nyawc.org

The key to a Scriptural understanding of the question posed in the title of this paper is in understanding the judgment at the great white throne. Why? Because it is at the great white throne that the unbeliever will be judged. We must address the question: is the judgment at the great white throne for all unbelievers from every dispensation, or is it for a very limited group of unbelievers? I believe that it is the latter, i.e. for a very limited group of unbelievers.

We will study the following topics in this paper in our search for the truth:

The great white throne judgment

“The rest of the dead” and other considerations

Passages that tell us that unbelievers will not be raised for judgment

Passages that speak of resurrection unto judgment of unbelievers

An Old Testament prophecy of resurrection

Passages that speak of God’s wrath

THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT

REVELATION 20:11-13

One of the things we must understand about Revelation is its extremely Jewish character. That is to say, it was written to and about Israel. Another truth we must understand is that the book of Revelation is the most extensive writing in the Bible about the tribulation. When we put these two truths together we will begin to understand who will be judged at the great white throne. Let us first examine the question of to whom Revelation was written.

We read in 1:5-6, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood, and has made us to be a kingdom of priests to serve His God and Father….”. Who is the “us” to whom John refers? It is those to whom He made to be a “kingdom of priests”. When we read Exodus 19:6 we will see that Israel will be a kingdom of priests. Ex. 19:3 reads, “Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called up to him and said, ‘This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel“. And Ex. 19:6 reads, “although the whole world is Mine you will be for Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”. Revelation is written to Israel.

Nowhere do we read of the Church being a kingdom of priests. The only New Testament reference to a kingdom of priests is in I Peter 2:9, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…”. But we must note that Peter wrote his epistle to “the elect strangers scattered throughout…..”. (I Peter 1:1) i.e the dispersed of Israel. The Greek word “diaspora” translated here “scattered” occurs three times in the New Testament. In John 7:35 we read, “The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this Man intend to go that we cannot find Him? Will He go where our people are scattered among the Greeks?” In this verse, it is obvious that “diaspora” refers to thescattered of Israel. The second occurrence of “diaspora” is found in James 1:1, “To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations”. The reference here is also obvious. The third occurrence is in I Peter 1:1. We find in this matter a perfection in the Word of God which one would expect. That is, that the Greek word “diaspora” refers to the scattered of Israel.

We read in Rev. 1:5-6 that the kingdom of priests is Israel. We cannot apply this phrase to the Church which is His Body (not a nation) without doing a great injustice to the written Word of God. John’s revelation was written to Israel, and more specifically, as we shall see, to Israel of the tribulation.

Revelation also has quite a bit to say about the day of the Lord. How do we know that? We read in Rev. 6:12-13, “And I beheld when He had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth…….”. Let us compare that with Joel 2:3, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come”.

The Old Testament also has quite a bit to say about the day of the Lord. The context will show that 13 of the Old Testament passages concerning the day of the Lord are prophesies given directly to Israel or are concerning Israel. These 12 are: Ezek 13:5, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:11, 2:31, 3:14, Amos 5:18, 5:20, Zeph. 1:7 and 1:14, Zech. 14:1 and Mal. 4:5. Two of the prophesies are addressed to Babylon, Is. 13:6 and 9. One to all the nations around Israel, Obadiah 6-10. (Verses 19-20 of Obadiah will show that the “all nations” refer to those nations surrounding Israel) Also of interest is the fact that those nations surrounding Israel will be punished for how they treated Israel. The fact that the Old Testament prophesies about the day of the Lord concern themselves predominantly with Israel, and that Revelation is in part, about the day of the Lord, is another indication of the Jewish character of Revelation.

One last thing that shows the Jewish character of Revelation is the number of Old Testament quotations and references found in it. In the Gospel of Matthew (The Hebrew Gospel) there are 92 references to the Old Testament. In Hebrews there are 102 and in Revelation there are 285.

We have seen that Revelation was written to and about Israel. But more than that, we must see that it is about Israel during the end times, which includes, of course the tribulation. Note for example Rev. 7:14, “…..These are they who have come out of the great tribulation….”. Note also the several references to three and one-half years (Rev. 12:6 and14, also13:5) and compare that to Daniel 9:27. It is clear that Dan. 9:26b-27 speaks of the tribulation where we are told that the covenant will be broken in the middle of the seven year treaty, i.e. after three and one-half years, after which time the tribulation will begin.

One other fact that goes to show that Israel is at the very center of the tribulation is that in Jeremiah 30:7 we read of the tribulation, but it is called there, “Jacob’s trouble”.

Revelation is the book in the Bible that has the most to say about the tribulation. The great white throne is mentioned by name only in Revelation. These facts connect the great white throne with the tribulation.

