persecution under the Roman Empire were in danger of having their names blotted out of the government’s public records, or their book of life. I believe that Jesus was reassuring those undergoing persecution that He would never do what their own governing authorities threatened to do to them if they didn’t renounce their faith in Christ.
In Revelation 3:5 Jesus uses the double emphatic negative οὐ μὴ. He literally said: “I will most certainly not (οὐ μὴ) blot out his name from the Book of Life.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen that everyone who has been born of God has been granted a living faith in Christ which makes us overcomers. Upon believing, we were sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13-14). God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Php 1:6).
[1] International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Book of Life
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
What is the Book of Life? While little is said in the Bible about the Book of Life, it is of utmost importance that our names appear in it, since only those who are written in the Book of Life are granted entrance into the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:27).
Another important question to answer from Scripture is, when is one’s name written in the Book of Life? Is it written the moment one believes and is regenerated, or were all the names already written down from eternity before the foundation of the world, as Calvinists affirm? If in fact all the names were already written before creation, that would present an insurmountable problem for those like myself who believe in the final restoration of all, since not everyone’s name is presently in the Book of Life.
Still another important question to answer is, when is the point after which no more names will be added to the Book of Life? Is the cutoff point when one’s heart stops beating? Is it at the Great White Throne Judgment, or will names continue being added until everyone has finally been made alive and written in the book? These are some of the questions that I hope to provide answers to from Scripture in this article.
The Book of Life is Not the Book of the Living
The book of the living contains all those alive upon the earth at any given time. When one is conceived, their names are written in the book of the living. When they die, they are said to be erased from the book of the living. David said of his enemies who sought to kill him:
“Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous.” (Ps 69:28).
Here David was asking that those who sought his life be removed from the land of the living. Note that even the unjust are in the book of the living until they are blotted out upon dying. Furthermore, as I hope to demonstrate, when he asked that they not be “written with the righteous” he was referring to nothing other than that which the New Testament calls the Book of Life. While everyone on earth is in the book of the living, only those who are justified by faith are said to have their names written in heaven (Lu 10:20).
I believe that the book of the living is what Moses was referring to when he interceded on behalf of the children of Israel after they had worshipped the golden calf. He said:
“Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written” (Ex 32:32).
Clearly, Moses was not asking God to eternally exclude him from the righteous and his heavenly inheritance, as some have supposed. Rather, He was saying: “If you will not forgive their transgression, then take my life instead of them.” He was offering his life for their lives. God responded by saying: “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book” (v.33).
God had just told Moses before coming down from Sinai that anyone who sacrificed to any other god was to be put to death, so Moses knew that idolatry carried the death penalty under the Law that he had just received (Ex 22:20). Moses was asking that the children of Israel be pardoned from the death penalty as prescribed by the Law.
Only Believers are written in Heaven
While everyone is written in the book of the living (ζωντων) from conception to the grave, not everyone is written in the Book of Life (ζωῆ). Paul makes this clear when addressing the believers in Philippi:
“And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life (ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς).” (Php 4:3)
In referring to some whose names were in the Book of Life, it becomes clear that others are not in the Book of Life. Likewise, Jesus said to the seventy disciples whom He sent to proclaim the gospel after they returned in amazement because the demons were subject to them:
“Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” (Lk 10:20)
Knowing that our names are written in heaven is cause for rejoicing because we are “written with the righteous” in the Book of Life and not merely in the book of the living (cf. Ps 69:28).
When were our Names Written in the Book of Life?
Calvinists would say that no one’s name has actually ever been written in the Book of Life – that the names contained in the Book of Life have been there from eternity, before the foundation of the world. As one can see in my book, The Universal Solution, I am in agreement with Calvinists on many points. I can understand how they might come to this conclusion based upon the fact that the elect are said to have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world (πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” (Eph 1:4)
“who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων).” (2 Ti 1:9)
The preposition πρὸ (pro), when used in a temporal sense, always means “before or prior to.” So clearly, the elect firstfruits of this age were chosen in eternity before time, before the foundation of the world (for a consideration of how God chooses the elect and His purpose for the elect see my article: Who are the Elect of God?).
However, it doesn’t logically follow that those whom God chose from eternity were literally eternally written in the Book of Life. No matter how metaphorically one might understand the Book of Life, to be “eternally written” is an oxymoron. Writing is a verb of sequential action, and a book is a created thing. Just as we wouldn’t say that God created before time, the act of writing something must take place in time.
In Revelation 17:8, while not indicating the precise point in time when one’s name is written in the Book of Life, we nevertheless see they are written after the foundation of the world, not before. It reads:
“And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from (ἀπό) the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” (Rev 17:8)
While the elect are chosen in Christ before (πρὸ) the foundation of the world, the elect are not written in the Book of Life until some point in time between Genesis and the present - from (ἀπό, apó) the foundation of the world. While the temporal use of the preposition πρὸ always means “prior to or before,” the preposition ἀπό always means “subsequent to” as expressed by words like “from” or “since.”
In spite of this, apparently influenced by Calvinistic presuppositions, a few authors of modern paraphrased versions of the Bible took the liberty to render Revelation 17:8 according to their own preconceived beliefs. The Contemporary English Version renders it, “before the time of creation”; The Living Bible, “before the world began”; New Living Translation, “before the world was made” and Today’s English Version, “before the creation of the world.”
However, these same paraphrases render all other similar prepositional phrases with ἀπό properly as “from or since” for obvious reasons. Here are a couple of examples of other verses which use the same phrase:
“whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since (ἀπό) the world began.” (Acts 3:21)
Obviously, it would have been impossible for the prophets to have spoken of the universal restoration before the world began since they weren’t even in existence. Luke 11:49 is another instance where the same phrase must be understood as “from or since” for obvious reasons:
“I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from (ἀπό) the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.” (Lk 11:49–51)
Here, “from the foundation of the world” is clearly referring to the blood of the prophets shed after the foundation of the world from the first martyr, Abel, to Zechariah, who was the last martyr recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, in all of the nearly 650 times ἀπό appears in the New Testament, not once could it be rendered “before,” as many Calvinists and these paraphrases render Revelation 17:8.
Therefore, we must conclude that all the names which are written in the Book of Life were written subsequent to the foundation of the world. Although the Scriptures do not specifically indicate at what point one’s name is actually written in the Book of Life, I believe that we can deduce from Scriptures that one’s name is written in the Book of Life the moment they are regenerated and justified by faith.
Written with the Righteous
As I stated earlier, I believe that when David asked that his enemies not be “written with the righteous” (Psa 69:28), it is the first allusion we see to the Book of Life. When Abraham believed God and it was reckoned or imputed to him (λογίζομαι, logizomai) for righteousness, I believe that was the moment when his name was written in the Book of Life. In the context of justification, as with Abraham’s faith being imputed to him for righteousness, λογίζομαι is a forensic accounting term in which one is put on the divine record as being righteous.
Sealed with the Holy Spirit upon Believing
In addition to having Christ’s righteousness imputed to us upon believing, we see that we are also sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise:
“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” (Eph 1:13–14)
The moment we heard the gospel and trusted in Christ we were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise until the day of our redemption, as His purchased possession, (i.e. until the day Christ comes for us). It is reasonable to conclude that our names were written in the Book of Life the moment we were sealed with the Holy Spirit. Prior to that, we were still dead in our sins and were not among the redeemed.
Written in the Book of Life upon being Regenerated
It is logical to assume that we are written in the Book of Life the moment we were made alive spiritually and believed. 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.” (Jn 5:24)
In Ephesians 2:4 Paul said that, when we were dead in trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ. I believe that we were written in the Book of Life the moment we passed from death into life, not before.
We were written in the Book of Life when We became Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven
While we, as the elect firstfruits of this age, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, we did not become citizens of the kingdom of heaven until we believed and were born again (Jn 3:5). Now being the regenerate sons of God, we are heavenly citizens and our names have been written in heaven. As Paul said:
“He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.” (Col 1:13)
“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Php 3:20)
It is only reasonable to conclude that our names were not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life in heaven prior to actually becoming citizens of heaven. In order to be written in the Book of Life we must first be made alive, justified by faith, having been written with the righteous, thereby becoming citizens of heaven.
However, God’s redemption story does not end with us. The time is coming when every knee will have bowed, and every tongue confessed Jesus Christ as Lord.
In the Consummation of the Ages All will have had their Names written in the Book of Life
At the Great White Throne Judgment all whose names do not appear in the Book of Life will be cast into the purifying Lake of Fire to undergo the second death (Rev 20:12-15). While the gates of the New Jerusalem will always be open, nothing unclean will enter. Only those whose names are written in the Book of Life will be able to enter (Rev 21:25-27).
However, the elect of this age are only the firstfruits of God’s new creation in which all will be made new (James 1:18; Rev 21:5). As the author of Hebrews says, we who are presently heavenly citizens are only the firstborn:
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn (firstborn ones) who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect.” (Heb 12:22–23)
The residue of men (the rest of mankind) are yet to enter into the kingdom, resulting in all being subject to Christ and God becoming all in all (Acts 15:16-17; Heb 2:8-9; 1Cor 15:28). In the consummation of the ages all will have been made alive, having their names written in the Lamb’s Book of life. What a glorious consummation!
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order.” (1 Cor 15:22–23a)
What is the Book of Life? While little is said in the Bible about the Book of Life, it is of utmost importance that our names appear in it, since only those who are written in the Book of Life are granted entrance into the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:27).
Another important question to answer from Scripture is, when is one’s name written in the Book of Life? Is it written the moment one believes and is regenerated, or were all the names already written down from eternity before the foundation of the world, as Calvinists affirm? If in fact all the names were already written before creation, that would present an insurmountable problem for those like myself who believe in the final restoration of all, since not everyone’s name is presently in the Book of Life.
Still another important question to answer is, when is the point after which no more names will be added to the Book of Life? Is the cutoff point when one’s heart stops beating? Is it at the Great White Throne Judgment, or will names continue being added until everyone has finally been made alive and written in the book? These are some of the questions that I hope to provide answers to from Scripture in this article.
The Book of Life is Not the Book of the Living
The book of the living contains all those alive upon the earth at any given time. When one is conceived, their names are written in the book of the living. When they die, they are said to be erased from the book of the living. David said of his enemies who sought to kill him:
“Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous.” (Ps 69:28).
Here David was asking that those who sought his life be removed from the land of the living. Note that even the unjust are in the book of the living until they are blotted out upon dying. Furthermore, as I hope to demonstrate, when he asked that they not be “written with the righteous” he was referring to nothing other than that which the New Testament calls the Book of Life. While everyone on earth is in the book of the living, only those who are justified by faith are said to have their names written in heaven (Lu 10:20).
I believe that the book of the living is what Moses was referring to when he interceded on behalf of the children of Israel after they had worshipped the golden calf. He said:
“Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written” (Ex 32:32).
Clearly, Moses was not asking God to eternally exclude him from the righteous and his heavenly inheritance, as some have supposed. Rather, He was saying: “If you will not forgive their transgression, then take my life instead of them.” He was offering his life for their lives. God responded by saying: “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book” (v.33).
God had just told Moses before coming down from Sinai that anyone who sacrificed to any other god was to be put to death, so Moses knew that idolatry carried the death penalty under the Law that he had just received (Ex 22:20). Moses was asking that the children of Israel be pardoned from the death penalty as prescribed by the Law.
Only Believers are written in Heaven
While everyone is written in the book of the living (ζωντων) from conception to the grave, not everyone is written in the Book of Life (ζωῆ). Paul makes this clear when addressing the believers in Philippi:
“And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life (ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς).” (Php 4:3)
In referring to some whose names were in the Book of Life, it becomes clear that others are not in the Book of Life. Likewise, Jesus said to the seventy disciples whom He sent to proclaim the gospel after they returned in amazement because the demons were subject to them:
“Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” (Lk 10:20)
Knowing that our names are written in heaven is cause for rejoicing because we are “written with the righteous” in the Book of Life and not merely in the book of the living (cf. Ps 69:28).
When were our Names Written in the Book of Life?
Calvinists would say that no one’s name has actually ever been written in the Book of Life – that the names contained in the Book of Life have been there from eternity, before the foundation of the world. As one can see in my book, The Universal Solution, I am in agreement with Calvinists on many points. I can understand how they might come to this conclusion based upon the fact that the elect are said to have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world (πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” (Eph 1:4)
“who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων).” (2 Ti 1:9)
The preposition πρὸ (pro), when used in a temporal sense, always means “before or prior to.” So clearly, the elect firstfruits of this age were chosen in eternity before time, before the foundation of the world (for a consideration of how God chooses the elect and His purpose for the elect see my article: Who are the Elect of God?).
However, it doesn’t logically follow that those whom God chose from eternity were literally eternally written in the Book of Life. No matter how metaphorically one might understand the Book of Life, to be “eternally written” is an oxymoron. Writing is a verb of sequential action, and a book is a created thing. Just as we wouldn’t say that God created before time, the act of writing something must take place in time.
In Revelation 17:8, while not indicating the precise point in time when one’s name is written in the Book of Life, we nevertheless see they are written after the foundation of the world, not before. It reads:
“And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from (ἀπό) the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” (Rev 17:8)
While the elect are chosen in Christ before (πρὸ) the foundation of the world, the elect are not written in the Book of Life until some point in time between Genesis and the present - from (ἀπό, apó) the foundation of the world. While the temporal use of the preposition πρὸ always means “prior to or before,” the preposition ἀπό always means “subsequent to” as expressed by words like “from” or “since.”
In spite of this, apparently influenced by Calvinistic presuppositions, a few authors of modern paraphrased versions of the Bible took the liberty to render Revelation 17:8 according to their own preconceived beliefs. The Contemporary English Version renders it, “before the time of creation”; The Living Bible, “before the world began”; New Living Translation, “before the world was made” and Today’s English Version, “before the creation of the world.”
However, these same paraphrases render all other similar prepositional phrases with ἀπό properly as “from or since” for obvious reasons. Here are a couple of examples of other verses which use the same phrase:
“whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since (ἀπό) the world began.” (Acts 3:21)
Obviously, it would have been impossible for the prophets to have spoken of the universal restoration before the world began since they weren’t even in existence. Luke 11:49 is another instance where the same phrase must be understood as “from or since” for obvious reasons:
“I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from (ἀπό) the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.” (Lk 11:49–51)
Here, “from the foundation of the world” is clearly referring to the blood of the prophets shed after the foundation of the world from the first martyr, Abel, to Zechariah, who was the last martyr recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, in all of the nearly 650 times ἀπό appears in the New Testament, not once could it be rendered “before,” as many Calvinists and these paraphrases render Revelation 17:8.
Therefore, we must conclude that all the names which are written in the Book of Life were written subsequent to the foundation of the world. Although the Scriptures do not specifically indicate at what point one’s name is actually written in the Book of Life, I believe that we can deduce from Scriptures that one’s name is written in the Book of Life the moment they are regenerated and justified by faith.
Written with the Righteous
As I stated earlier, I believe that when David asked that his enemies not be “written with the righteous” (Psa 69:28), it is the first allusion we see to the Book of Life. When Abraham believed God and it was reckoned or imputed to him (λογίζομαι, logizomai) for righteousness, I believe that was the moment when his name was written in the Book of Life. In the context of justification, as with Abraham’s faith being imputed to him for righteousness, λογίζομαι is a forensic accounting term in which one is put on the divine record as being righteous.
Sealed with the Holy Spirit upon Believing
In addition to having Christ’s righteousness imputed to us upon believing, we see that we are also sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise:
“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” (Eph 1:13–14)
The moment we heard the gospel and trusted in Christ we were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise until the day of our redemption, as His purchased possession, (i.e. until the day Christ comes for us). It is reasonable to conclude that our names were written in the Book of Life the moment we were sealed with the Holy Spirit. Prior to that, we were still dead in our sins and were not among the redeemed.
Written in the Book of Life upon being Regenerated
It is logical to assume that we are written in the Book of Life the moment we were made alive spiritually and believed. 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.” (Jn 5:24)
In Ephesians 2:4 Paul said that, when we were dead in trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ. I believe that we were written in the Book of Life the moment we passed from death into life, not before.
We were written in the Book of Life when We became Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven
While we, as the elect firstfruits of this age, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, we did not become citizens of the kingdom of heaven until we believed and were born again (Jn 3:5). Now being the regenerate sons of God, we are heavenly citizens and our names have been written in heaven. As Paul said:
“He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.” (Col 1:13)
“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Php 3:20)
It is only reasonable to conclude that our names were not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life in heaven prior to actually becoming citizens of heaven. In order to be written in the Book of Life we must first be made alive, justified by faith, having been written with the righteous, thereby becoming citizens of heaven.
However, God’s redemption story does not end with us. The time is coming when every knee will have bowed, and every tongue confessed Jesus Christ as Lord.
In the Consummation of the Ages All will have had their Names written in the Book of Life
At the Great White Throne Judgment all whose names do not appear in the Book of Life will be cast into the purifying Lake of Fire to undergo the second death (Rev 20:12-15). While the gates of the New Jerusalem will always be open, nothing unclean will enter. Only those whose names are written in the Book of Life will be able to enter (Rev 21:25-27).
However, the elect of this age are only the firstfruits of God’s new creation in which all will be made new (James 1:18; Rev 21:5). As the author of Hebrews says, we who are presently heavenly citizens are only the firstborn:
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn (firstborn ones) who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect.” (Heb 12:22–23)
The residue of men (the rest of mankind) are yet to enter into the kingdom, resulting in all being subject to Christ and God becoming all in all (Acts 15:16-17; Heb 2:8-9; 1Cor 15:28). In the consummation of the ages all will have been made alive, having their names written in the Lamb’s Book of life. What a glorious consummation!
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order.” (1 Cor 15:22–23a)
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
No one would contest the fact that the gospel is a proclamation. Furthermore, it is a proclamation of good news for all people and not merely for the elect of this age (Luke 2:10 ; 1Tim 4:10).
However, from the moment Carlton Pearson’s book, “The Gospel of Inclusion” was published in 2007, in which he claimed that everyone was already saved at the cross 2000 years ago, an ever-increasing number of Inclusive Universalists have been claiming that, by definition, a proclamation excludes any requirement for a positive response on the part of those who hear it. One Inclusivist author, arguing that a proclamation cannot at the same time be an invitation, said:
“An invitation is a thoughtful gesture and whoever makes the invitation awaits your response. A proclamation, on the other hand, is an announcement. It’s a declaration. Our response is neither solicited nor is it needed. It just ‘is what it is!’” [1]
But is it true that the gospel proclamation is not also an invitation requiring a response? When Jesus gave the parable of the king who prepared a wedding feast and sent his servants to invite the guests saying: "I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding,” was it not both a proclamation and an invitation requiring a positive response? (Matt 22:1-4). Similarly, we see that the proclamation of the gospel requires a response. When Jesus commissioned His disciples to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth He said:
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel (κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “proclaim the gospel”) to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Jesus couldn’t have made it any clearer than He does here that the gospel is both a declaration and an invitation requiring a positive response. Those who positively respond in faith to the proclamation of the gospel will be saved, but those who reject the gospel will face judgment for their sins. Did the disciples understand Jesus as saying that the gospel was a proclamation requiring a positive response? Yes. On the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed the gospel to the multitudes. Upon hearing Peter, they were cut to the heart and asked: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Did he say: “Nothing, your sins were already forgiven at the cross?” No. Peter called upon them to appropriately respond to the proclamation of the gospel in order to be saved, just as Jesus had instructed them to do:
“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)
We see that the great commission is the pattern consistently followed by the Apostles. The second time that Acts records Peter proclaiming the gospel we also see that the proclamation requires a positive response in order to receive the provision of forgiveness obtained by Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice for our sins:
“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” (Acts 3:19)
When Peter spoke to those who came together to hear him in the home of Cornelius, he repeated the great commission of Mark 16:15-16, saying:
“And He (Jesus) commanded us to preach (κηρύσσω proclaim) to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:42-43)
So, we see that throughout the book of Acts the proclamation of the gospel is always followed up by a call to repent and believe the gospel in order to receive the remission of sins, rather than it being a proclamation which neither solicits nor requires a response in order to receive or appropriate the provision obtained at the cross.
Coming to the epistles, we see the same pattern in Paul’s proclamation of the gospel. Paul emphasizes the imperative of proclaiming the gospel in order that those who haven’t yet heard may believe in their heart and be saved. Paul says:
"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach < κηρύσσω proclaim>): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation… 13 For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher (κηρύσσοντος, ‘a proclaimer’)?” (Rom 10:8-10,13-14)
So, rather than all having been saved at the cross without the need to positively respond to the gospel, as the late Carlton Pearson first claimed in his book, The Gospel of Inclusion, one must call upon the Lord, believing the gospel in one’s heart in order to be saved. In fact, rather than Paul saying that everyone is already saved, he said that he became all things to all people that he might by all means save some (1Cor 9:22).
In “Come Sunday,” the biographical Netflix movie of Carlton Pearson, we see how Oral Roberts, who was like a spiritual father to him, confronted Carlton after he came out publicly in his church of 6,000 members, saying that he had had an epiphany in which God showed him that everyone was already saved and there is no hell. Oral Roberts told him that he needed to immediately recant his position and preach the next Sunday from Romans 10:9-10 which clearly shows that one must believe the gospel in order to be saved.
Come Sunday when he got up to speak, he started out by saying that he had been told to preach from Romans 10:9-10, but then, after a pause, he called upon his co-pastor to come up and read aloud 1John 2:1-2 which says that Christ is the propitiation, not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world, as if that would negate Romans 10:9-10 rather than 1John 2:2 being qualified by it. Indeed, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and eventually every knee will have bowed, and every tongue confessed Jesus Christ as Lord. However, as Romans 10 makes clear, one is not saved apart from hearing and positively responding in faith to the proclamation of the gospel, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord.
While eventually all shall be saved, the ”Gospel of Inclusion” which claims that everyone is already saved apart from any response on the part of unrepentant sinners is a false gospel which deceives many, leading them to believe that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of heaven, contrary to Scripture (1Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21). The ”Gospel of Inclusion” is a new “gospel” which originated with the so-called epiphany of Carlton Pearson only a few years ago. It is not the gospel of Scripture, nor was it the gospel of the Early Church Fathers who taught the final restoration of all. We need to proclaim the true gospel and call upon all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel unto salvation, rather than telling them that they are already saved. As Paul said to the Philippian jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved, he responded saying: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. (Acts 16:31)
*************************
“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor 5:20-21).
[1] https://www.philhenrypowergospel.org/is-the-gospel-an-invitation-or-a-proclamation/
No one would contest the fact that the gospel is a proclamation. Furthermore, it is a proclamation of good news for all people and not merely for the elect of this age (Luke 2:10 ; 1Tim 4:10).
However, from the moment Carlton Pearson’s book, “The Gospel of Inclusion” was published in 2007, in which he claimed that everyone was already saved at the cross 2000 years ago, an ever-increasing number of Inclusive Universalists have been claiming that, by definition, a proclamation excludes any requirement for a positive response on the part of those who hear it. One Inclusivist author, arguing that a proclamation cannot at the same time be an invitation, said:
“An invitation is a thoughtful gesture and whoever makes the invitation awaits your response. A proclamation, on the other hand, is an announcement. It’s a declaration. Our response is neither solicited nor is it needed. It just ‘is what it is!’” [1]
But is it true that the gospel proclamation is not also an invitation requiring a response? When Jesus gave the parable of the king who prepared a wedding feast and sent his servants to invite the guests saying: "I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding,” was it not both a proclamation and an invitation requiring a positive response? (Matt 22:1-4). Similarly, we see that the proclamation of the gospel requires a response. When Jesus commissioned His disciples to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth He said:
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel (κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “proclaim the gospel”) to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Jesus couldn’t have made it any clearer than He does here that the gospel is both a declaration and an invitation requiring a positive response. Those who positively respond in faith to the proclamation of the gospel will be saved, but those who reject the gospel will face judgment for their sins. Did the disciples understand Jesus as saying that the gospel was a proclamation requiring a positive response? Yes. On the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed the gospel to the multitudes. Upon hearing Peter, they were cut to the heart and asked: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Did he say: “Nothing, your sins were already forgiven at the cross?” No. Peter called upon them to appropriately respond to the proclamation of the gospel in order to be saved, just as Jesus had instructed them to do:
“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)
We see that the great commission is the pattern consistently followed by the Apostles. The second time that Acts records Peter proclaiming the gospel we also see that the proclamation requires a positive response in order to receive the provision of forgiveness obtained by Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice for our sins:
“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” (Acts 3:19)
When Peter spoke to those who came together to hear him in the home of Cornelius, he repeated the great commission of Mark 16:15-16, saying:
“And He (Jesus) commanded us to preach (κηρύσσω proclaim) to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:42-43)
So, we see that throughout the book of Acts the proclamation of the gospel is always followed up by a call to repent and believe the gospel in order to receive the remission of sins, rather than it being a proclamation which neither solicits nor requires a response in order to receive or appropriate the provision obtained at the cross.
Coming to the epistles, we see the same pattern in Paul’s proclamation of the gospel. Paul emphasizes the imperative of proclaiming the gospel in order that those who haven’t yet heard may believe in their heart and be saved. Paul says:
"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach < κηρύσσω proclaim>): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation… 13 For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher (κηρύσσοντος, ‘a proclaimer’)?” (Rom 10:8-10,13-14)
So, rather than all having been saved at the cross without the need to positively respond to the gospel, as the late Carlton Pearson first claimed in his book, The Gospel of Inclusion, one must call upon the Lord, believing the gospel in one’s heart in order to be saved. In fact, rather than Paul saying that everyone is already saved, he said that he became all things to all people that he might by all means save some (1Cor 9:22).
In “Come Sunday,” the biographical Netflix movie of Carlton Pearson, we see how Oral Roberts, who was like a spiritual father to him, confronted Carlton after he came out publicly in his church of 6,000 members, saying that he had had an epiphany in which God showed him that everyone was already saved and there is no hell. Oral Roberts told him that he needed to immediately recant his position and preach the next Sunday from Romans 10:9-10 which clearly shows that one must believe the gospel in order to be saved.
Come Sunday when he got up to speak, he started out by saying that he had been told to preach from Romans 10:9-10, but then, after a pause, he called upon his co-pastor to come up and read aloud 1John 2:1-2 which says that Christ is the propitiation, not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world, as if that would negate Romans 10:9-10 rather than 1John 2:2 being qualified by it. Indeed, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and eventually every knee will have bowed, and every tongue confessed Jesus Christ as Lord. However, as Romans 10 makes clear, one is not saved apart from hearing and positively responding in faith to the proclamation of the gospel, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord.
While eventually all shall be saved, the ”Gospel of Inclusion” which claims that everyone is already saved apart from any response on the part of unrepentant sinners is a false gospel which deceives many, leading them to believe that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of heaven, contrary to Scripture (1Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21). The ”Gospel of Inclusion” is a new “gospel” which originated with the so-called epiphany of Carlton Pearson only a few years ago. It is not the gospel of Scripture, nor was it the gospel of the Early Church Fathers who taught the final restoration of all. We need to proclaim the true gospel and call upon all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel unto salvation, rather than telling them that they are already saved. As Paul said to the Philippian jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved, he responded saying: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. (Acts 16:31)
*************************
“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor 5:20-21).
[1] https://www.philhenrypowergospel.org/is-the-gospel-an-invitation-or-a-proclamation/
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Ways of God.
The role of women as set forth in the New Testament has often been misapplied or entirely rejected as culturally irrelevant or even misogynistic. In my book, The Ways of God I dedicate a whole section to the role of women in both the Old and New Testaments, in which I seek to demonstrate that, rightly understood and applied, God has been progressively restoring the women’s role in relationship to men to what it was originally designed to be before the fall in Eden. In this section I examine seven primary passages concerning the women’s role in relationship to men in the New Testament which have often been greatly misunderstood.
Wives submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (Eph 5:22-33)
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 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. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (Eph 5:22-33)
Paul here exhorts the wives to submit to their own husbands just as they would submit to the Lord. In an increasingly feminist and egalitarian society, such a command is normally dismissed offhand as being archaic patriarchy. Many see it as something which would lead to a reversal of all the progress that has been made during the last century towards freeing women from the oppression of abusive dominating males. However, rightly understood and applied, I believe that the marital relationship prescribed in this passage is the way back to the harmonious, complementary relationship which Adam and Eve enjoyed in the beginning before the fall.
As we saw earlier, the fall resulted in a disruption of this harmonious relationship between husband and wife. In Eden, Eve, having been formed from Adam’s side, naturally followed his loving leadership in a harmonious, loving relationship. But with the entrance of sin with its pride and selfish ambition, this harmonious, complementary relationship became a conflictive power struggle which still prevails to this day, just as the Lord told Eve it would. He said to her: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16).
I believe that the New Living Translation expresses well the truth being communicated in this verse when it says: “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” This is a description of the typical dysfunctional marriage in which either the woman manipulates and controls a cohibited, browbeaten husband, or else a domineering man, taking advantage of his physical strength and established social norms, imposes his will upon his wife without giving due consideration to her needs and desires.
I am convinced that the Ephesians five model is the only way that the marriage relationship can be restored to the harmonious complementary relationship which God intended from the beginning. In this relationship the husband lovingly leads with a self-giving love comparable to Christ’s love for the Church as demonstrated upon the cross - a love which cares for his wife as one would care for his own body. In turn, the wife willingly submits to her husband’s loving leadership.
Many today insist upon an egalitarian marriage in which both equally head up the relationship. However, a two-headed body inevitably leads to conflict and a lack of any real direction. Some say that neither the husband nor the wife should be the head. However, a headless relationship goes nowhere. Any unit without a head, whether it be an army, government, association, corporation, church or marriage, is doomed to failure. God is a God of order. His angels are organized with archangels, principalities and powers who govern over the rest of the angels. Even the devil knew to continue God’s established order with the angels who followed him in the rebellion. Adam and Eve were together given dominion or headship over the earth. There is even headship in the economic relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the trinity (1Cor 11:3). Most of the ills of our society are the result of rebellion against God-ordained leadership, instead of submitting to God and those whom He has designated as authorities in our lives.
Some wives say: “I would submit to my husband if he loved me in the way described in Ephesians five.” Likewise, there are husbands who say: “I would love my wife that way if she were more submissive.” However, in our fallen state there is no perfect relationship and it is almost always one party who alone must initiate change. Sometimes it is the husband who takes the initiative and begins to show unconditional love to his unsubmissive wife, and over time she responds to his love with submission. Quite often it is the wife who, in obedience to the Lord, begins to submit to her husband and he in turn learns to love his wife. The Apostle Peter says:
“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.” (1Peter 3:1-2 NIV)
It is not the husband’s responsibility to obligate his wife to submit to him. That would result in a dictatorship rather than the complementary relationship which God has intended. Neither can a wife make her husband love her by simply telling him he needs to love her. Rather than focusing upon changing our mates, we need to focus upon first changing ourselves. When they consistently see the new you, they will be won over without even a word of criticism on your part.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. (1Tim 2:11-15)
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1Tim 2:11-15)
These instructions, among others which were given to Timothy in order to counter the rise of certain false doctrines and establish order in the church of Ephesus, has been greatly misunderstood and misapplied within the Church over the centuries. As a result, instead of encouraging women to exercise their complimentary gifts in a submissive and edifying manner, the Church in general has sidelined women and stifled their divine giftings which are essential in order for the Church to come to maturity.
In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, written to the same church at Ephesus some years earlier, he told them that “each one” of them (including women) were given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift for the edification of the body of Christ in order that we all (both men and women) as His body, may attain to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Then he says:
“but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ — 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” (Eph 4:15-16)
Nowhere, in all of Scripture is any gift said to be given exclusively to men. Paul exhorts all believers to earnestly desire the gifts – especially the gift of prophecy (1Cor 14:1). It must be kept in mind that prophecy is an utterance gift and is more than simply foretelling future events. It may include a declaration concerning the future, but it simply means to speak forth the rhema (or speaking) word of God as His mouthpiece. The Greek word propheteia is a composite word, made up of pro, “forth” and phemi, “to speak.” Paul forbids women from prophesying in an inappropriate manner, just as he does with women who teach (1Cor 11:5), but he clearly desired that all prophesy - including the women, for the edification of the Church and the conviction of sinners (1Cor 14:24-25).
Additionally, we see in Acts 21:9 that Paul recognized Philip the evangelist’s four daughters as prophetesses. Peter also cited Joel 2:28-29 to show that what was taking place on the Day of Pentecost was that which was prophesied, and the prophecy included women:
“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2:17,18 NIV)
Here we see that God, speaking through the prophet Joel, says that both men and women would prophecy. Neither was it something new for a woman to prophesy. In the Old Testament Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, as well as Anna, who declared to all that the baby Jesus was the Savior, were all called prophetesses.