Because the Revelation is addressed to, and concerns Israel, I believe we must rightly divide the Word of truth and see this book in its correct dispensational setting. Therefore, I believe that only the unbelievers of the tribulation period will be raised for judgment at the great white throne. As we shall see as we continue in this study, all other unbelievers will not be raised. “But”, one might object, “there are no exceptions in God’s Word”. But there are exceptions. For example, every male Gentile that lived from the time of Abraham had to be circumcised in order to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to participate in the promises given them,except for those of the Acts period (see Acts 15:22-29). We have no record of God speaking directly to anyone after Christ’s second ascension except to Paul on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9:1-6). There is no record of an individual being promised paradise except the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43). I’m sure the reader can think of other exceptions in God’s dealings with His people in order to accomplish His plans and purposes.

“THE “REST OF THE DEAD” AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

As we go to Rev. 20: 4-6 we will discover more about who will be judged at the great white throne. “…. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands.” The fact that this concerns those who did not worship the beast tells us that John is speaking of those who went through the great tribulation, he is not speaking of every person that ever lived from the beginning of time. Let us go on with verse 4, “They (i.e. those who had not worshiped the beast during the great tribulation) came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

Now let us go to verse 5, “(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)” To say that the “rest of the dead” in this verse applies to the dead of all ages is to take this phrase entirely out of context. The context is clearly contrasting those who did not receive the mark of the beast during the tribulation, with those who did. The former will reign with Christ in His millennial reign, the latter will be raised after the millennial reign to be judged. But in both cases, those who did and those who did not receive the mark of the beast, were obviously, those who lived during the tribulation.

It is clear that we must take the phrase “the rest of the dead” in its context in order to have a correct understanding of who “the rest of the dead” will be. Let me put this concept in terms of every day life. If we, for example, went to a dog show, we might see that after the first round of judging some dogs were allowed to leave, but others were being kept. One of the judges might dismiss some dogs, but ask the rest of the dogs to go to a different room for further testing. When the judge asks the rest of the dogs to go to a different room, he did not have in mind the rest of the dogs in the whole world, but the rest of the dogs that were in the competition.

So when John writes of the “rest of the dead”, he is not referring to the rest of the dead who ever lived, he is referring to the rest of the dead who lived through the tribulation. We must take things in their context.

Let us look again at Rev. 20:5 where we read, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended”. The word “loipos” is the Greek word translated here “rest”. It occurs 42 times and is translated “other(s)” 24 times; “rest” 12 times; “remnant” 4 times and “residue” and “remains” one time each.

One of the verses which translates “loipos” as “other” is II Cor. 12:13, “How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you?” Did Paul mean all the churches of the world, including all the false religions of the world, or only Christian churches? The answer is obvious; we must consider “other” in its context.

Consider also Gal. 2:13, “The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy…”. The context will show that the hypocrisy was that believing Jews refused to eat with Gentiles. Unbelieving Jews would not even have considered such a thing as they considered it against the Mosaic tradition. So by not eating with Gentiles, unbelieving Jews would have been living in ignorance, not hypocrisy. Again, we must consider “other” in the context or we will certainly be led astray in our seeking for the truth. In this case “other” is limited to believing Jews, and does not include unbelieving Jews.

It is clear in these verses that the word “other” is the best translation. But an examination of all the verses in which “loipos” is translated “rest” will show that “other(s)” is what is intended. In each of the 42 occurrences of “loipos” the context tells us who the others are. That is to say, the word itself is limiting, and the context shows to whom the word is limited.

If “loipos” had been translated “others” in Rev. 20:5 there would have been no difficulty with the question of who would be judged at the great white throne. “…. I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The others did not come to life until the thousand years were ended).”

The translators chose “rest” instead of “others”, but “others” is certainly more accurate. That is to say, that if Rev. 20:5 had been translated in the same way as the majority of the occurrences of “loipos”, we would have understood that the “others” referred to in verse 5 are those who did worship the beast during the tribulation.

We might ask ourselves why, out of all the times of history, will the unbelievers of the tribulation be raised to be judged. I believe that the tribulation will be a very special time when those who are to be tested will have to choose between remaining true to the God of heaven and earth, or worshiping Satan. Those who remain true to God and refuse to worship the antichrist or to receive the mark of the beast may lose their lives, but they will partake in the first resurrection and will live and reign with Christ. Those who do receive the mark of the beast and who do worship the antichrist may save their temporal lives but will be judged at the great white throne, and are in danger of suffering the second death, i.e. being cast into the lake of fire.

Some might object to the fairness that some unbelievers, i.e. those that live during the tribulation period, will be subject to judgment and to the punishment of the second death, while most unbelievers will not be. Let us examine that objection.

While it is true, in my opinion, that unbelievers of the end times are subject to punishment that unbelievers of other dispensations are not, it is also true that they will be the beneficiaries of many special signs and ministries of God. For example, Matthew 24:4-29 is a record of the signs of the end times given by our Lord to His disciples so that they might recognize them when the end comes. These signs are recorded for all who seek the truth concerning those days, and should prove to all who read it that God is the One true God. Note verse 5 where we are warned that false prophets will come and deceive many. Verse 15, “So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel-let the reader understand- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains”. What further sign that the end times have arrived could anyone possibly want then an idol in God’s holy temple? And how could even the unbeliever not be convinced that God is Who He says He is when he is a witness to the fulfillment of prophecy in his own time?

As if that were not enough, we read in Rev. 11:3 of two witnesses, “And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth”. We read in verse 5 of these two witnesses and the absolute proof of their being sent from God. “If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies”.

And as if that were not enough, let us consider Rev. 14:6-7, “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth-to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come“. What could possibly be more convincing?

I believe that it is true that some unbelievers (those of the tribulation period) will be judged and punished whereas other unbelievers will not be. But those who will be judged and punished are given more advantages in hearing the truth than in other dispensations, and will therefore, be without excuse

Some might say that while it is true that most of the Revelation has to do with tribulation times, the scope of the book broadens when we get to the great white throne in chapter 20. Let us examine that thought. In Rev. 2:7 we read for the first time of overcoming. “…. To him who overcomes I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God”. The paradise of God is described towards the end of the book in Rev. 21 and we read in verse 7 of that chapter, “He who overcomes will inherit all this…”. Chapter two which is, of course, towards the beginning of the book, promises the over-comers of the tribulation life in the “paradise of God”, and chapter 21 which is towards the end of the book, describes that paradise and promises it once again to the over-comers. Over-comers of what we might ask? It is clear that it is the over-comers of the tribulation that John had in mind. Because the promise made in chapter 2 is made to the over-comers of the tribulation, and that same promise is referred to in chapter 21, it is obvious that the scope of Revelation does not change from chapter 2 to chapter 21. Most of the book centers on the tribulation and the reward or judgment of those who lived and/or died during it.

Going back again to chapter two of Revelation, we read in verse 11, “He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death”. The second death is explained in Rev. 20:14, “The second death is the lake of fire”. The same promise is made in chapter two concerning the second death as is made again in chapter 20. “Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them…” (Rev. 20:6). Again, the same promise is made to the same people (the over-comers of the tribulation) in chapter two as is made in chapter 20. This, once again, shows that the scope of Revelation does not change from the beginning of the book to the end of the book.

Let us continue with the misconception that the scope of Revelation changes (broadens) once we get to the New Heavens and New Earth of Rev. 21. We should note that the description John gives of the New Heaven and New Earth is still centered on Israel. Note for example the reference to the “bride” in 21:3, 9 and 13. The bride is, of course, Israel. Note also verse 12 and the reference to the 12 gates and the 12 tribes of Israel.

Verse 24 of chapter 21 is also significant. “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it”. And verse 26, “The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it”. The nations will bring glory and honor into the New Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, Israel. The book of Revelation centers on Israel from the first chapter to the last, the scope does not change. We may not, therefore, include all dispensations in Revelation without doing great injustice to the truth.

We have seen by comparing the earlier chapters of Revelation with the last chapters of Revelation that the scope of the book does not change at all. Most of the book has to do with the tribulation and the reward or punishment given to those who lived through it. Therefore, when we read in chapter 20 of the great white throne, we should not read into God’s Word that which is not intended. That is to say, we may not include all of humanity from every dispensation, when most of the book centers on a three and one-half year time period. In another paper on this web-site, I give the reasons for my belief that the tribulation is not world wide, this limits the Revelation not only in the length of time, but also its geographic area. (Please see The Tribulation Is Not Worldwide).

I am suggesting that because the great white throne appears in the context of the tribulation that it is limited to those who lived in that time period. I believe that only the unbelievers who went through the tribulation will be raised and judged at the great white throne, not all unbelievers from every dispensation.

PASSAGES THAT TEACH THAT ONLY BELIEVERS WILL BE RAISED FROM THE DEAD

As the reader studies the scriptures presented below he/she may think that some of the verses have to do, not with resurrection, but with resurrection life. That is to say, when one reads, for example in Job14:10 that “man …is no more” one might mistakenly think that Job is speaking of man not being raised for life, but he will be raised for judgment. However, when Job writes that man “is no more”, there is absolutely no Scriptural reason for not taking that very literally, that is, when a man dies he ceases to exist, and apart from resurrection will never exist again, with the exception of the unbelievers of the tribulation, as discussed above.