Taking all of this into consideration, we should call into question any interpretation of 1Timothy 2:11-15 which would see it as a blanket statement excluding all women in the body of Christ from ever teaching the written Word of God in the assembly, since he encourages women to prophesy in the assembly and prophesying is not simply expounding upon what God has said, but rather it is a declaring of what God is saying in a given moment. Why would Paul forbid women to teach, saying (as some claim he does) that they are more susceptible to being deceived than men, while at the same time not only allowing, but encouraging women to be God’s mouthpieces, prophesying that which God speaks in their spirit? Is one less susceptible to being deceived while hearing God’s voice in their spirit and prophesying it than seeking to understand and teach the written Word? I think we can all agree that it is more difficult to discern in one’s spirit what God is saying and speak it forth than to interpret and teach the written Word.
Also, we have all been commissioned to preach the good news and make disciples. Are only men commissioned to make disciples? Or are women only allowed to make disciples of women and children? You cannot make disciples without teaching them, so if women cannot teach men then they cannot fully carry out the Great Commission.
The first missionary to evangelize the Indians in the Colombian Amazon Jungle where we are ministering was a woman named Sophia Mueller. She came here by herself and learned each of the tribal tongues, evangelized and discipled thousands of Indians singlehandedly. Although she returned to the United States some 40 years ago, many of the older Indians remember her as the one who led them and their village to the Lord. Was she being disobedient to Paul’s prohibition, or are we misinterpreting Paul’s words in 1Timothy 2:11-15?
“Learn in silence” (1Tim 2:11)
Paul says: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.” Are we to understand by this that a woman cannot speak at all in the assembly? No. Paul encouraged both men and women to sing, cite scripture, pray, prophesy and speak in tongues in the assembly. In 1Corinthians 14 we see that Paul even includes teaching as something that each one is permitted to do as long as it was done in an orderly manner so as to edify:
“How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.” (1Cor 14:26)
We must remember that they met in home churches, much like our informal home groups, in which all were allowed to participate as long as it was done in an orderly fashion so that all were edified. The teaching mentioned here is not necessarily the formal teaching only given by a teacher or elder. All the brethren were encouraged to cite a psalm, give a prophecy or a teaching where one would share truths discovered from the Scriptures. If their insight was erroneous, a recognized teacher or the elder/pastor might gently correct them, just as they were told to judge the prophecies given during the assembly. Some may suppose that “brethren” restricts this passage to men. However, in the New Testament, when the term “brethren” is used referring to believers, it includes both the men and the women. [i]
Understanding this, it is evident that by “silence” Paul does not mean that the woman is not allowed to speak at all in the assembly. In fact, absolute silence is not the idea expressed by this word. The Greek word, hesuchia is defined in Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words as: “tranquility arising from within, causing no disturbance to others.” [ii] In 2Thessalonians 3:11-12 Paul uses the same word, telling those who are busybodies, doing nothing but meddling in other’s business, to work “with quietness.” This is not a command to total silence but to temperate speech which edifies rather than being disruptive during the teaching session.
The word for total silence without speaking at all is sigáo, which is used twice referring to being silent, as opposed to speaking, in 1Corinthians 14. Once it refers to being silent rather than speaking in tongues without an interpretation, and once where they were told to be silent when another is prophesying. In 14:34 it is used with reference to women in the church as well. However, as I hope to demonstrate later, verses 34 and 35 are most probably an interpolation and therefore shouldn’t be considered a part of the original text. Even if one were to conclude that they are a part of the text, the command cannot be referring to absolute silence on the part of the women during the entire church service, since in 11:5 Paul makes reference to women praying and prophesying in their meetings.
So, in 1Timothy 2:11 Paul is simply saying that women are to learn in a submissive manner without being disruptive or contentious. Actually, Paul first addresses the men, telling them that they should maintain an attitude of worship without being contentious and doubting or calling into question what was being taught. Then, in verse 9, he shifts his attention to the women, saying “in like manner also the women…” Just as Paul sent Titus to Crete to “set in order the things that were lacking” in the churches there (Titus 1:5), Paul is here instructing Timothy as to how he is to correct or set in order that which was deficient in the church of Ephesus.
Ephesus was notorious for the great temple of the goddess Artemis (also known as Diana) which boasted of being the temple of 1,000 prostitutes. The worship of Diana in Corinth and also in Ephesus had many temple prostitutes who were also priestesses. This cultic religion was antithetical to the Christian faith in many ways and contributed to the rise of Christian Gnosticism. One of the most notable beliefs, and also relevant to the passage we are considering, is matriarchism - the teaching that women were superior to men and should dominate them. They taught that the woman was formed first and then the man. They also taught that the man and not the woman was deceived and fell into sin. They were similar to the radical feminists of today, but with their own theology or mythology, like we see with Wicca and other forms of feminist witchcraft, which are antagonistic towards men and Christianity.
Wm. Paul Young, the author of the best-seller “The Shack,” in his novel “Eve” comes close to replicating this ancient feminist theology when he presents Adam as being complicit with the serpent in deceiving Eve. According to him, Adam was cast out of Eden, whereas Eve was allowed to stay. However, Adam kept coming to the wall of fire every day, pleading with her to leave Eden to be with him until finally, out of compassion, she left paradise to be with him. [iii] In his book, and also in his lectures concerning its subject matter, he has a not so subtle way of nuancing the Genesis account with a distinct feminist twist. However, God’s design from the beginning is neither machismo nor feminism: It is neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. Such power-struggles are a consequence of the fall. Neither is God’s ideal egalitarianism without headship. God’s design is a complementary relationship in which the woman submits to the man’s loving leadership.
Knowing the cultural context, we can better understand what Paul is actually saying. In verse 11 he is saying that women who are not accustomed to submitting to men or receiving instruction from them were to learn with a quiet, submissive attitude, rather than challenging everything the teacher had to say, as the women who had formerly been under the feminist theology of the priestesses of Artemis would have naturally tended to do. Any man who has attempted to instruct a modern feminist or a witch could readily identify with this situation.
I do not permit a woman to teach (1Tim 2:12)
In verse 12 Paul says: “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Some take this as having a universal application, rather than being a temporary measure directed towards an existing situation in the churches that Paul was overseeing in order to reestablish order in the congregations affected by these domineering feminists. However, “I do not permit” is in the present tense and could well be translated as: “I am not presently permitting women to teach or have authority over men.” We would expect it to have a universal application if he would have said: “It is not permissible…,” or “women are not to…” But in saying, “I am not at present permitting,” he at least implies that it was merely a temporary corrective measure in order to establish order in churches troubled by unsubmissive inordinate women who were taking control of the teaching session to interject their unbiblical beliefs, thereby deauthorizing the men in positions of authority. If it were an established universal norm, there wouldn’t have even been a need for Paul to prescribe it for Timothy, since he would have already known to enforce it.
That is not to say that this correctional measure is not applicable today. If a pastor today has unsubmissive women in his church who are unwilling to receive instruction and continually seek to undermine his pastoral leadership, he may need to apply the same measures that Paul prescribed to Timothy. However, a pastor who does not allow gifted and willing women to teach, even though they have acquired understanding under his teaching with a quiet and submissive spirit, would be stifling their gifting and quenching the Spirit. The only way for the Great Commission to be fulfilled is to make disciples, teaching them. And as soon as the women have been taught or discipled, they in turn should be released to teach or make disciples of others - otherwise the chain of the Great Commission is broken.
Another important consideration in this verse is the meaning of the expression “have authority.” The word in Greek is authentéo rather than the normal word for having authority (exusiadzo). Strong’s defines authentéo as: “to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate.” A virtuous woman may be given a position of authority (exousía) under the headship of her husband or pastor. But recognizing their God given headship over her, she would never independently take upon herself the role which pertains solely to the husband or the pastor. If a woman leads a class under the direction and headship of the pastor, could that be considered dominating or assuming headship? No. What Paul is forbidding here is a woman exercising control over or dominating her husband or pastor.
In verse 13 and 14 Paul explains why it is wrong for a woman to assume the role of headship: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Here we see that man is to be the head of the woman according to divine order because he was formed first. Although equal in essence, God is a God of order, and therefore the woman should not act independently in disregard for her head. He further explains that that was Eve’s mistake. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and her conversation with the serpent reveals that Adam had told her that they had been forbidden to eat of that tree. Therefore, when she partook of the forbidden fruit, she not only acted independently of God’s revealed will, but also acted independently of Adam, who was her God-ordained head. As a result, Eve was deceived into eating of the fruit, whereas Adam was not deceived but willfully sinned against God, apparently out of love for Eve. For this reason, and also due to the fact that he was the head, the original sin that passed on to all mankind is attributed to Adam, rather than to Eve (Rom 5:12).
This twofold explanation given for Paul as to why a woman should not teach or act in a way that would usurp man’s authority in the church is also intended to counter the false teaching of the priestesses of the temple of Diana which taught that the woman was formed first, and that it was the man rather than the woman who was deceived. Much of 1Timothy was directed against false doctrines which were prevalent in Ephesus and it was not directed exclusively against male false teachers. The indefinite pronoun tìs, which is used by Paul to refer to the false teachers, could refer to either men or women.
“…remain in Ephesus that you may charge some (tìs) that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some (tìs), having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk.” (1Tim 1:3-6)
Fables or myths, endless genealogies and idle talk would be more descriptive of the teachings of the priestesses than some false doctrine based upon a misinterpretation of the Scriptures. In all probability, they were women in the congregations with little understanding of the Scriptures and heavily influenced by the mysteries of the cult of Diana, who were continually trying to take control of the teaching sessions in order to interject their strange antibiblical beliefs. I have personally encountered this problem more than once with women who have repeatedly interrupted the teaching sessions in order to give voice to their New Age and occult confusion. I personally believe that this is what Paul was opposed to and not that a godly submissive woman should teach sound doctrine in the assembly.
Saved by childbirth (1Tim 2:15)
“Nevertheless she will be saved in (dia, “through”) (the) childbearing (childbirth) if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1Tim 2:15)
There are numerous interpretations given for this verse. One interpretation is that womankind will be saved or delivered from the restriction of not being able to teach in the congregation by having children and teaching them in the home. However, the salvation being referred to here is from Eve’s transgression and resulting death and condemnation which passed on to all womankind – not the prohibition against teaching. Some would counter that death came through man and not the woman. But the main reason that that is true is because if Adam hadn’t sinned, only Eve would have died, and theoretically God could have given him another woman to reproduce offspring in an unfallen state.
I favor the interpretation held by John Calvin and other Reformers who understood this verse as alluding to Genesis 3:15, where God tells the serpent that Eve’s seed, or Christ, would destroy him and by implication bring salvation and a reversal of the fall. The reference to her “seed” also implies the virgin birth, since a “seed” in the sense of “descendant” is normally only applied to the father’s line (2Tim 2:8; Gal 3:29).
The NKJV translation of 1Timothy 2:15, cited above, was apparently translated with a bias for the former interpretation that women are saved by bearing and rearing children since this verse, interpreted more naturally, supports the interpretation that it refers to salvation “through the Childbirth” rather than “in childbearing” as rendered. The word translated “childbearing,” (tecnogonia) according to Strong’s is “childbirth” rather than “childbearing” which would imply a series of births rather than one birth. According to the context and the noun-form it could mean either. However, since tecnogonia is in the singular form and accompanied by the definite article, the more correct rendering would be “the childbirth.” Also, the preposition dia normally means “through” or “by means of” rather than “in” as the NKJV renders it. Therefore, rather than making it out to say: “she will be saved in childbearing,” we should understand it as saying: “she will be saved through the childbirth.” If we were to ask which childbirth will save Eve along with all womankind, which child naturally comes to mind? Jesus, the promised seed of Eve. There are a few translations which follow this more natural rendering, as we see in the International Standard Version:
“Even though she will be saved through the birth of the Child, if they continue in faith, love and holiness, along with good judgment.” (1Tim 2:15 ISV)
Some argue that it cannot refer to Eve being saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, since “saved” is in the future tense. However, Paul is here including all womankind referring to Eve as their representative head. That is why mid-sentence it changed to plural, saying that she will be saved “if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self control.” The translation GOD’S WORD recognized Paul’s presentation of Eve as representative of all women when it reads:
“However, she and all women will be saved through the birth of the Child, if they lead respectable lives in faith, love, and holiness.” (1Tim 2:15 GOD'S WORD)
Paul here is simply making a universal statement – all women (and of course all men as well) will be saved through the birth of the Child, if they continue in the faith (cf. Rom 11:22; 1Cor 15:1-2).
So, as I understand it, 1Timothy 2:11-14 is a temporary measure, only to be applied when circumstances require it. To me, it in no way excludes mature and godly women from ministering and teaching as long as they are submissive under God ordained headship. The same would be applicable to men who teach and minister in the church. If it had been the men who were contradicting and defying established authority, Paul would no doubt have said something similar to them. In fact, he did just that in verse 8. We all have someone who is our head and it is necessary that we all, whether we be men or women, be submitted to our head.
Let your women keep silent in the churches. (1 Cor 14:34-35)
“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35)
This passage is problematic in many ways. In the first place, it contradicts what Paul says within the epistle itself. In chapter 11 Paul said that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1Cor 11:5). Such a statement would be superfluous if indeed women were required to remain in total silence in the congregational meetings. Also, Paul, just a few verses earlier, told all, without qualifications, to seek the gift of prophesy (14:1). Then, in verse 26 he says that each one, without any limitation as to sex, education or social status, was to participate with psalms, teachings, tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophesy, in order that all may be edified. For Paul to say in the next breath that women were forbidden to speak in the service would be a contradiction to all that Paul had just told them.
Secondly, it says that they were not permitted to speak but were to be submissive “as the law also says.” Not only is any such statement entirely lacking in the law, but we frequently see God using women as prophetesses in the Old Testament. A prophetess speaks for God. It would therefore be impossible for a woman to be silent and at the same time prophesy. Prophetesses, such as Miriam, Huldah, and Deborah were consulted by the men of Israel when they wanted to know the will of God. Deborah even served as judge over Israel, making decisions for the nation of Israel as the Lord directed her (Judges 4:4-5). If Ester had kept silent, her people would have perished. In Revelation Jesus reproved the woman called Jezebel who was teaching in the church of Thyatira, calling upon her to repent of her fornication, but He did not tell her she needed to repent of teaching (Rev 2:21). Likewise, Paul instructed the older women to be “teachers of good things.” (Titus 2:3). Although it is true that one can teach by example, nevertheless Paul is here obviously referring to teaching with words as well, which requires that women speak. Some suppose that “as the law also says” is making reference to Genesis 3:16, but we have seen that the saying, “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you,” is not an expression of God’s design but simply stating that man and woman would not enjoy the same harmonious complementary relationship they had before the fall. Also, Paul never appeals to the Old Covenant Law in order to substantiate New Covenant practice. Quite the contrary, Paul always contrasted the Law with grace.
The third problematic statement is where it says that if the women wanted to learn something, they would have to ask their husbands at home. This would have left many women without anyone to learn from if they had questions. Many of them would have been unmarried or widows without a husband to ask. Many more would have had husbands who were either unbelievers or else ignorant concerning spiritual matters. Additionally, in 1Corinthians 7 Paul says that it would be better for virgins to remain single. Today with Google there would be a way around this problem, but if the only way a woman could get answers to spiritual questions was to ask her husband at home and she was unmarried, where would she go for answers?
Fourthly, the reason given as to why the women should remain silent is: “for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” The word translated “shameful” (aischron) is a very debasing term. The root meaning of aischron and its cognates is “shameful, vile, filthy, vulgar or base.” This is out of keeping with Paul’s high regard for women, demonstrated in so many other passages (Rom 16:1-16; Gal 3:28; 1Tim 1:5 cf. 2Tim 3:14-15).
Indicators that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation
Many noble attempts have been made to try to address these problems with verses 34 and 35, but they all either ignore other portions of Scripture or assume that which is not clearly stated in the context. There are several factors which indicate that these two verses were most probably not originally part of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
1) Manuscript evidence suggests that it is an interpolation.
An interpolation consists of words or phrases which were not initially a part of the original Greek text but were inserted by the scribes who copied it. While they are very rare in the New Testament and do not affect any major Christian doctrine, all textual scholars acknowledge their existence. All copies of the Bible prior to the mid fifteenth century were manuscripts, which means that they were hand-written by scribes who made copies of the older manuscripts before they became illegible. It is inevitable that some spelling errors be made in this process, and since a master scribe would often read the text aloud while several copied at the same time, some notes in the margins of the older manuscripts inadvertently became a part of the text in the new copies.
This, however, should in no way diminish our full confidence in the Greek texts which translators use today to make our translations. While there are some differences in the extant Greek manuscripts, we now have more than 5,700 of them, dating as far back as the second century. Some of them are from the east and some from the west, with more being discovered every year by archeologists. By making a careful comparison of all extant manuscripts, textual scholars assure us that the Greek text we now have in our possession is more than 99% identical to the original manuscripts.