Many have assumed that the great white throne judgment is for all unbelievers of every dispensation. I hope I have given enough Scriptural evidence to show that only a very limited group of unbelievers will be resurrected for judgment. So if the reader can somehow disassociate himself/herself from the false assumption that the great white throne judgment is for all unbelievers, the passages below will take on the meaning that I believe God intended.

Let us consider those passages that teach that only believers, i.e. only those who have been redeemed, will be raised.

Job 8:12-13, “While still growing and uncut, they (papyrus and reeds of verse 11) wither more quickly than grass. Such is the destiny of all who forget God; so perishes the hope of the godless”.

Job 14:10, “But man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more“. This verse and the verses quoted below from Job speak of man in general, and are, of course, true. But Job also wrote that he knew that his Redeemer lives. So when man dies, he is no more except for those who have a Redeemer, i.e. believers.

Job 14:12, “So man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep.”

Psalm 49:13-15, “This is the fate of those who trust in themselves,….. Like sheep they are destined for the grave, and death will feed on them. The upright will rule over them in the morning; their forms will decay in the grave far from their princely mansions. But God will redeem my soul from the grave; He will surely take me to Himself”. Note the contrast in this verse. The forms will decay, but the writer of the Psalm will be redeemed. Without redemption, there is no resurrection.

Prov. 21:16, “The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.”

Proverbs 24:20 tells us the same thing. “for the evil man has no future hope, and the lamp of the wicked will be snuffed out“.

Ecc. 3:19-20, “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.” Solomon is saying the same thing that Job said in the verses quoted above. Man dies and is no more, except that the believers are redeemed from the grave.

Isaiah 26:14, “They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise. therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish”. The Hebrew word translated “deceased” is “rephaim”. The note in the Companion Bible on this word reads, “deceased = Rephaim. This is a proper name, and should not be translated. Where it is translated it is always rendered ‘giants’ or ‘dead’;. ….why not so here? …..These Rephaim shall not rise. they are the progeny of the fallen angels……”. This note suggests that it is not men who will not rise, but progeny of fallen angels. I believe further comment is necessary on this important verse.

Let us consider Is. 26:14 in an effort to determine from the context how we are to understand who the rephaim in this passage are. “They are dead, they shall not live”. Who are these who shall not live? They are those of verse 13, “O Lord our God, other lords (Heb. “anon”) beside Thee have had dominion over us…..”. So the ones about whom Isaiah writes in verse 14 are those of verse 13, i.e. “other lords beside Thee”. There are two things that tell us that these “other lords” are not progeny of fallen angels. 1) The Hebrew word translated “lords” is “adon” and is almost always used in reference to God, but where it is not used of God, it is used in reference to man. “Adon” is never used in reference to progeny of fallen angels. 2) The phrase, “have had dominion over us” points to the definition of rephaim in Is. 14:9, i.e. “chief ones” and “kings of the nations”.

Let us continue with Is. 26:14. “they are rephaim, they shall not rise. therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish”. The rephaim are the same ones that Isaiah said were “other lords” in the previous verse. If “other lords” refer to chief ones and kings, so too must “rephaim” refer to chief ones and kings.

In short, the context does not allow for the interpretation that these “rephaim” are progeny of fallen angels. (The paper on this web-site Were The Rephaim The Progeny Of Fallen Angles? will prove from Scripture that whereas the Rephaim were indeed giants, they were not progeny of fallen angels.)

Is. 26:19, “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. ……but the earth shall cast out the rephaim”. The Hebrew word translated “cast out” is almost always translated “fallen” or perish”. We have in this verse the contrast between the believer who will be raised and the unbeliever, even the important ones. i.e. rephaim, who will perish. (Please see the above mentioned paper on the Rephaim for the Scriptural evidence that “rephaim” is sometimes used of important people.)

Jeremiah 51:39, “But while they are aroused, I will set out a feast for them and make them drunk, so that they shout with laughter-then sleep forever and not awake.

Jeremiah 51:57, “………they will sleep forever and not wake“.

PASSAGES THAT TEACH THAT UNBELIEVERS WILL BE RAISED FOR JUDGMENT

There are four passages that speak of the resurrection of the unjust. As we study each one it will be clear that each and every one refers to the judgment of the unbeliever of the tribulation period at the great white throne.

DANIEL 12:1-2

Daniel 12:1-2 is a passage which speaks of the resurrection and judgment of the unjust. “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people, everyone whose name is written in the book of life, will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust will awake, some to everlasting life and others to shame and everlasting contempt.” How are we to understand this passage, who does it concern, when will this judgment take place?

These questions are answered in the passage itself. Note for example, the phrase “your people” appears twice. That tells us that this passage is about Daniel’s people, Israel.

What is the time that is spoken of in this passage? We are told that it concerns the time of the greatest distress, i.e. the great tribulation. This makes sense; the tribulation is to be centered on Israel, Daniel’s people. As to the question of when will this judgment take place, obviously, the judgment implied in this passage must take place after the tribulation, i.e. at the great white throne.

We read of those whose names are written in the book of life. While it is true that believers of the dispensation of the mystery will have their names written in the book of life, I believe that to make Daniel 12:1-2 apply to believers of all dispensations is to take the phrase “book of life” in Daniel out of context, and force a meaning that the context will not allow. The context is about Israel and the tribulation, not about everyone who ever lived in the whole world.

We should consider one more thing about verse 2. The note in the Companion Bible on the phrase “of them” (Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth”) should read, “many from among them that sleep in the dust of the earth”. The “many” are those who will be raised either to everlasting life or to shame and everlasting contempt. Those are the ones to be judged at the great white throne. But from among whom will they be raised? Believers had already been raised at His coming. Those who will be judged at the great white throne are raised “from among” all other unbelievers who will never be raised.

To summarize what we have learned of this passage: The resurrection of Daniel 12 includes the unjust, but the context limits that resurrection in time and scope. It limits the resurrection to the time of the tribulation and to the people of Israel. Again, we may not include all unbelievers in this passage, as the Holy Spirit was specific in the description of the time and the scope of this resurrection.

The phrase, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust will awake, some to everlasting life and others to shame…” is similar to the one in John 5 and will be discussed in the next section of this paper.

JOHN 5:24-29

John 5:24-25 reads, “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him Who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Man, and those who hear will live.”

But then in verses 28-29 our Lord says, “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out – those who have done good will rise to live and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned”.

In verse 25 we read that those who hear His voice “will not be condemned”. But in verse 29 we are told that some who hear His voice will be condemned. (“Those who have done evil will rise to be condemned”.) There seems to be a contradiction in this passage. It is true that the Greek “krisis” translated “condemned” is better translated “judged”, however, the seeming contradiction is still there. That is to say in verse 25 we read that those who hear His voice will not be judged and in verse 29 we read that some will be judged.

The key to understanding this passage is to note that both statements begin with the phrase, “a time is coming”. I believe that the only way we can understand this passage and to answer the seeming contradiction, is to recognize the fact that there are two resurrections mentioned, and they occur at two different times. The first one mentioned is for the believer who will not be judged, but has passed from death to life; the second resurrection mentioned is for those who will be judged. Let us examine each resurrection and that will tell us when these two resurrections will take place.

In verse 24 we read of those who “believe” and have therefore, “crossed over from death to life”. I believe that this resurrection points us to I Thess. 4:16 where we read of the second coming of our Lord when “the dead in Christ will rise …”. The resurrection of verses 24-26 then, refers to the resurrection at the second coming, i.e. at the beginning of the millennial reign.

When will the resurrection of verses 28-29 occur? We are not told explicitly when, but we are told something of the character of the judgment of those who are resurrected. We read in verse 29 that they will be judged according to what they have done. “those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned”. Nowhere but here in John 5, and in Revelation 20 do we read of the resurrection of the unbeliever in order to be judged according to what they had done.

The only record we have in the Bible as to when and where the raised unbeliever is to be judged is at the great white throne. And the only two passages that speak of a resurrection to judgment by what they had done are in John 5:28-29 and in Rev. 20 (the great white throne). Therefore, I believe that we may conclude both passages speak of the same event, the great white throne judgment. It is after the millennial reign, so the resurrection of John five verses 28-29 refers to the one after the millennial reign.

Just as the first resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:4 is for those who were resurrected before the millennial reign, so the first mention of a resurrection in John 5 (i.e. verses 25-27) is before the millennial reign. So also, just as the second resurrection of Rev. 20:5 will be for those who will be raised for judgment after the millennial reign, so too those in John 5:28-29 will be raised for judgment after the millennial reign. The judgment that occurs after the millennial reign is at the great white throne.

Let me summarize what has been written here concerning John 5. John 5:24-27 speaks of the resurrection of believers; they will be raised before the millennial reign of Christ, and they will not be judged. The resurrection of verses 28-29, on the other hand, will be after the millennial reign of Christ and they will be judged. By comparing John 5:28-29 with Rev. 20:5 we see that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 will lead us to the judgment at the great white throne. Because the judgment at the great white throne is limited to those of the tribulation period and John 5:28-29 concerns those at the great white throne, we must conclude that the resurrection spoken of in John 5:28-29 is limited to the judgment of those of the tribulation period.

ACTS 17:30-31

We read in Acts 17:30-31, “And the times of this ignorance (of worshiping idols) God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because He that appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world……”. Note the phrase “but now’. That tells us that things are going to change. Where God had winked at their idol worship, He is going to change that to judgment. At the time of the events of Acts 17 Israel was still expecting the end times to begin, so the “appointed day” in which God will judge the world is the day of His wrath which follows the tribulation. But the day of wrath will be meted out against those who are already alive, not the resurrected. Therefore, this passage has nothing to do with a resurrection of the unbeliever.