The recent discoveries of older manuscripts have helped textual scholars discover and eliminate some later interpolations or additions to the original text. That is why your newer version of the Bible may not have some of the phrases or verses included in the older versions. For example:
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” (Matt 17:21 KJV)
“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:44 KJV)
“For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” (Mark 9:49 KJV)
“Everyone will be salted with fire.” (Mark 9:49 NIV)
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom 8:1 KJV)
“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 8:1 NIV)
These are some examples where more recent scholarship, with earlier and more reliable manuscript evidence available to them, have been able to determine that these phrases were not a part of the original text but were interpolations. Mark 16:9-20 is perhaps one of the longest passages which many consider to be an interpolation since several earlier manuscripts do not contain it. Nevertheless, since there are reasonably good arguments for its validity, all translations include it, although most indicate in the footnote that some earlier manuscripts do not contain it. The NET Bible entitles it: “The Longer Ending of Mark.”
While 1Corinthians 14:34,35, which we are considering, appears in all the Greek manuscripts we presently have, there is reasonable evidence that it was an early interpolation, inserted into the text prior to 175 AD., which is the date of the earliest copy of 1Corinthians which we have available to us. The reason why an increasing number of scholars have concluded that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation is because it doesn’t appear in the same location in all the manuscripts. [iv] Several manuscripts place verses 34 and 35 at the end of the chapter after verse 40, while one sixth century manuscript at verse 33 refers the reader to a footnote which only includes verses 36-40. [v]
This gives us reason to believe that it was an early insertion, possibly from a note in the margin by the owner of the old manuscript being read for copying by the master scribe, as though it were a part of the main body of the old manuscript, which the scribes simply copied as it was being read to them. Many church fathers, rather than holding to the New Testament view of women as presented by Jesus and Paul, reflected the same contempt for women as did much of the rest of the Greco-Roman world at the time. The Greek philosopher Plutarch of Athens said that a woman should feel shame at being heard in public just as she would if she were being stripped naked. [vi] Origin (AD 184 to AD 254), reflects the attitude of his time and culture when he said: “Men should not sit and listen to women…even if she says admirable or even holy things they are of no consequence since they come out of a woman’s mouth.” [vii] In like manner, Saint Augustine (AD 354 to AD 430), whose theology has been carefully followed by most theologians until well after the Reformation, said: “What difference does it make whether it comes from the wife or the mother? In any case it comes from Eve, the temptress, of whom we should be aware of in any woman… I do not see what use the woman would be to the man if it were not for her function of bearing children.” [viii]
Considering the contempt that most men had towards women at that time, it would not be surprising if a cleric, who lacked reverence for God’s Word, would insert the contents of verses 34 and 35 in a side-note of his copy of 1Corinthians in order to include it in his liturgical readings to the congregation. Then later, when his old manuscript was transcribed, the scribe either unwittingly or intentionally included the note in the main text of the new copy.
2) Contextual evidence for concluding that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation.
However, there is another major reason for concluding that verses 34 and 35 were not originally a part of Paul’s epistle. It is placed right in the middle of Paul’s instructions concerning the exercise of the gift of prophecy, thereby interrupting the flow of what Paul was saying. Verse 36 corresponds to what Paul was saying in verse 33 but seems out of place following verse 35, as can be seen:
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor 14:29-40)
Verse 36 logically follows verse 32 rather than verse 35 since it would have been the prophets and not the women who might be tempted to think that they were the only ones receiving revelation from God, discounting all prophetic utterances of others who prophesied and refusing to submit his/her prophetic revelations to the judgment (or scrutiny) of the rest. Also, verse 36 cannot be directed specifically to the women in verses 34 and 35 since in the phrase “to you only” in verse 36, the adjective “only” (monos) is masculine, indicating that in 36 Paul is either speaking to men or to the congregation in general, rather than to women. This is probably one of the reasons why several manuscripts place verses 34 and 35 at the end of the chapter after verse 40.
3) Linguistic evidence indicates that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation.
A final consideration which indicates that verses 34 and 35 were probably not originally a part of 1Corinthians is that, according to some linguistic experts, the vocabulary used in these two verses is not characteristic of the Apostle Paul. [ix]
So, we have seen that, not only are these verses very difficult – if not impossible to adequately interpret in a manner consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture concerning women, but also manuscript variations make it likely that it was an early interpolation. Also, it breaks Paul’s train of thought, which was concerning the orderly operation of the gifts of tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophesy - only to resume where he left off in verse 36. And finally, the vocabulary is not typical of the Apostol Paul.
While all Scripture in its original form was verbally inspired by God, the thousands of extant copies must be carefully scrutinized, eliminating all orthographic errors and interpolations in order to assure that we have a precise, accurate representation of the original text. I realize that not all will agree with the arguments presented here, but they will be left with the option of either ignoring these verses or being left with the daunting task of seeking an interpretation which neither reads too much into the text nor undermines the role of women as seen in the Scriptures and in the very epistle of 1Corinthians itself.
If a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. (1Cor 11:2-16)
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (1Cor 11:2-16)
The conflicting interpretations of this passage has, in my opinion, occasioned much unnecessary division within the body of Christ. Some ignore it all together and are censured by those who insist that we should apply it. Those who attempt to apply it are divided over whether the covering is something artificial, such as a veil or hat, or simply long hair. Some say that it was something strictly cultural, whereas others insist it is a universal biblical requirement, without trying to understand the scriptural motive for prescribing such a measure.
The way some mindlessly apply this dress-code reminds me of those who insist that women only wear long dresses, forbidding entirely their use of pants or shorts - even women’s pants, based upon the prohibition in Deuteronomy:
“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.” (Deut 22:5)
Obviously, this is a prohibition of transvestism or cross-dressing and has nothing to do with pants, dresses or shorts. It is only referring to those who want to be of the opposite sex and dress accordingly. If a man were to put on a woman’s pants or blouse, he could be considered a cross-dresser. On the other hand, if a woman were to dress in a Scottish dress for men, she could potentially be viewed as a transvestite. If a man today were to dress like a man dressed 2,000 years ago, he would probably be considered a transvestite.
What is an abomination before God is rejecting one’s God-given sexuality, and not a woman who simply happens to put on a t-shirt and a pair of Levi’s in order to ride a motorcycle or paint a house. This thoughtless misapplication of dress-codes only serves to divide churches, humiliate women and create man-made hurdles one must leap over in order to become a Christian (cf. Matt 23:13).
I have seen this same thoughtless and harmful application of this passage in 1Corinthians 11:2-16. I have even been in churches where women ushers stand at the door in order to hand out head cloths to any woman who happens to enter without a veil. But rather that it being a symbol of submission to her husband, in our time and culture, it is degrading and humiliating to the women when they are obligated to subject themselves to something so out of place in our time and culture.
They insist that it is a dress-code required of all women universally rather than merely something cultural which no longer applies. However, just as with the prohibition against cross-dressing, we must understand why the covering is being prescribed in order to know how to apply it in our time. In biblical times women often wore pants, especially in colder regions, whereas men normally didn’t. Therefore, the prohibition against cross-dressing would not be applied the same today as when the law was given to Israel.
In the same manner, the enduring underlying principle in 1Corinthians 11 is stated in verse three: “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” We have already seen that, according to God’s design, the wives are called upon to be submissive to their head, the husband, as unto the Lord (Eph 5:22-23). Therefore, anything which would dishonor her husband or defy his headship would be in violation of Paul’s injunction in this passage. However, due to the fact that customs and cultural norms for women’s dress have changed considerably in the last 2,000 years, what would now be dishonoring to one’s head is quite different from what it was at that time. Even today, what would be dishonoring to one’s head in a Muslim country would be for their wife to appear in public without her head and face covered. The same is not true of western countries. In the west it would be dishonoring to the husband if the wife were to refuse to receive his last name, to dress in a sexually provocative way in public or dress like a man. What is universal and enduring is the husband’s headship over the wife – not the way in which the woman must present herself in public in order to avoid dishonoring her husband. With this in mind, we can turn our attention to Paul’s instructions, in an attempt to understand how women were to demonstrate submission, honoring their head in that particular cultural setting.
Verse 4 says: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” This is easier for us to understand since, even today, it is often considered a sign of disrespect towards God for a man to pray with his head covered. Although Aaron, the High Priest, wore a turban with a golden crown with the words “Holiness to the Lord” inscribed upon his forehead (Ex 28:37) and his sons wore bonnets (Ex 29:9), their priestly attire was exclusive of the Aaronic priests while ministering in the temple. Jewish men worshiped in the synagogues without a head covering until the third century, and some speculate that they only began this practice in order to differentiate themselves from the Christian men who worshipped with the head uncovered.
The confusion has to do with what Paul says concerning the woman’s covering. What does Paul mean when he speaks of a woman either having her head covered or else shaving it? (vv.5,6). And if an artificial veil is the covering Paul is referring to, then why does Paul later say that the hair is given to the woman for a covering? (v.15).
Those who argue that Paul is referring to an artificial covering, such as a veil, rather than the woman’s hair serving as a covering, rightly point out that the covering was not necessary all the time, according to Paul, but only had to be used when a woman was praying or prophesying. However, long hair is not something which can be put on or taken off, and therefore “covered” or “uncovered” cannot be referring to long vs. short hair. But those who insist that only a woman’s hair is needed rightly point out that they are ignoring the verse which says that the woman’s hair is given to her for a covering.
I believe that this impasse is due to our lack of understanding of the customs and practices of that time and region. I believe that, building upon what we can reconstruct from the limited information available to us concerning the customs of the Greco-Roman culture of that time, we can see that Paul was actually saying that the hair, properly arranged, eliminated the need for the women to wear an artificial veil.
From what I have been able to reconstruct concerning the customs of that time, respectable women of that time never left the privacy of their homes with their hair hanging down. If for some reason they needed to leave the house without their hair undone, they would cover their head with a veil.
In that culture, normally the only women who wore their hair down without covering it were the prostitutes. However, especially in centers for the worship of the goddess Diana like Corinth and Ephesus, there was a movement similar to our modern women’s liberation movement. Women were deliberately doing things against the established customs in order to show their independence from men. Apparently, one of the things they were doing to defy man’s headship was to let their hair hang loose in public, which was dishonoring to the husband who, according to God’s design, is the head of the woman. This would have been somewhat similar to the practice of many of the women’s liberation movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s of throwing away their bras.
That is why Paul said: “For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on (epi, “upon”) her head, because of the angels.” (v.10). For the woman to let her hair hang down in public was a symbol of autonomy. It conveyed the message that she was subject to no one, including her husband. In contrast, a woman who honored her husband as her head continued in the tradition, having a symbol of authority upon her head. If her hair was properly done up it was a sign to all that she was submissive to her head. If she let her hair down it was a symbol of rebellion against established norms. If she didn’t have time to properly arrange her hair before going to the meeting, she should wear a veil, and the veil should remain in place during the service – especially when she was praying or prophesying, since communion with God is hindered if one is not submitted under His established order.
Paul gives two reasons as to why the woman should have the proper symbol of authority upon her head. First, because it is dishonoring to the husband who is the woman’s head. Secondly, Paul says that it was needed because of the angels. We often forget that the angels continually minister to us and are present with us in our worship services, praising God along with us. God’s angels are all under authority and they are certainly affected when we pray, prophecy or worship with our lips, while our hearts are in rebellion against God’s established authority. Also, Satan’s angels and the demons notice when we are not under God’s umbrella of authority, and a lack of submission on our part gives place to the devil in our lives, our homes and our churches.
When Paul said that a woman who refuses to have a covering dishonors her head as if her head were shaven, he was apparently referring to the Jewish custom of shaving the heads of women caught in adultery, since Roman law forbade stoning them. For them to let their hair hang down in public settings without a veil was as dishonoring to the husband as it would be if her head were shaved for being unfaithful to him.
How are we to apply Paul’s instructions to the women in the Church today? By imposing upon women head coverings or long hair? No. The principle of headship is and enduring part of God’s kingdom, but not wearing a veil, or letting one’s hair hang down, is no longer symbolic of autonomy for the woman – that is, unless some ill-informed husband or pastor makes it an issue. As godly men, we should seek an understanding of God’s ways, instead of mindlessly imposing some dress-code from a bygone era upon our women.
The issue Paul was confronting was women’s defiance of man’s God-given authority. The women of that time symbolically demonstrated their independence by breaking with an established custom: appearing in public with their hair down and unveiled. It was a custom of that time which Paul called upon women to respect. He makes that clear in the conclusion of the matter when he said: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (v.16). Here he makes it clear that the issue of covering was the disregard for a custom. Customs change. He said, “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (v.13). When they looked around them, they would have responded by saying: “No it isn’t proper.” But today, unless we live in Iran or Saudi Arabia, we would look around us and say, “In my judgment it isn’t improper in our culture for a woman to pray or do anything else for that matter, without having her hair done-up or veiled.”
To impose the observance of this ancient custom upon women in the church today would only serve to humiliate women and provoke them to rebel, rather than lovingly submitting as to the Lord. Today a woman would do something quite different if she wished to demonstrate her autonomy. She may dishonor her husband by a hairstyle, tattoo or clothing which would be seen today as a symbol of rebellion. Women know in their hearts whether they are dressing to honor their husbands or to shame them, and so does the husband and all the rest.
[i] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
[ii] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
[iii] Wm. Paul Young. Eve. Simon & Shuster Inc. 2015. Chapters 16-18
[iv] Some Authors defending this view are: Gordon D. Fee. The Epistle to the Corinthians New International Commentary
on the New Testament.
Philip Barton Payne. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.
Anthony Thiselton, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the First Corinthians
Some other scholars holding this view are: Alan F. Johnson, Raymond F. Collins, Simon Kistemaker, Richard Horsley,
[v] Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Revised Edition, edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia, © 1993 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.
[vi] C. K. Barrett, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1968), p.331).
[vii] Origin. Fragments of 1Corinthians
[viii] Augustine, Literal Commentary on Genesis IX.5
[ix] Gordon Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1987), p. 702.
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Ways of God.
The role of women as set forth in the New Testament has often been misapplied or entirely rejected as culturally irrelevant or even misogynistic. In my book, The Ways of God I dedicate a whole section to the role of women in both the Old and New Testaments, in which I seek to demonstrate that, rightly understood and applied, God has been progressively restoring the women’s role in relationship to men to what it was originally designed to be before the fall in Eden. In this section I examine seven primary passages concerning the women’s role in relationship to men in the New Testament which have often been greatly misunderstood.
Wives submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (Eph 5:22-33)
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 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. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (Eph 5:22-33)
Paul here exhorts the wives to submit to their own husbands just as they would submit to the Lord. In an increasingly feminist and egalitarian society, such a command is normally dismissed offhand as being archaic patriarchy. Many see it as something which would lead to a reversal of all the progress that has been made during the last century towards freeing women from the oppression of abusive dominating males. However, rightly understood and applied, I believe that the marital relationship prescribed in this passage is the way back to the harmonious, complementary relationship which Adam and Eve enjoyed in the beginning before the fall.
As we saw earlier, the fall resulted in a disruption of this harmonious relationship between husband and wife. In Eden, Eve, having been formed from Adam’s side, naturally followed his loving leadership in a harmonious, loving relationship. But with the entrance of sin with its pride and selfish ambition, this harmonious, complementary relationship became a conflictive power struggle which still prevails to this day, just as the Lord told Eve it would. He said to her: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16).
I believe that the New Living Translation expresses well the truth being communicated in this verse when it says: “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” This is a description of the typical dysfunctional marriage in which either the woman manipulates and controls a cohibited, browbeaten husband, or else a domineering man, taking advantage of his physical strength and established social norms, imposes his will upon his wife without giving due consideration to her needs and desires.
I am convinced that the Ephesians five model is the only way that the marriage relationship can be restored to the harmonious complementary relationship which God intended from the beginning. In this relationship the husband lovingly leads with a self-giving love comparable to Christ’s love for the Church as demonstrated upon the cross - a love which cares for his wife as one would care for his own body. In turn, the wife willingly submits to her husband’s loving leadership.
Many today insist upon an egalitarian marriage in which both equally head up the relationship. However, a two-headed body inevitably leads to conflict and a lack of any real direction. Some say that neither the husband nor the wife should be the head. However, a headless relationship goes nowhere. Any unit without a head, whether it be an army, government, association, corporation, church or marriage, is doomed to failure. God is a God of order. His angels are organized with archangels, principalities and powers who govern over the rest of the angels. Even the devil knew to continue God’s established order with the angels who followed him in the rebellion. Adam and Eve were together given dominion or headship over the earth. There is even headship in the economic relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the trinity (1Cor 11:3). Most of the ills of our society are the result of rebellion against God-ordained leadership, instead of submitting to God and those whom He has designated as authorities in our lives.
Some wives say: “I would submit to my husband if he loved me in the way described in Ephesians five.” Likewise, there are husbands who say: “I would love my wife that way if she were more submissive.” However, in our fallen state there is no perfect relationship and it is almost always one party who alone must initiate change. Sometimes it is the husband who takes the initiative and begins to show unconditional love to his unsubmissive wife, and over time she responds to his love with submission. Quite often it is the wife who, in obedience to the Lord, begins to submit to her husband and he in turn learns to love his wife. The Apostle Peter says:
“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.” (1Peter 3:1-2 NIV)
It is not the husband’s responsibility to obligate his wife to submit to him. That would result in a dictatorship rather than the complementary relationship which God has intended. Neither can a wife make her husband love her by simply telling him he needs to love her. Rather than focusing upon changing our mates, we need to focus upon first changing ourselves. When they consistently see the new you, they will be won over without even a word of criticism on your part.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. (1Tim 2:11-15)
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1Tim 2:11-15)
These instructions, among others which were given to Timothy in order to counter the rise of certain false doctrines and establish order in the church of Ephesus, has been greatly misunderstood and misapplied within the Church over the centuries. As a result, instead of encouraging women to exercise their complimentary gifts in a submissive and edifying manner, the Church in general has sidelined women and stifled their divine giftings which are essential in order for the Church to come to maturity.
In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, written to the same church at Ephesus some years earlier, he told them that “each one” of them (including women) were given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift for the edification of the body of Christ in order that we all (both men and women) as His body, may attain to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Then he says:
“but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ — 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” (Eph 4:15-16)
Nowhere, in all of Scripture is any gift said to be given exclusively to men. Paul exhorts all believers to earnestly desire the gifts – especially the gift of prophecy (1Cor 14:1). It must be kept in mind that prophecy is an utterance gift and is more than simply foretelling future events. It may include a declaration concerning the future, but it simply means to speak forth the rhema (or speaking) word of God as His mouthpiece. The Greek word propheteia is a composite word, made up of pro, “forth” and phemi, “to speak.” Paul forbids women from prophesying in an inappropriate manner, just as he does with women who teach (1Cor 11:5), but he clearly desired that all prophesy - including the women, for the edification of the Church and the conviction of sinners (1Cor 14:24-25).
Additionally, we see in Acts 21:9 that Paul recognized Philip the evangelist’s four daughters as prophetesses. Peter also cited Joel 2:28-29 to show that what was taking place on the Day of Pentecost was that which was prophesied, and the prophecy included women:
“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2:17,18 NIV)
Here we see that God, speaking through the prophet Joel, says that both men and women would prophecy. Neither was it something new for a woman to prophesy. In the Old Testament Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, as well as Anna, who declared to all that the baby Jesus was the Savior, were all called prophetesses.
Taking all of this into consideration, we should call into question any interpretation of 1Timothy 2:11-15 which would see it as a blanket statement excluding all women in the body of Christ from ever teaching the written Word of God in the assembly, since he encourages women to prophesy in the assembly and prophesying is not simply expounding upon what God has said, but rather it is a declaring of what God is saying in a given moment. Why would Paul forbid women to teach, saying (as some claim he does) that they are more susceptible to being deceived than men, while at the same time not only allowing, but encouraging women to be God’s mouthpieces, prophesying that which God speaks in their spirit? Is one less susceptible to being deceived while hearing God’s voice in their spirit and prophesying it than seeking to understand and teach the written Word? I think we can all agree that it is more difficult to discern in one’s spirit what God is saying and speak it forth than to interpret and teach the written Word.
Also, we have all been commissioned to preach the good news and make disciples. Are only men commissioned to make disciples? Or are women only allowed to make disciples of women and children? You cannot make disciples without teaching them, so if women cannot teach men then they cannot fully carry out the Great Commission.
The first missionary to evangelize the Indians in the Colombian Amazon Jungle where we are ministering was a woman named Sophia Mueller. She came here by herself and learned each of the tribal tongues, evangelized and discipled thousands of Indians singlehandedly. Although she returned to the United States some 40 years ago, many of the older Indians remember her as the one who led them and their village to the Lord. Was she being disobedient to Paul’s prohibition, or are we misinterpreting Paul’s words in 1Timothy 2:11-15?
“Learn in silence” (1Tim 2:11)
Paul says: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.” Are we to understand by this that a woman cannot speak at all in the assembly? No. Paul encouraged both men and women to sing, cite scripture, pray, prophesy and speak in tongues in the assembly. In 1Corinthians 14 we see that Paul even includes teaching as something that each one is permitted to do as long as it was done in an orderly manner so as to edify:
“How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.” (1Cor 14:26)
We must remember that they met in home churches, much like our informal home groups, in which all were allowed to participate as long as it was done in an orderly fashion so that all were edified. The teaching mentioned here is not necessarily the formal teaching only given by a teacher or elder. All the brethren were encouraged to cite a psalm, give a prophecy or a teaching where one would share truths discovered from the Scriptures. If their insight was erroneous, a recognized teacher or the elder/pastor might gently correct them, just as they were told to judge the prophecies given during the assembly. Some may suppose that “brethren” restricts this passage to men. However, in the New Testament, when the term “brethren” is used referring to believers, it includes both the men and the women. [i]
Understanding this, it is evident that by “silence” Paul does not mean that the woman is not allowed to speak at all in the assembly. In fact, absolute silence is not the idea expressed by this word. The Greek word, hesuchia is defined in Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words as: “tranquility arising from within, causing no disturbance to others.” [ii] In 2Thessalonians 3:11-12 Paul uses the same word, telling those who are busybodies, doing nothing but meddling in other’s business, to work “with quietness.” This is not a command to total silence but to temperate speech which edifies rather than being disruptive during the teaching session.
The word for total silence without speaking at all is sigáo, which is used twice referring to being silent, as opposed to speaking, in 1Corinthians 14. Once it refers to being silent rather than speaking in tongues without an interpretation, and once where they were told to be silent when another is prophesying. In 14:34 it is used with reference to women in the church as well. However, as I hope to demonstrate later, verses 34 and 35 are most probably an interpolation and therefore shouldn’t be considered a part of the original text. Even if one were to conclude that they are a part of the text, the command cannot be referring to absolute silence on the part of the women during the entire church service, since in 11:5 Paul makes reference to women praying and prophesying in their meetings.
So, in 1Timothy 2:11 Paul is simply saying that women are to learn in a submissive manner without being disruptive or contentious. Actually, Paul first addresses the men, telling them that they should maintain an attitude of worship without being contentious and doubting or calling into question what was being taught. Then, in verse 9, he shifts his attention to the women, saying “in like manner also the women…” Just as Paul sent Titus to Crete to “set in order the things that were lacking” in the churches there (Titus 1:5), Paul is here instructing Timothy as to how he is to correct or set in order that which was deficient in the church of Ephesus.
Ephesus was notorious for the great temple of the goddess Artemis (also known as Diana) which boasted of being the temple of 1,000 prostitutes. The worship of Diana in Corinth and also in Ephesus had many temple prostitutes who were also priestesses. This cultic religion was antithetical to the Christian faith in many ways and contributed to the rise of Christian Gnosticism. One of the most notable beliefs, and also relevant to the passage we are considering, is matriarchism - the teaching that women were superior to men and should dominate them. They taught that the woman was formed first and then the man. They also taught that the man and not the woman was deceived and fell into sin. They were similar to the radical feminists of today, but with their own theology or mythology, like we see with Wicca and other forms of feminist witchcraft, which are antagonistic towards men and Christianity.
Wm. Paul Young, the author of the best-seller “The Shack,” in his novel “Eve” comes close to replicating this ancient feminist theology when he presents Adam as being complicit with the serpent in deceiving Eve. According to him, Adam was cast out of Eden, whereas Eve was allowed to stay. However, Adam kept coming to the wall of fire every day, pleading with her to leave Eden to be with him until finally, out of compassion, she left paradise to be with him. [iii] In his book, and also in his lectures concerning its subject matter, he has a not so subtle way of nuancing the Genesis account with a distinct feminist twist. However, God’s design from the beginning is neither machismo nor feminism: It is neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. Such power-struggles are a consequence of the fall. Neither is God’s ideal egalitarianism without headship. God’s design is a complementary relationship in which the woman submits to the man’s loving leadership.
Knowing the cultural context, we can better understand what Paul is actually saying. In verse 11 he is saying that women who are not accustomed to submitting to men or receiving instruction from them were to learn with a quiet, submissive attitude, rather than challenging everything the teacher had to say, as the women who had formerly been under the feminist theology of the priestesses of Artemis would have naturally tended to do. Any man who has attempted to instruct a modern feminist or a witch could readily identify with this situation.
I do not permit a woman to teach (1Tim 2:12)
In verse 12 Paul says: “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Some take this as having a universal application, rather than being a temporary measure directed towards an existing situation in the churches that Paul was overseeing in order to reestablish order in the congregations affected by these domineering feminists. However, “I do not permit” is in the present tense and could well be translated as: “I am not presently permitting women to teach or have authority over men.” We would expect it to have a universal application if he would have said: “It is not permissible…,” or “women are not to…” But in saying, “I am not at present permitting,” he at least implies that it was merely a temporary corrective measure in order to establish order in churches troubled by unsubmissive inordinate women who were taking control of the teaching session to interject their unbiblical beliefs, thereby deauthorizing the men in positions of authority. If it were an established universal norm, there wouldn’t have even been a need for Paul to prescribe it for Timothy, since he would have already known to enforce it.
That is not to say that this correctional measure is not applicable today. If a pastor today has unsubmissive women in his church who are unwilling to receive instruction and continually seek to undermine his pastoral leadership, he may need to apply the same measures that Paul prescribed to Timothy. However, a pastor who does not allow gifted and willing women to teach, even though they have acquired understanding under his teaching with a quiet and submissive spirit, would be stifling their gifting and quenching the Spirit. The only way for the Great Commission to be fulfilled is to make disciples, teaching them. And as soon as the women have been taught or discipled, they in turn should be released to teach or make disciples of others - otherwise the chain of the Great Commission is broken.
Another important consideration in this verse is the meaning of the expression “have authority.” The word in Greek is authentéo rather than the normal word for having authority (exusiadzo). Strong’s defines authentéo as: “to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate.” A virtuous woman may be given a position of authority (exousía) under the headship of her husband or pastor. But recognizing their God given headship over her, she would never independently take upon herself the role which pertains solely to the husband or the pastor. If a woman leads a class under the direction and headship of the pastor, could that be considered dominating or assuming headship? No. What Paul is forbidding here is a woman exercising control over or dominating her husband or pastor.
In verse 13 and 14 Paul explains why it is wrong for a woman to assume the role of headship: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Here we see that man is to be the head of the woman according to divine order because he was formed first. Although equal in essence, God is a God of order, and therefore the woman should not act independently in disregard for her head. He further explains that that was Eve’s mistake. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and her conversation with the serpent reveals that Adam had told her that they had been forbidden to eat of that tree. Therefore, when she partook of the forbidden fruit, she not only acted independently of God’s revealed will, but also acted independently of Adam, who was her God-ordained head. As a result, Eve was deceived into eating of the fruit, whereas Adam was not deceived but willfully sinned against God, apparently out of love for Eve. For this reason, and also due to the fact that he was the head, the original sin that passed on to all mankind is attributed to Adam, rather than to Eve (Rom 5:12).
This twofold explanation given for Paul as to why a woman should not teach or act in a way that would usurp man’s authority in the church is also intended to counter the false teaching of the priestesses of the temple of Diana which taught that the woman was formed first, and that it was the man rather than the woman who was deceived. Much of 1Timothy was directed against false doctrines which were prevalent in Ephesus and it was not directed exclusively against male false teachers. The indefinite pronoun tìs, which is used by Paul to refer to the false teachers, could refer to either men or women.
“…remain in Ephesus that you may charge some (tìs) that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some (tìs), having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk.” (1Tim 1:3-6)
Fables or myths, endless genealogies and idle talk would be more descriptive of the teachings of the priestesses than some false doctrine based upon a misinterpretation of the Scriptures. In all probability, they were women in the congregations with little understanding of the Scriptures and heavily influenced by the mysteries of the cult of Diana, who were continually trying to take control of the teaching sessions in order to interject their strange antibiblical beliefs. I have personally encountered this problem more than once with women who have repeatedly interrupted the teaching sessions in order to give voice to their New Age and occult confusion. I personally believe that this is what Paul was opposed to and not that a godly submissive woman should teach sound doctrine in the assembly.
Saved by childbirth (1Tim 2:15)
“Nevertheless she will be saved in (dia, “through”) (the) childbearing (childbirth) if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1Tim 2:15)
There are numerous interpretations given for this verse. One interpretation is that womankind will be saved or delivered from the restriction of not being able to teach in the congregation by having children and teaching them in the home. However, the salvation being referred to here is from Eve’s transgression and resulting death and condemnation which passed on to all womankind – not the prohibition against teaching. Some would counter that death came through man and not the woman. But the main reason that that is true is because if Adam hadn’t sinned, only Eve would have died, and theoretically God could have given him another woman to reproduce offspring in an unfallen state.
I favor the interpretation held by John Calvin and other Reformers who understood this verse as alluding to Genesis 3:15, where God tells the serpent that Eve’s seed, or Christ, would destroy him and by implication bring salvation and a reversal of the fall. The reference to her “seed” also implies the virgin birth, since a “seed” in the sense of “descendant” is normally only applied to the father’s line (2Tim 2:8; Gal 3:29).
The NKJV translation of 1Timothy 2:15, cited above, was apparently translated with a bias for the former interpretation that women are saved by bearing and rearing children since this verse, interpreted more naturally, supports the interpretation that it refers to salvation “through the Childbirth” rather than “in childbearing” as rendered. The word translated “childbearing,” (tecnogonia) according to Strong’s is “childbirth” rather than “childbearing” which would imply a series of births rather than one birth. According to the context and the noun-form it could mean either. However, since tecnogonia is in the singular form and accompanied by the definite article, the more correct rendering would be “the childbirth.” Also, the preposition dia normally means “through” or “by means of” rather than “in” as the NKJV renders it. Therefore, rather than making it out to say: “she will be saved in childbearing,” we should understand it as saying: “she will be saved through the childbirth.” If we were to ask which childbirth will save Eve along with all womankind, which child naturally comes to mind? Jesus, the promised seed of Eve. There are a few translations which follow this more natural rendering, as we see in the International Standard Version:
“Even though she will be saved through the birth of the Child, if they continue in faith, love and holiness, along with good judgment.” (1Tim 2:15 ISV)
Some argue that it cannot refer to Eve being saved through Christ’s death and resurrection, since “saved” is in the future tense. However, Paul is here including all womankind referring to Eve as their representative head. That is why mid-sentence it changed to plural, saying that she will be saved “if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self control.” The translation GOD’S WORD recognized Paul’s presentation of Eve as representative of all women when it reads:
“However, she and all women will be saved through the birth of the Child, if they lead respectable lives in faith, love, and holiness.” (1Tim 2:15 GOD'S WORD)
Paul here is simply making a universal statement – all women (and of course all men as well) will be saved through the birth of the Child, if they continue in the faith (cf. Rom 11:22; 1Cor 15:1-2).
So, as I understand it, 1Timothy 2:11-14 is a temporary measure, only to be applied when circumstances require it. To me, it in no way excludes mature and godly women from ministering and teaching as long as they are submissive under God ordained headship. The same would be applicable to men who teach and minister in the church. If it had been the men who were contradicting and defying established authority, Paul would no doubt have said something similar to them. In fact, he did just that in verse 8. We all have someone who is our head and it is necessary that we all, whether we be men or women, be submitted to our head.
Let your women keep silent in the churches. (1 Cor 14:34-35)
“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35)
This passage is problematic in many ways. In the first place, it contradicts what Paul says within the epistle itself. In chapter 11 Paul said that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1Cor 11:5). Such a statement would be superfluous if indeed women were required to remain in total silence in the congregational meetings. Also, Paul, just a few verses earlier, told all, without qualifications, to seek the gift of prophesy (14:1). Then, in verse 26 he says that each one, without any limitation as to sex, education or social status, was to participate with psalms, teachings, tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophesy, in order that all may be edified. For Paul to say in the next breath that women were forbidden to speak in the service would be a contradiction to all that Paul had just told them.