ACTS 24:14-15

Another passage having to do with the resurrection of the unjust is found in Acts 24:14-15, “…. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that which is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Note Paul’s reference to the Law and the Prophets. The only reference I can find by the Old Testament prophets to the resurrection of the wicked is Daniel 12:1-2. That passage has been discussed above. As we have seen it refers to a judgment of those who will go through the tribulation.

RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Other than the picture of the resurrection of our Lord given by the experience of Jonas in the belly of the leviathan, I can find only two scriptures in the Old Testament which refer to resurrection. (It is therefore perhaps understandable why some who lived while our Lord was on earth did not believe in resurrection.) One of those passages is in Daniel 12, which we have already discussed. The other is in Ezek. 37:12-14. This passage speaks of the resurrection of Israel. We read in verse 11, “Then he said to me: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. …. Therefore prophesy and say to them: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘O My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them”. If we take the phrase, the “whole house of Israel” out of context we may be drawn to the erroneous conclusion that it refers to the unfaithful as well as the faithful of Israel.

So let us continue with the very next phrase, where we read, “I will bring you back to the land of Israel“. This phrase is important in that it tells us that those who will be resurrected will be brought into the land promised by God to Israel. But as we shall see as we continue in our study, only believers will be allowed in the land for the millennial reign of Christ. That is to say, resurrection is promised to only those of Israel who will be allowed into the land for the millennium, i.e. only believers. Unbelievers will not be allowed entrance and they will not be resurrected. (The exception in terms of resurrection is, of course, those unbelievers of Israel who worship the beast during the tribulation, but that resurrection is after the millennium.) As we continue, we will see that God purges His people of unbelievers, they will not be allowed entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. This purging is of those of Israel who will be alive at His coming, there is no hint of resurrection in these passages.

We read in Matthew 8:11-12, “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

The “subjects of the kingdom” of verse 12 refers to Israel. The phrase “kingdom of heaven” is limited in scope, and refers to Christ’s 1,000 year reign over Israel in the land. Those “thrown out” of the kingdom of heaven will be thrown out of the land of Israel to live in the Gentile nations. (For proof of these statements please see the paper on this web-site The Kingdom of Heaven.)

Matthew 13:37-43 includes the explanation of the parable of the weeds and the prophecy which completes it. Verse 38b, “the weeds are the sons of the evil one”. Verse 39b, “The harvest is at the end of the age”. Verse 41, “The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil”. What will happen to those being weeded out? Verse 42, They will be thrown into the fiery furnace…” (that is, outside the land of Israel, while those in the land will be enjoying millennial blessings).

The “weeding out” of this parable is what Ezekiel refers to in 20:35-38. “I will bring you into the desert of the nations and there, face to face I will execute judgment upon you. As I judged your fathers in the desert of the land of Egypt, so I will judge you, declares the Sovereign Lord. I will take note of you as you pass under my staff, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. I will purge you of those who revolt and rebel against me. Although I will bring them out of the land where they are living, yet they will not enter the land of Israel….“.

A word of clarification of Ezek. 20:40 is in order. The NIV has, “…..the entire house of Israel will serve me there”. That would suggest that all Israel, including unbelievers will be allowed into the land. But the Hebrew-English Interlinear has, “The entire house of Israel, all of them in the land will serve me there”. The KJV also includes this phrase. This is consistent with all the other scriptures that concern the gathering of Israel for the millennial blessings, i.e. only the faithful are allowed into the land and therefore, only the faithful will serve Him there.

In order not to create any confusion, we should consider Ezek 36 in this discussion of who is allowed entrance into the land. Ezek. 36:24-27, “For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. ……..You will live in the land I gave your forefathers, you will be my people and I will be your God”. Here we read that Israel will be in the land, but in Ezek. 20 we read that some would not be allowed entrance into the land. Let us consider this apparent contradiction.

We have seen in two passages in Matthew (and there are several more) that some of Israel will be “thrown out” of the land; they will not be allowed entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. We have also seen in Ezek. 20 that the unfaithful will be brought out from where they had been scattered, but they will not be allowed entrance into the land. We must conclude therefore, that the promises of Ezek. 37 are not given to unfaithful Israel, they are given to faithful Israel only. If we do not recognize that truth we are faced with the unthinkable conclusion that there is a contradiction in God’s perfect Word. They are not all Israel that of Israel and the unfaithful will be cut off from their people and will not be counted as Israel. (See Rom. 11:17a and 23.)

Let us also consider the following scriptures that tell us that only the faithful of Israel will enter the land.