Secondly, it says that they were not permitted to speak but were to be submissive “as the law also says.” Not only is any such statement entirely lacking in the law, but we frequently see God using women as prophetesses in the Old Testament. A prophetess speaks for God. It would therefore be impossible for a woman to be silent and at the same time prophesy. Prophetesses, such as Miriam, Huldah, and Deborah were consulted by the men of Israel when they wanted to know the will of God. Deborah even served as judge over Israel, making decisions for the nation of Israel as the Lord directed her (Judges 4:4-5). If Ester had kept silent, her people would have perished. In Revelation Jesus reproved the woman called Jezebel who was teaching in the church of Thyatira, calling upon her to repent of her fornication, but He did not tell her she needed to repent of teaching (Rev 2:21). Likewise, Paul instructed the older women to be “teachers of good things.” (Titus 2:3). Although it is true that one can teach by example, nevertheless Paul is here obviously referring to teaching with words as well, which requires that women speak. Some suppose that “as the law also says” is making reference to Genesis 3:16, but we have seen that the saying, “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you,” is not an expression of God’s design but simply stating that man and woman would not enjoy the same harmonious complementary relationship they had before the fall. Also, Paul never appeals to the Old Covenant Law in order to substantiate New Covenant practice. Quite the contrary, Paul always contrasted the Law with grace.
The third problematic statement is where it says that if the women wanted to learn something, they would have to ask their husbands at home. This would have left many women without anyone to learn from if they had questions. Many of them would have been unmarried or widows without a husband to ask. Many more would have had husbands who were either unbelievers or else ignorant concerning spiritual matters. Additionally, in 1Corinthians 7 Paul says that it would be better for virgins to remain single. Today with Google there would be a way around this problem, but if the only way a woman could get answers to spiritual questions was to ask her husband at home and she was unmarried, where would she go for answers?
Fourthly, the reason given as to why the women should remain silent is: “for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” The word translated “shameful” (aischron) is a very debasing term. The root meaning of aischron and its cognates is “shameful, vile, filthy, vulgar or base.” This is out of keeping with Paul’s high regard for women, demonstrated in so many other passages (Rom 16:1-16; Gal 3:28; 1Tim 1:5 cf. 2Tim 3:14-15).
Indicators that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation
Many noble attempts have been made to try to address these problems with verses 34 and 35, but they all either ignore other portions of Scripture or assume that which is not clearly stated in the context. There are several factors which indicate that these two verses were most probably not originally part of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
1) Manuscript evidence suggests that it is an interpolation.
An interpolation consists of words or phrases which were not initially a part of the original Greek text but were inserted by the scribes who copied it. While they are very rare in the New Testament and do not affect any major Christian doctrine, all textual scholars acknowledge their existence. All copies of the Bible prior to the mid fifteenth century were manuscripts, which means that they were hand-written by scribes who made copies of the older manuscripts before they became illegible. It is inevitable that some spelling errors be made in this process, and since a master scribe would often read the text aloud while several copied at the same time, some notes in the margins of the older manuscripts inadvertently became a part of the text in the new copies.
This, however, should in no way diminish our full confidence in the Greek texts which translators use today to make our translations. While there are some differences in the extant Greek manuscripts, we now have more than 5,700 of them, dating as far back as the second century. Some of them are from the east and some from the west, with more being discovered every year by archeologists. By making a careful comparison of all extant manuscripts, textual scholars assure us that the Greek text we now have in our possession is more than 99% identical to the original manuscripts.
The recent discoveries of older manuscripts have helped textual scholars discover and eliminate some later interpolations or additions to the original text. That is why your newer version of the Bible may not have some of the phrases or verses included in the older versions. For example:
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” (Matt 17:21 KJV)
- Most recent translations, based upon new manuscript evidence, do not include this verse.
“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:44 KJV)
- Most recent translations, based upon new manuscript evidence, do not include this verse.
“For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” (Mark 9:49 KJV)
“Everyone will be salted with fire.” (Mark 9:49 NIV)
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom 8:1 KJV)
“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 8:1 NIV)
These are some examples where more recent scholarship, with earlier and more reliable manuscript evidence available to them, have been able to determine that these phrases were not a part of the original text but were interpolations. Mark 16:9-20 is perhaps one of the longest passages which many consider to be an interpolation since several earlier manuscripts do not contain it. Nevertheless, since there are reasonably good arguments for its validity, all translations include it, although most indicate in the footnote that some earlier manuscripts do not contain it. The NET Bible entitles it: “The Longer Ending of Mark.”
While 1Corinthians 14:34,35, which we are considering, appears in all the Greek manuscripts we presently have, there is reasonable evidence that it was an early interpolation, inserted into the text prior to 175 AD., which is the date of the earliest copy of 1Corinthians which we have available to us. The reason why an increasing number of scholars have concluded that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation is because it doesn’t appear in the same location in all the manuscripts. [iv] Several manuscripts place verses 34 and 35 at the end of the chapter after verse 40, while one sixth century manuscript at verse 33 refers the reader to a footnote which only includes verses 36-40. [v]
This gives us reason to believe that it was an early insertion, possibly from a note in the margin by the owner of the old manuscript being read for copying by the master scribe, as though it were a part of the main body of the old manuscript, which the scribes simply copied as it was being read to them. Many church fathers, rather than holding to the New Testament view of women as presented by Jesus and Paul, reflected the same contempt for women as did much of the rest of the Greco-Roman world at the time. The Greek philosopher Plutarch of Athens said that a woman should feel shame at being heard in public just as she would if she were being stripped naked. [vi] Origin (AD 184 to AD 254), reflects the attitude of his time and culture when he said: “Men should not sit and listen to women…even if she says admirable or even holy things they are of no consequence since they come out of a woman’s mouth.” [vii] In like manner, Saint Augustine (AD 354 to AD 430), whose theology has been carefully followed by most theologians until well after the Reformation, said: “What difference does it make whether it comes from the wife or the mother? In any case it comes from Eve, the temptress, of whom we should be aware of in any woman… I do not see what use the woman would be to the man if it were not for her function of bearing children.” [viii]
Considering the contempt that most men had towards women at that time, it would not be surprising if a cleric, who lacked reverence for God’s Word, would insert the contents of verses 34 and 35 in a side-note of his copy of 1Corinthians in order to include it in his liturgical readings to the congregation. Then later, when his old manuscript was transcribed, the scribe either unwittingly or intentionally included the note in the main text of the new copy.
2) Contextual evidence for concluding that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation.
However, there is another major reason for concluding that verses 34 and 35 were not originally a part of Paul’s epistle. It is placed right in the middle of Paul’s instructions concerning the exercise of the gift of prophecy, thereby interrupting the flow of what Paul was saying. Verse 36 corresponds to what Paul was saying in verse 33 but seems out of place following verse 35, as can be seen:
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor 14:29-40)
Verse 36 logically follows verse 32 rather than verse 35 since it would have been the prophets and not the women who might be tempted to think that they were the only ones receiving revelation from God, discounting all prophetic utterances of others who prophesied and refusing to submit his/her prophetic revelations to the judgment (or scrutiny) of the rest. Also, verse 36 cannot be directed specifically to the women in verses 34 and 35 since in the phrase “to you only” in verse 36, the adjective “only” (monos) is masculine, indicating that in 36 Paul is either speaking to men or to the congregation in general, rather than to women. This is probably one of the reasons why several manuscripts place verses 34 and 35 at the end of the chapter after verse 40.
3) Linguistic evidence indicates that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation.
A final consideration which indicates that verses 34 and 35 were probably not originally a part of 1Corinthians is that, according to some linguistic experts, the vocabulary used in these two verses is not characteristic of the Apostle Paul. [ix]
So, we have seen that, not only are these verses very difficult – if not impossible to adequately interpret in a manner consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture concerning women, but also manuscript variations make it likely that it was an early interpolation. Also, it breaks Paul’s train of thought, which was concerning the orderly operation of the gifts of tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophesy - only to resume where he left off in verse 36. And finally, the vocabulary is not typical of the Apostol Paul.
While all Scripture in its original form was verbally inspired by God, the thousands of extant copies must be carefully scrutinized, eliminating all orthographic errors and interpolations in order to assure that we have a precise, accurate representation of the original text. I realize that not all will agree with the arguments presented here, but they will be left with the option of either ignoring these verses or being left with the daunting task of seeking an interpretation which neither reads too much into the text nor undermines the role of women as seen in the Scriptures and in the very epistle of 1Corinthians itself.
If a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. (1Cor 11:2-16)
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (1Cor 11:2-16)
The conflicting interpretations of this passage has, in my opinion, occasioned much unnecessary division within the body of Christ. Some ignore it all together and are censured by those who insist that we should apply it. Those who attempt to apply it are divided over whether the covering is something artificial, such as a veil or hat, or simply long hair. Some say that it was something strictly cultural, whereas others insist it is a universal biblical requirement, without trying to understand the scriptural motive for prescribing such a measure.
The way some mindlessly apply this dress-code reminds me of those who insist that women only wear long dresses, forbidding entirely their use of pants or shorts - even women’s pants, based upon the prohibition in Deuteronomy:
“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.” (Deut 22:5)
Obviously, this is a prohibition of transvestism or cross-dressing and has nothing to do with pants, dresses or shorts. It is only referring to those who want to be of the opposite sex and dress accordingly. If a man were to put on a woman’s pants or blouse, he could be considered a cross-dresser. On the other hand, if a woman were to dress in a Scottish dress for men, she could potentially be viewed as a transvestite. If a man today were to dress like a man dressed 2,000 years ago, he would probably be considered a transvestite.
What is an abomination before God is rejecting one’s God-given sexuality, and not a woman who simply happens to put on a t-shirt and a pair of Levi’s in order to ride a motorcycle or paint a house. This thoughtless misapplication of dress-codes only serves to divide churches, humiliate women and create man-made hurdles one must leap over in order to become a Christian (cf. Matt 23:13).
I have seen this same thoughtless and harmful application of this passage in 1Corinthians 11:2-16. I have even been in churches where women ushers stand at the door in order to hand out head cloths to any woman who happens to enter without a veil. But rather that it being a symbol of submission to her husband, in our time and culture, it is degrading and humiliating to the women when they are obligated to subject themselves to something so out of place in our time and culture.
They insist that it is a dress-code required of all women universally rather than merely something cultural which no longer applies. However, just as with the prohibition against cross-dressing, we must understand why the covering is being prescribed in order to know how to apply it in our time. In biblical times women often wore pants, especially in colder regions, whereas men normally didn’t. Therefore, the prohibition against cross-dressing would not be applied the same today as when the law was given to Israel.
In the same manner, the enduring underlying principle in 1Corinthians 11 is stated in verse three: “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” We have already seen that, according to God’s design, the wives are called upon to be submissive to their head, the husband, as unto the Lord (Eph 5:22-23). Therefore, anything which would dishonor her husband or defy his headship would be in violation of Paul’s injunction in this passage. However, due to the fact that customs and cultural norms for women’s dress have changed considerably in the last 2,000 years, what would now be dishonoring to one’s head is quite different from what it was at that time. Even today, what would be dishonoring to one’s head in a Muslim country would be for their wife to appear in public without her head and face covered. The same is not true of western countries. In the west it would be dishonoring to the husband if the wife were to refuse to receive his last name, to dress in a sexually provocative way in public or dress like a man. What is universal and enduring is the husband’s headship over the wife – not the way in which the woman must present herself in public in order to avoid dishonoring her husband. With this in mind, we can turn our attention to Paul’s instructions, in an attempt to understand how women were to demonstrate submission, honoring their head in that particular cultural setting.
Verse 4 says: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” This is easier for us to understand since, even today, it is often considered a sign of disrespect towards God for a man to pray with his head covered. Although Aaron, the High Priest, wore a turban with a golden crown with the words “Holiness to the Lord” inscribed upon his forehead (Ex 28:37) and his sons wore bonnets (Ex 29:9), their priestly attire was exclusive of the Aaronic priests while ministering in the temple. Jewish men worshiped in the synagogues without a head covering until the third century, and some speculate that they only began this practice in order to differentiate themselves from the Christian men who worshipped with the head uncovered.
The confusion has to do with what Paul says concerning the woman’s covering. What does Paul mean when he speaks of a woman either having her head covered or else shaving it? (vv.5,6). And if an artificial veil is the covering Paul is referring to, then why does Paul later say that the hair is given to the woman for a covering? (v.15).
Those who argue that Paul is referring to an artificial covering, such as a veil, rather than the woman’s hair serving as a covering, rightly point out that the covering was not necessary all the time, according to Paul, but only had to be used when a woman was praying or prophesying. However, long hair is not something which can be put on or taken off, and therefore “covered” or “uncovered” cannot be referring to long vs. short hair. But those who insist that only a woman’s hair is needed rightly point out that they are ignoring the verse which says that the woman’s hair is given to her for a covering.
I believe that this impasse is due to our lack of understanding of the customs and practices of that time and region. I believe that, building upon what we can reconstruct from the limited information available to us concerning the customs of the Greco-Roman culture of that time, we can see that Paul was actually saying that the hair, properly arranged, eliminated the need for the women to wear an artificial veil.
From what I have been able to reconstruct concerning the customs of that time, respectable women of that time never left the privacy of their homes with their hair hanging down. If for some reason they needed to leave the house without their hair undone, they would cover their head with a veil.
In that culture, normally the only women who wore their hair down without covering it were the prostitutes. However, especially in centers for the worship of the goddess Diana like Corinth and Ephesus, there was a movement similar to our modern women’s liberation movement. Women were deliberately doing things against the established customs in order to show their independence from men. Apparently, one of the things they were doing to defy man’s headship was to let their hair hang loose in public, which was dishonoring to the husband who, according to God’s design, is the head of the woman. This would have been somewhat similar to the practice of many of the women’s liberation movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s of throwing away their bras.
That is why Paul said: “For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on (epi, “upon”) her head, because of the angels.” (v.10). For the woman to let her hair hang down in public was a symbol of autonomy. It conveyed the message that she was subject to no one, including her husband. In contrast, a woman who honored her husband as her head continued in the tradition, having a symbol of authority upon her head. If her hair was properly done up it was a sign to all that she was submissive to her head. If she let her hair down it was a symbol of rebellion against established norms. If she didn’t have time to properly arrange her hair before going to the meeting, she should wear a veil, and the veil should remain in place during the service – especially when she was praying or prophesying, since communion with God is hindered if one is not submitted under His established order.
Paul gives two reasons as to why the woman should have the proper symbol of authority upon her head. First, because it is dishonoring to the husband who is the woman’s head. Secondly, Paul says that it was needed because of the angels. We often forget that the angels continually minister to us and are present with us in our worship services, praising God along with us. God’s angels are all under authority and they are certainly affected when we pray, prophecy or worship with our lips, while our hearts are in rebellion against God’s established authority. Also, Satan’s angels and the demons notice when we are not under God’s umbrella of authority, and a lack of submission on our part gives place to the devil in our lives, our homes and our churches.
When Paul said that a woman who refuses to have a covering dishonors her head as if her head were shaven, he was apparently referring to the Jewish custom of shaving the heads of women caught in adultery, since Roman law forbade stoning them. For them to let their hair hang down in public settings without a veil was as dishonoring to the husband as it would be if her head were shaved for being unfaithful to him.
How are we to apply Paul’s instructions to the women in the Church today? By imposing upon women head coverings or long hair? No. The principle of headship is and enduring part of God’s kingdom, but not wearing a veil, or letting one’s hair hang down, is no longer symbolic of autonomy for the woman – that is, unless some ill-informed husband or pastor makes it an issue. As godly men, we should seek an understanding of God’s ways, instead of mindlessly imposing some dress-code from a bygone era upon our women.
The issue Paul was confronting was women’s defiance of man’s God-given authority. The women of that time symbolically demonstrated their independence by breaking with an established custom: appearing in public with their hair down and unveiled. It was a custom of that time which Paul called upon women to respect. He makes that clear in the conclusion of the matter when he said: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (v.16). Here he makes it clear that the issue of covering was the disregard for a custom. Customs change. He said, “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (v.13). When they looked around them, they would have responded by saying: “No it isn’t proper.” But today, unless we live in Iran or Saudi Arabia, we would look around us and say, “In my judgment it isn’t improper in our culture for a woman to pray or do anything else for that matter, without having her hair done-up or veiled.”
To impose the observance of this ancient custom upon women in the church today would only serve to humiliate women and provoke them to rebel, rather than lovingly submitting as to the Lord. Today a woman would do something quite different if she wished to demonstrate her autonomy. She may dishonor her husband by a hairstyle, tattoo or clothing which would be seen today as a symbol of rebellion. Women know in their hearts whether they are dressing to honor their husbands or to shame them, and so does the husband and all the rest.
[i] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
[ii] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
[iii] Wm. Paul Young. Eve. Simon & Shuster Inc. 2015. Chapters 16-18
[iv] Some Authors defending this view are: Gordon D. Fee. The Epistle to the Corinthians New International Commentary
on the New Testament.
Philip Barton Payne. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.
Anthony Thiselton, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the First Corinthians
Some other scholars holding this view are: Alan F. Johnson, Raymond F. Collins, Simon Kistemaker, Richard Horsley,
[v] Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Revised Edition, edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia, © 1993 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.
[vi] C. K. Barrett, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1968), p.331).
[vii] Origin. Fragments of 1Corinthians
[viii] Augustine, Literal Commentary on Genesis IX.5
[ix] Gordon Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1987), p. 702.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Ways of God.
“But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle. 15 And Moses said to them: ‘Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones (taph zakar, “little male children”), and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls (ishshah taph, “little female children”) who have not known a man intimately.” (Num 31:14-18)
It is common for critics to quote verses 17 and 18 out of context, presenting Moses as telling them to kill all the women who were not virgins, keeping only the virgins for themselves as sex objects. However, this is a gross misrepresentation of what Moses actually said. The term “young girls” is ishshah taph which literally means “little female children.” The same word, taph is used to refer to “little male children” in verse 17. The root meaning of taph, which is translated throughout the Old Testament as “little child” is “to trip.” It refers to little children who are still learning to walk and easily trip and fall.
Critics often sardonically depict the men of Israel as invasively examining all the young women to see whether or not they were virgins. However, this would not have been necessary, since they were all obviously little children still in prepuberty. Even if they had been young virgin women rather than little girls, and Moses had told them that they could keep them for themselves, he could not have meant what the New Atheists are imagining, since premarital sex in all its forms is strictly forbidden throughout the Scriptures.
In order to understand what is taking place here, it is necessary to go back a few chapters. In Numbers 22 we see that Balac, the Moabite, and the elders of Midian, called upon Balaam to curse Israel. They were willing to pay Balaam a considerable amount, so he wanted to curse Israel on their behalf. But every time Balaam opened his mouth to curse Israel, God spoke through him words of blessing instead. After the fourth failed attempt to curse Israel, Balaam counseled them to send women into the camp of Israel to seduce the men to commit fornication with them and worship their god Baal-peor and thereby bring the wrath of God down upon them because of their abominations.
The men of Israel began to fornicate with the Midianite women and bowed down to their god, thereby bringing God’s wrath upon His own people. God ordered Moses to slay all the men who had joined themselves to Baal-peor and 24,000 of the men of Israel were struck down as a result (Num 25:4-9). This may sound severe, but considering how quickly the leaven of idolatry was spreading throughout the whole camp of Israel, it is evident that if God had not taken such drastic measures when He did, Israel would have utterly defiled itself in short order, just as they did at the foot of Mount Sinai. For that reason, God acted swiftly, putting the men who had defiled themselves to death. Also, because the Midianites had been a stumbling-block for Israel, God told Moses to go to war against them:
“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 17 "Harass the Midianites, and attack them; 18 for they harassed you with their schemes by which they seduced you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the plague because of Peor.” (Num 25:16-18)
This explains why Moses was so angry when the armies returned from battle with the very women who had seduced the men of Israel, provoking God’s wrath. Moses said: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.” It is in this context that Moses commanded them to slay all the women who had had relations with a man.
He also ordered them to kill all the young boys, which is something more difficult for some to accept. However, God is the giver of all life and only He knows when to take a life. We must remember that these children went to paradise upon dying, rather than being left to fend for themselves in a foreign land. However, apart from the reasons mentioned under the heading “Is God infanticidal,” doubtlessly the primary reason Moses ordered that they be put to death was in order to make a full end of the Midianite people. The Midianite girls would grow up and marry Israelites, giving birth to Hebrew children, since the Israelite men were allowed to take them for themselves in marriage (when they became of age), but even if a Midianite boy were to later marry an Israelite, his children would still be Midianites, and in that culture, tribal loyalties bound the surviving sons to take vengeance for their fathers, and for that reason, they had to be put to death for Israel’s security.
We see an example of this in Haman, who plotted to kill all of the Israelites while Ester was queen of Persia. Haman was an Agagite, or a descendent of king Agag who was slain by the prophet Samuel when Saul failed to slay him along with the rest of the Amalekites. Apparently one of Agag’s sons escaped alive, and generations later, Haman was still determined to take vengeance for his people against Israel.
In conclusion, we can see in this passage both the severity and the goodness of the Lord. We see God’s severity in making an end of an entire people group for placing a stumbling block before His chosen people. In the New Testament Jesus also gives a stern warning to those who would cause His little ones to stumble:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” (Matt 18:6-7)
Here we see that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. Jesus here warns that the post-mortem judgment for an unrepentant sinner who causes one of His children to sin will be worse than being drowned in the depts of the sea. In the case of the Midianites, their whole tribe was removed from the earth in judgment and deprived of descendants for causing His covenant people to fall into sin.
On the other hand, His goodness is also seen in that He made provision for the little girls, allowing them to grow up in Israel and eventually marry Hebrew men, thereby becoming one with God’s chosen people Israel. So, while this passage may be a stumbling block for the casual reader, for those who fear God and seek to know His ways, He is seen to be Just, wise and good, even in this troubling passage.
--
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Ways of God.
“But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle. 15 And Moses said to them: ‘Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones (taph zakar, “little male children”), and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls (ishshah taph, “little female children”) who have not known a man intimately.” (Num 31:14-18)
It is common for critics to quote verses 17 and 18 out of context, presenting Moses as telling them to kill all the women who were not virgins, keeping only the virgins for themselves as sex objects. However, this is a gross misrepresentation of what Moses actually said. The term “young girls” is ishshah taph which literally means “little female children.” The same word, taph is used to refer to “little male children” in verse 17. The root meaning of taph, which is translated throughout the Old Testament as “little child” is “to trip.” It refers to little children who are still learning to walk and easily trip and fall.
Critics often sardonically depict the men of Israel as invasively examining all the young women to see whether or not they were virgins. However, this would not have been necessary, since they were all obviously little children still in prepuberty. Even if they had been young virgin women rather than little girls, and Moses had told them that they could keep them for themselves, he could not have meant what the New Atheists are imagining, since premarital sex in all its forms is strictly forbidden throughout the Scriptures.
In order to understand what is taking place here, it is necessary to go back a few chapters. In Numbers 22 we see that Balac, the Moabite, and the elders of Midian, called upon Balaam to curse Israel. They were willing to pay Balaam a considerable amount, so he wanted to curse Israel on their behalf. But every time Balaam opened his mouth to curse Israel, God spoke through him words of blessing instead. After the fourth failed attempt to curse Israel, Balaam counseled them to send women into the camp of Israel to seduce the men to commit fornication with them and worship their god Baal-peor and thereby bring the wrath of God down upon them because of their abominations.
The men of Israel began to fornicate with the Midianite women and bowed down to their god, thereby bringing God’s wrath upon His own people. God ordered Moses to slay all the men who had joined themselves to Baal-peor and 24,000 of the men of Israel were struck down as a result (Num 25:4-9). This may sound severe, but considering how quickly the leaven of idolatry was spreading throughout the whole camp of Israel, it is evident that if God had not taken such drastic measures when He did, Israel would have utterly defiled itself in short order, just as they did at the foot of Mount Sinai. For that reason, God acted swiftly, putting the men who had defiled themselves to death. Also, because the Midianites had been a stumbling-block for Israel, God told Moses to go to war against them:
“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 17 "Harass the Midianites, and attack them; 18 for they harassed you with their schemes by which they seduced you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the plague because of Peor.” (Num 25:16-18)
This explains why Moses was so angry when the armies returned from battle with the very women who had seduced the men of Israel, provoking God’s wrath. Moses said: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.” It is in this context that Moses commanded them to slay all the women who had had relations with a man.
He also ordered them to kill all the young boys, which is something more difficult for some to accept. However, God is the giver of all life and only He knows when to take a life. We must remember that these children went to paradise upon dying, rather than being left to fend for themselves in a foreign land. However, apart from the reasons mentioned under the heading “Is God infanticidal,” doubtlessly the primary reason Moses ordered that they be put to death was in order to make a full end of the Midianite people. The Midianite girls would grow up and marry Israelites, giving birth to Hebrew children, since the Israelite men were allowed to take them for themselves in marriage (when they became of age), but even if a Midianite boy were to later marry an Israelite, his children would still be Midianites, and in that culture, tribal loyalties bound the surviving sons to take vengeance for their fathers, and for that reason, they had to be put to death for Israel’s security.
We see an example of this in Haman, who plotted to kill all of the Israelites while Ester was queen of Persia. Haman was an Agagite, or a descendent of king Agag who was slain by the prophet Samuel when Saul failed to slay him along with the rest of the Amalekites. Apparently one of Agag’s sons escaped alive, and generations later, Haman was still determined to take vengeance for his people against Israel.
In conclusion, we can see in this passage both the severity and the goodness of the Lord. We see God’s severity in making an end of an entire people group for placing a stumbling block before His chosen people. In the New Testament Jesus also gives a stern warning to those who would cause His little ones to stumble:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” (Matt 18:6-7)
Here we see that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. Jesus here warns that the post-mortem judgment for an unrepentant sinner who causes one of His children to sin will be worse than being drowned in the depts of the sea. In the case of the Midianites, their whole tribe was removed from the earth in judgment and deprived of descendants for causing His covenant people to fall into sin.
On the other hand, His goodness is also seen in that He made provision for the little girls, allowing them to grow up in Israel and eventually marry Hebrew men, thereby becoming one with God’s chosen people Israel. So, while this passage may be a stumbling block for the casual reader, for those who fear God and seek to know His ways, He is seen to be Just, wise and good, even in this troubling passage.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
The Dead Know Nothing
by George Sidney Hurd
How are we to understand Solomon’s statement that the dead know nothing? In this excerpt from my book, Extermination or Restoration, I consider this question.
“This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun.” (Eccl 9:3-6)
Of all of Scripture, perhaps in no other book is the context more important to consider than the book of Ecclesiastes. While all Scripture is inspired by God, not everything recorded in Scripture is true. The book of Job is a good example. It is an inspired writing, yet it contains many statements made by Job’s counselors that were not according to the truth.
The book of Ecclesiastes falls into the same category as the book of Job. In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon is writing after having been drawn away from the Lord through the combined influence of his unlimited power and wealth, and his 700 pagan wives and 300 concubines. At the time of writing, he had returned to the Lord after living a life of wanton pleasure, having done everything under the sun and experienced firsthand the emptiness and vanity of that lifestyle.
Ecclesiastes means “preacher,” and his objective was to make his readers see the vanity of living a life without God. He begins and closes his discourse describing the emptiness, futility, and self-despair of one living “under the sun” without a heavenly perspective. The phrase, “under the sun,” is repeated 29 times and the word “vanity” also appears in 29 of its 31 occurrences throughout Scripture. He opens and closes his discourse with the saying: “Vanity of vanities,’ says the Preacher; ‘Vanity of vanities, all is vanity” (Eccl 1:2; 12:8). Then, in closing, he gives his conclusion or alter call:
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man's all. 14 For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.” (Eccl 12:13-14)
There are many sayings in his discourse that those who walk with God know are not true. This is because he speaks from a human perspective “under the sun” and alienated from God. For example, he says that the dead know nothing and “they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love…” That may seem to be true from the perspective of a man “under the sun” who has lost sight of God and His promises, but the author of Hebrews tells us: “God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love” (Heb 6:10). We see throughout Scripture that the Lord remembers us, and we will be rewarded for our labor of love. Salomon is simply voicing the vain reasoning of a man in defiance of God.
Also, he says: “Do not be overly righteous, nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?” (Eccl 7:16). Yet, throughout Scripture we are exhorted to be holy even as He is holy in all our conduct (1Peter 1:15; Matt 5:48, etc.).
One other example needs mentioning which shows how the Preacher depicts himself as one questioning God’s promises of life after death. I quote from the New International Version, since I believe that it more accurately expresses what Solomon wished to say:
“I also thought, ‘As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” (Eccl 3:18-21 NIV)
Here he depicts himself as a defiant pessimist, questioning the revelation concerning man, as revealed in Genesis. He begins by saying “I thought.” He reasoned that man was no different from an animal. Such reasoning flies in the face of God’s revelation of man as having been created in His own image. Then, observing that both the bodies of men and animals return to dust, he questions the belief in our conscious existence after death. He defiantly reasons: “All I see is dust. Who really knows that the spirits of men and animals continue after death as God’s people claim?” Far from teaching us what to believe concerning the afterlife, he is describing the empty reasoning of those who exclude God.
Therefore, the saying “the dead know nothing,” taken in context, is actually telling us what not to believe. It describes the vain reasoning of man “under the sun” who ignores God’s revelation and only perceives that which is physical and temporal, and questions or denies the afterlife, just as the atheists and secular materialists do today.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
True Living Faith Works
by George Sidney Hurd
--
The following article is an excerpt from the book, The True Grace of God.
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe — and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:14-24)
Most have struggled to understand what James means to say in this passage. On the surface, James here seems to be contradicting what Paul taught concerning justification by faith alone. Paul said: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28). Here James seems to say the exact opposite: “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” Paul used Abraham to demonstrate that we are not justified by works: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” (Rom 4:2,3). James, on the other hand, also uses Abraham as an example, but says: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
Martin Luther, unable to reconcile James’ words with the truth of Justification by faith alone, concluded that the epistle contradicted the rest of Scripture and therefore should not have been included in the Bible. However, I believe that this seeming contradiction can be resolved when we understand that Paul and James were addressing two different audiences. Paul, presenting the gospel, emphasizes that justification is by faith alone, whereas James confronts those who profess to have faith while their lack of good works indicates they have nothing more than mental assent. Whereas Paul was presenting the way of salvation, James was confronting the empty profession of faith among those who claimed to be Christians but were self-deceived. Paul and James were explaining different sides of the same coin. Paul said: “faith that saves is faith alone,” whereas James insists: “faith that saves is never alone.”
Both Paul and James repeatedly warned against being deluded into thinking one has saving faith when their conduct indicates otherwise. Paul said: “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 counsel of God and is turning the grace of God into licentiousness.
In what sense could we say, as James does, that we are justified by works and not by faith alone? Paul said that Abraham was justified by faith alone without works, while James says that he was justified by works when he offered up Isaac. How do we reconcile these two statements? It is important to take into account that Abraham was justified by faith before God the moment he believed God, and not twenty years later when he offered up Isaac. When God promised Abraham that he would have a son, it says that he was justified at that moment:
“Then He brought him outside and said, ‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.” 6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” (Gen 15:5,6)
On the other hand, Scripture does not mention that Abraham was justified when he offered up Isaac. I believe the best way to reconcile this apparent conflict is to understand that Paul speaks from God’s perspective, while James speaks from man’s perspective. God knows who has true faith and justifies them by faith alone. Man, however, can only see outward proof of that faith. Therefore, others do not recognize that justification without an outward action.
Paul makes it clear in Romans 4:2 that he is speaking of justifying faith as seen by God and not by man. James, on the other hand, says, "You say you have faith in God and have been justified? Show me. Give me some outward evidence of your faith and justification. What you profess may be true, but if it is true, where is the evidence?"
There is no conflict whatsoever. Paul speaks from God’s perspective, just as we see in Genesis 15, whereas James speaks from man’s perspective. As Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them" (Matt 7:20).
Just as Abraham was justified by faith before God, but not until later was he seen as just before men when he offered up his son Isaac, thereby demonstrating that his faith was real – so also was the case with Rahab the harlot who James also presents as an example:
“Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:25,26)
Rahab had heard all the stories: the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna from heaven, and how the Lord gave them victory in battle. By the time the spies arrived in Jericho, she no doubt had already believed, and in God’s eyes, she was already justified. But this faith and justification were not demonstrated for others to see until she received the spies.
This is a truth that needs to be emphasized within the grace movement. Faith that justifies and saves is faith alone, but faith that justifies is never alone. Grace teachers rightly warn of dead works done in the flesh, but they also need to warn of dead faith which doesn’t result in works. Grace does not simply save and justify us – grace works.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
“For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God: but with sincerity: but as from God, before God, in Christ we speak.”
(2Corinthians 2:17 DRB)
Since I came to understand the glorious gospel of universal reconciliation, I have struggled to find an apt title to describe it. The Early Church Fathers referred to it as the Apocatastasis (ἀποκατάστασις ), taken from Acts 3:21. I thought that “full gospel” would have been a good term if it were not for the fact that that expression has already acquired its own unique connotations. The term “full gospel” was coined upon rediscovering the reality that the gospel not only includes our salvation from sin but also physical healing – a reversal of the consequences of sin in our physical bodies. The redemptive work on the cross not only made it possible for God to be just and at the same time show mercy, justifying the ungodly (Rom 3:25-26). It also made it possible for a just and holy God to reverse His own declared consequences for Adam’s sin - healing the sick and even raising the dead. God cannot be just and at the same time simply overlook sin or arbitrarily reverse the curse of death in consequence of sin. Only His redemptive work on the cross made it possible for Him to be just and at the same time show mercy towards the unjust and the guilty.