Psalms 37:9, “For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land”.
Ps. 37:22, “those the Lord blesses will inherit the land, but those He curses will be cut off”.
Ps. 37:34, “Wait for the Lord and keep his way. He will exalt you to possess the land; when the wicked are cut off, you will see it.”
Prov. 2:21-22, “but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the unfaithful will be torn from it.”

We are now ready to draw some conclusions about who will be included in the resurrection of Ezekiel 37. Because the resurrected of Ezek. 37 will live in the land for the millennial reign, we must conclude that they are believers, as unbelievers are not allowed entrance. That is to say, the unbeliever is not included in the resurrection of Ezek. 37.

PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF GOD’S WRATH

There is no mention of resurrection in the day of wrath and, in my opinion, a resurrection should not be assumed. But I include the passages that speak of God’s wrath because many assume that when they read of the wrath of God that it is wrath which will be meted out at the great white throne judgment. I believe we must consider the context in order to determine at what point God’s wrath will be meted out.

Let us consider for example Rom. 2:5 which reads, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God”. Is “the day of wrath” the time of the great white throne judgment? I believe the reader will see as we consider other scriptures which speak of the “day of wrath” or terms similar to it, that “the day of wrath” is one of the terms used for the day of the Lord which will occur just before the second coming of Christ and will be meted out to those who are alive at the time, i.e. not upon those who may be resurrected.

We read in Rev. 6:13-17, “And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men…….said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him That sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?’”. The “great day of His wrath” is, in my opinion, the same as the day of wrath. Is there any significance to the addition of the pronoun “His”? In my opinion, it is a significant addition, i.e. it tells us that this wrath comes from God and none other.

Let us consider Joel 3:14-16, “Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.

Now let us consider Is. 13:9-13, “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and He shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity: and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and I will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible…..Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger”.

Is. 34:2-8, “For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter. ….4) and all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. …….8) For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion”.

As we compare the cosmic signs of Rev. 6 which will occur in the day of His wrath, with the cosmic signs given in Joel and Isaiah which will occur in the day of the Lord, I believe it is clear that the day of His wrath will occur in the day of the Lord. These same cosmic signs are given in Matt. 24:29 and that verse tells us when these signs will be seen,. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven….”.

In other words, the day of His wrath, i.e. the day of the Lord, will occur when Christ appears in the clouds. In short, the term used in Romans 2:5, “the day of wrath” is one of the many terms used of the day of the Lord which is before the millennium, and it is God’s judgment of those who are alive at the time (Scripture does not speak of any resurrection before the coming of the Lord), not those who are resurrected at the end of the millennium to appear before the great white throne judgment..

Romans 1:18 also speaks of God’s wrath but it does not mention a day of wrath. That verse reads, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of man, who hold the truth in unrighteousness”. In the paragraphs below I have quoted for the reader’s consideration all the occurrences of the Greek word “orgee” which is translated “wrath” in this verse. I believe a thorough understanding of the passages which speak of God’s wrath will help in answering the question of whether God’s wrath, as spoken of in Rom. 1:18 will be meted out in the day of the Lord, i.e. the day of His wrath, or after the millennium at the great white throne. (I have marked (***) the verses that impact our question so that the reader may give particular attention to those passages,).

***The first occurrence of the Greek word is “orgee” is in Matt. 3:7, “….O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come”. The note in the Companion Bible is not inspired, of course, but it is worth considering. It reads, “The reference is to Mal. 4:1. The coming of Messiah was always connected with judgment; which would have come to pass had the nation repented …..”. So Dr. Bullinger believed that this wrath is the wrath of the day of the Lord, not the great white throne judgment. I agree with this belief because the great white throne judgment is after the millennium whereas “the wrath to come” is the day of the Lord.

Mrk 3:5, “And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man, ‘Stretch forth thine hand.’ And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other”. “Orgee” is translated “anger” in this verse and in my opinion does not help us answer our question as to when God’s wrath will be meted out.

*****Luke 3:7 is the same conversation recorded in Matt. 3:7, so please see the note above on that verse.

Luke 21:23, “Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people”. This is obviously a reference to the tribulation and it is the wrath of the antichrist that will come upon Israel, not God’s wrath. In any case, this wrath is obviously not in reference to the great white throne judgment.

***Jn. 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him”. I do not see that this verse refers to either the day of the Lord or to the great white throne judgment. I will say however, that the great white throne judgment will be based on works (see Rev. 20:13, “and they were judged every man according to their works“). whereas in Jn.3:26 it is belief that is in question. (Just to clarify, I believe that the works upon which those who will be judged at the great white throne are the receiving of the mark of the beast.) I believe that the contrast in Jn. 3:36 of life for believers and unbelievers who will “not see life”, suggests that it is the wrath or anger (as the word is sometimes translated) of God toward the unbeliever that is manifested by His not raising them.