All forgiveness on the part of God towards men and all divine healing against the declared curse of death - both under the Old and New Testament, are only possible because of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross. God was only able to be merciful and at the same time just, healing the children of Israel in the desert and foregoing pronounced judgment, in light of the cross.
The healing revival and the rediscovered truth of the “full gospel” of divine healing, enabled many to begin to appropriate by faith - not only forgiveness of sin, but also physical healing. Prior to that time many suffered physical infirmities unnecessarily, not knowing that the gospel was also inclusive of physical healing. The discovery that divine healing could be appropriated by faith in the same way as spiritual salvation (by grace through faith), added a whole new dimension to the gospel which had been lost since the Church entered into the Dark Ages.
For some time, I was frustrated because I now knew that the “full gospel” was really much more “full” than what many in the healing revival were able to comprehend. I wanted to be able to use the term “full gospel” to refer to universal salvation, but I knew I couldn’t because the expression was already limited by its association with the healing gospel.
Then, one day while I was pondering this, I felt that the Lord unveiled to me an even more apt expression: “The Unadulterated Gospel” or “The Pure Gospel.” From the very beginnings of the Church, the first and foremost focus of Satan has been to dilute and veil the glory of the gospel so that mankind cannot discover and experience it’s saving, transforming power:
“But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” (2Cor 4:3-4)
In the cross, we discover the wisdom of God and the power of God unto salvation. The wise of this age regard it as foolishness; the strong see it as unnecessary; the legalists have leavened it with the works of the flesh; entrepreneurs have exploited it for personal gain; libertines have adapted it to their licentious lifestyles. It has been diluted, banned, mocked, modified, reduced to an image, used as an ornament and trampled upon. But it still continues to be the wisdom of God and the power of God to all who see and embrace it in all its purity.
The pure gospel has always been under assault since the day that the Great Commission was commended to the Church. Much space in the New Testament epistles is dedicated to the defense of the gospel in its purity. Paul declared to the Galatians:
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 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. 9 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’s missionary journeys to the Gentiles were usually followed up by a group of Judaizers. The Judaizers were Jews who professed faith in Jesus the Messiah but, at the same time, insisted upon following in the law and the tradition of the Pharisees. Jesus warned his disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, referring to the doctrine of the Pharisees and the doctrine of the Sadducees (Matt 16:6,12). Both the exclusivism and legalism of the Pharisees, as well as the unbelief and rationalism of the Sadducees, continue adulterating the gospel and denying its power to save, until this very day.
Paul, in Galatians 1:8,9, pronounced a double curse upon anyone who preaches another gospel. He says that if anyone preaches another gospel other than the pure gospel of justification by grace through faith, apart from works of the law which he preached, then it wasn’t the gospel at all. There is no other gospel or “good news” other than the glorious good news of a universal reconciliation, which will eventually be received by all, by grace through faith in the blood of His cross.
The elitist doctrine of the Judaizers, who followed in the tradition of the Pharisees, taught salvation by faith in Jesus plus the works of the law, rather than justification by grace through faith apart from works. Paul taught that Christ is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe, and he proclaimed the ultimate reconciliation of all through Christ (1Tim 4:10; Col 1:20). The Pharisees, on the other hand, taught that the final destiny of all mankind, except for the best of the best and the strongest of the strong, is eternal torment in a never-ending lake of fire. Paul emphasizes that that is not the gospel; no matter what they may call it.
The Leaven of the Pharisees - The Good News, Bad News Gospel
Sadly, some variation of the “good news, bad news gospel” of the Judaizers, is what many still proclaim even to this day. But Paul said it isn’t really good news at all, but rather “bad news” being passed off as the gospel. Many missionaries have been unsuccessful in selling their “good news, bad news gospel” to the unreached and for good reason. Let me illustrate. Imagine a missionary’s first encounter with a member of a remote tribe in the heart of the jungle who has never heard of Jesus. Traditional missionaries usually start out essentially in the following manner:
Missionary: “I have good news for you but first I must tell you the bad news. The bad news is that you are a sinner and are headed for hell.”
The tribesman interrupts: “What is hell?”
Missionary: “Hell is a place of never-ending fiery torment.” “Everyone who does not believe the good news before dying will spend eternity burning in hell.”
The tribesman: “Now that is bad news! A foreigner visited our village a couple of months back and many of us fell sick from a virus he brought with him. I lost my dear wife and two children. Does that mean that they are now burning in this fiery hell and that they will be there forever and ever?”
Missionary: “I hate to be the one to have to break the bad news to you but, yes. Unless one believes the good news before dying, they will spend eternity in hell.”
The tribesman: “Then pray tell, what is the good news?”
Missionary: “The good news is that God loves you so much that He sent His Son so that you may have eternal life.”
Tribesman: “That is a whole lot to take in all at once. Let me think about it. Tomorrow, I will let you know what I have decided.”
Missionary: “Now is the day of decision. If you wait until tomorrow, you could die in your sleep. Then God’s eternal wrath will be poured out upon you, together with your wife and two children. You need to believe the good news today because there may never be a tomorrow.”
Although most traditional Christians would be a little more tactful in their presentation of the “good news, bad news gospel,” and although there are various differing versions of this “good news, bad news gospel,” they always fall far short of the pure undiluted gospel of the ultimate salvation of all through the redemptive work of the cross. Another version often presented is as follows:
Missionary: “I have good news for you but first I must tell you the bad news. The bad news is that you are a sinner and are headed for hell”
The tribesman interrupts: “What is hell?”
Missionary: “Hell is a place of never-ending fiery torment.” “You must believe the good news before dying or you will spend eternity burning in hell.”
The tribesman: “Now that is bad news! A foreigner visited our village a couple of months back and many of us fell sick from a virus he brought with him. I lost my dear wife and two children. Does that mean that they are now burning in this fiery hell and that they will be there forever and ever?”
Missionary: “I believe that they will be in heaven, since they didn’t have an opportunity to hear the good news before dying. But now you have heard the gospel, so there will be no second opportunity for you.”
The tribesman: “You mean to tell me that all who died in our village without hearing the good news will go to heaven, but that from now on all of us must believe the good news before we die or we will go to an eternal hell?”
Missionary: “That’s it exactly.”
Tribesman: “Then, why in heaven’s name did you come here in the first place? I, for my part, will believe so I don’t go to this hell, but I don’t know what decision the rest of my tribe will make. We would have all gone to heaven if you just hadn’t come here. Now many of us will probably go to this never-ending hell!”
So, we see that no matter what form one chooses to present the “good news, bad news gospel,” it always ends up being bad news for the great majority. That is why Paul said that any other gospel, other than the pure unadulterated gospel which he preached, is not really another gospel at all. It is simply “bad news” covered in a “good news” wrapping. The unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ is good tidings of great joy which will be to all people (Luke 2:10). Anything less is another gospel which Paul says is really not a gospel at all. A missionary who is an ambassador of reconciliation to all of God’s creation has the privilege of proclaiming an unadulterated gospel. It would be in somewhat the following manner:
Missionary: “I have good news for you. We were all created in the image of God to enjoy communion with Him. Our first parents disobeyed God and all of us since that time have lived in disobedience to Him – all of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God and His good purposes for our lives. God’s kingdom is a kingdom of love, light and truth. When man does not walk with God who is light, we become lost in darkness, separated from our Creator. We have all erred from the truth in this way, falling into hatred, envy and strife. Separated from our God, we have brought upon ourselves suffering and death. Separated from our Father God, we live as spiritual orphans. In our emptiness man has become enslaved to many self-destructive vices.
(Note that this is not part of the gospel. It is simply a description of the plight of mankind apart from God, in the far country.)
“But the good news is that God did not leave us in our lost condition. In the fullness of time God sent His Son to live as one of us. In contrast with our first father, Adam, who disobeyed God, He lived a life of perfect obedience to the Father but offered himself up to die in our place, taking the guilt for all our disobedience. On the third day after His crucifiction God raised Him up from the dead. His resurrection demonstrated that the sacrifice of His innocent blood for us as our substitute was sufficient to satisfy the justice of God for all our sinful, disobedient acts put together. Even as in our first parent, Adam, all of us stood guilty and condemned before the Most Holy God; now in the Last Adam - Christ, all are justified through faith in Him, being born-again into the New Creation which God began in Him.
“God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reconciled all of fallen sinful creation to Himself through the blood of His cross and He entreats you through us to now become reconciled to Him in your hearts. Even as in our father, Adam, all of us die, in the last Adam, Christ Jesus, all will be made alive, but each in his own order. Now is the best time to bow the knee to Him in loving surrender. Christ is the Savior of all but especially of those who believe now.
“Receive Christ as your Savior now and let Him come into your life and transform you, making you into a new creation, of which He is the prototype. God’s kingdom is a kingdom of pure light, love and righteousness. Without the holiness that comes from walking in union with Christ no one will be able to enter into His kingdom or even bear to look upon Him in all His glorious splendor.
“Surrender your life to Him now so that He may transform you into His own image in this life. Then when He comes for you, you will be found to be like Him. If you are found in Him when He comes for you, you will be taken into His very presence and you will become one with Him as a wife becomes one with her husband. If you are not found in Him when He comes for you – if you haven’t yet died out to your old way of living as a child of Adam, then you will have to be set aside for judgment and submitted to fiery afflictions, being hurt by the second death which you were unwilling to undergo in this life. Receive Him into your life now, allowing Him to transform you into His image so that it will not be necessary for God to separate you for judgment and fiery correction in that day, while the sons of the kingdom are rejoicing in the presence of the Lord.
The tribesman: “Now I understand that all our suffering is because we have turned, every one of us, to our own way. Now I repent and receive Christ into my heart that He may transform me into a new person. I want to abide in Him so that when He comes for me, I will look just like Him and will not be ashamed in His presence.”
The truth of the pure unadulterated, everlasting gospel is the grace of God leading us to repentance and a vital faith in Christ. It is not bad news wrapped in good news wrappings. It is universal in its scope, being good tidings of great joy for all people (Lu 2:10). It declares without apology that ultimately all in heaven, on earth and under the earth will confess Jesus as Lord and bow their knee in humble, willful submission. This is the gospel that we must defend and proclaim.
The Leaven of the Sadducees
As we have seen, the leaven of the Pharisees converts the good news into bad news. Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of making the kingdom of heaven unattainable for those who desired to enter in, and without realizing it they excluded themselves as well (Matt 23:13). The Judaizers bad news gospel tried to combine two incompatible elements: grace and works, making any assurance of salvation impossible (Rom 11:6). Combining this bad news gospel with the doctrine of eternal torments, they only managed to leave their proselytes feeling more hopeless than ever, going back into the world two times worse than before receiving their leaven (Matt 23:15).
While the leaven of the Pharisees converted the gospel into bad news by adding works to grace and by adding the word eternal to punishment, the leaven of the Sadducees manifests in the form of unbelief concerning the essential elements of the gospel, rendering it powerless to save.
This form of leaven has sought to undermine the substance and foundation of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. This began to rise in the earliest forms of Gnosticism which denied that Jesus was the Christ. They maintained that the “Christ Spirit” simply came upon the man Jesus at His baptism and ascended before he died. In other words, they denied that Jesus was Himself the Christ; the Son of God born of a virgin. According to these Gnostics, when Jesus died on the cross it was only the perfect man Jesus, and not the God-man, Jesus Christ, who gave His life for mankind.
The implications of this doctrine should be obvious: One perfect man can only act as substitute for one other individual, at best. If He had not been God, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself on the cross, then His blood shed as a propitiatory sacrifice could not have been of sufficient worth to expiate for our sins, not to mention the sins of the whole world (cf. 1Jn 2:2). That is why John so sternly warns: “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” (1Jn 2:22-23). This is why Paul adamantly warns against any argument that would in any way undermine the full divinity of Jesus Christ:
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.” (Col 2:8-10)
If Jesus Christ was merely a man and not the God-man, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, then those who have placed their hope of salvation in Him alone are of all the most to be pitied. We are yet in our sins because the substitutionary sacrifice of a mere man – however perfect, would not have been of sufficient worth to save all of mankind.
The leaven of the Sadducees laces the pure gospel with rationalistic humanism which manifests a condescending distain for those who hold fast to the biblical teaching of the substitutionary, propitiatory value of Christ’s death on the cross. They would reduce His life and even His death to nothing more than an example for us to follow. However, the entire Old Testament sacrificial system was designed to foreshadow His expiatory sacrifice of Himself as our substitute on the Cross. Christ’s substitutionary death through His blood, shed in the place of ours, is a recurring theme throughout the entirety of the Scriptures. The following are just a few key examples:
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa 53:6)
“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2Cor 5:21)
“for all 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, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:23-26)
“Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Heb 2:17)
“And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” (1Jn 2:2)
“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1Jn 4:10)
In spite of these passages and many more like them, they insist that justice does not permit any individual to pay the debt of another. They insist that each must pay his own debt. Nevertheless, we see that God made provision in the law, giving one the right to pay the redemptive price for another’s freedom from slavery. The only stipulation was that the redeemer must be one of his brothers:
“Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger's family, 48 after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him.” (Lev 25:47-48)
According to the law of God, if one were to become a slave, then a brother or kinsman of the slave had the right to redeem him (buy his freedom). That is why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to be made in all things like His brethren. Only in this manner could God the Son qualify as our kinsman Redeemer or “Brother Redeemer.” The entirety of Adam’s race has been slaves to the foreigner; Satan. The Son of God had to take the form of human flesh, similar to ours, in order to qualify as our Brother Redeemer. God, having foreseen the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, established the law of the “kinsman redeemer” to be a shadow of our Great Kinsman Redeemer Jesus Christ, who would become like unto His brethren and redeem us with His own blood. Peter warns us of those who would deny the redemptive value of the sacrifice of Christ’s blood for us:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1)
Many Universalists, (as well as Traditionalists, who still believe in eternal punishment or conditional mortality), preach a false humanistic gospel, having been contaminated with the leaven of the Sadducees. They deny that the only way to God is through the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Many of them even deny the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
I must emphasize that not all who have broken with tradition in favor of Universalism are biblical Universalists who would insist that the only way to God is through faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Universalism is just as appealing to the modern Libertines today who use the grace of God as a cloak for their immoral lifestyles, as it was in the days of the apostles (Rom 3:8; 6:15). Jude says:
“For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4)
The apostles, however, did not modify the pure gospel of the grace of God in order to protect it against being misused by those who would abuse it. Because of their insistence upon the pure unadulterated gospel of grace they were falsely accused by the Pharisaic Judaizers:
“And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? — as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.” (Rom 3:8)
The fact that some would pervert the gospel of universal reconciliation, diluting it to fulfill their own selfish ends, does not justify us restricting it or amending it. When I began to discover the biblical doctrine of universal reconciliation, I read everything I could find on the subject – both for it and against it. Nevertheless, those that I could recommend, which were entirely faithful to the Scriptures, I could count on my fingers.
Unbiblical forms of Universalism abound. Many today espouse a syncretistic version of Universalism which is inclusive of all religions. Beginning with Modernism in the 19th Century with its Liberal theology, the leaven of the Sadducees has now shifted into high-gear, morphing into Post-Modernism and Progressivism. Many within today’s Emerging Church Movement have drifted from the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints to a subjective relativism (Jude 4). Anyone making a claim to absolute truths based upon biblical doctrine is now considered by many as being arrogant and small-minded. There is a rapid departure from faith in the objective Word of God to a relativism conducive to a syncretistic conglomerate One-World Church, now being referred to by other more palatable names, such as the “Emergent Church.” The brand of Universalism presented by some within that movement is inclusive of all faiths and is overtly antagonistic to the pure unadulterated gospel. They like to selectively quote some of the sayings of Jesus but not such declarations as, “It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” or “I am THE way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Matt 4:4, Jn 14:6).
It is my conviction that we must return the pure, unadulterated gospel of the reconciliation of all through the blood of the cross of Jesus Christ. The Church Fathers in the times of Augustine adulterated the gospel, amending it to include the Pharisee’s doctrine of eternal punishment in order to protect it from being taken lightly by the unregenerate who were joining the ranks of the Church. That only introduced the Church into the Dark Ages, during which time the glorious gospel was replaced with the “good news, bad news gospel.” We, more than any other generation. must insist upon the pure gospel preached by the Apostles and the early Church. We must take to heart the words of Paul:
“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. 9 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 1:8-9)