But the note in the Companion Bible on the word “wrath” suggests that this is a permanent wrath, not a temporary one for which the Greek word “thumos” would be used. I do not believe that the word we are looking at, i.e. “orgee” is meant as a permanent wrath because it is used in Matt. 3:7, and according to Dr. Bullinger’s own note, of the wrath of God at the return of Christ. That is not a permanent wrath. The word is also used in Luke 21:23 of the wrath of the tribulation. The tribulation is certainly not permanent. Therefore, I do not agree that “orgee” is used of a permanent wrath.

Rom. 1:18 is under discussion.

Rom. 2:5 has been discussed above.

****Rom. 2:8, “But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousnes, indignation and wrath“. Given that this comes in the same context as verse 5, I believe the wrath in this verse is in reference to the day of wrath, the time of the second coming of Christ.

****Rom. 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous Who taketh vengeance (Gr. “orgee”)?…”. Given that the day of wrath is also called the day of vengeance (see Is. 61:2-3), I believe this verse refers to that day of wrath at the second coming of Christ.

Rom. 4:15, “…the law worketh wrath….”. I do not see how this verse answers our question as to when God’s wrath will be meted out.

***Rom. 5:9, “Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him”. First of all, the believer who is raised at the coming of Christ is promised that he will not be judged in terms of life, so the great white throne judgment has no impact for him. Secondly, note that Paul wrote, “we shall be saved from wrath”. We must bear in mind that Paul was expecting the return of Christ in his life time as he had not yet been given the mystery of the dispensation of the mystery. The wrath from which he expected to be saved was the day of wrath at the second coming of Christ.

Rom. 9:22, “What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”. I do not see how this verse helps us with out question.

Rom. 12:19, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath” for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine…..”. I do not see how this verse helps us with out question.

Rom. 13:4-5 is in reference to the wrath of the leaders of Israel, not to God’s wrath so I will not quote this passage.

Eph. 2:3 and 4:31 is, again, not in reference to God’s wrath so I will not quote it.

****Eph. 5:6, “Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience”. This is not, in my opinion, in reference to the wrath of God at the second coming of Christ. Is it in reference to the great white throne judgment? For all the reasons given in the body of this paper, including the fact that the great white throne is spoken of in the most Israel centered book in the New Testament, I do not see unbelievers of the dispensation of the mystery at that judgment, i.e. I believe it is not the great white throne judgment that Paul had in mind. I believe that the wrath of Eph. 5 is the wrath or anger (as the word is sometimes translated) of God toward the children of disobedience that is manifested by His not raising them.

Col. 3:6 is the same as Eph. 5:6.

Col. 3:8 is in reference to man’s “anger” (Gr. “orgee”).

*****I Thess. 1:10, “And to wait for His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus Which delivered us from the wrath to come”. Because the subject is waiting for the second coming of Christ, it seems to me that in this verse the wrath to come is the one that will be meted out at Christ’s coming in the day of wrath.

*****I Thess. 2:16, “….the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost”. The note in the Companion Bible on the word “uttermost” reads, “uttermost = end. Gr. telos”. “Telos is used, of course, for the end times. Therefore I believe that this verse speaks of the wrath at the end times, i.e. at the second coming of Christ.

****I Thess. 5:9, “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ”. Is the salvation spoken of in this verse salvation from the grave or salvation by the rapture from the day of wrath? Paul is speaking to believers. In my opinion, there would be absolutely no need to tell them that they would not suffer the second death at the great white throne judgment. But he would need to assure them of the recently revealed mystery of the rapture as the escape from the day of wrath.

I Tim. 2:8 is man’s wrath, not God’s.

Heb. 3:11 , “I sware in my wrath they shall not enter into My rest”. This is in reference to Israel who did not enter the land because of disobedience and lack of faith, so it does not shed any light on our question.

Heb. 4:3 is the same as 3:11.

James 1:19-20 is in reference to man’s wrath, not God’s.

Rev. 6:16-17 has been quoted above and the wrath spoken of is clearly the wrath of the Lord’s day.

***11:18, “And the nations were angry, and Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead that they should be judged, and that Thou shouldest give reward unto Thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear Thy name, small and great: and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth”. This verse includes the day of wrath, the judgment of Israel at Christ’s coming and the great white throne judgment. The phrase ” the nations were angry, and Thy wrath is come” points to the day of wrath because God’s wrath will come upon nations. The phrase, “the time of the dead that they should be judged” points to the great white throne judgment because that is the only time that the dead will be raised for judgment. The phrase, “Thou shouldest give reward unto Thy servants the prophets” points to the judgment of Israel at Christ’s coming.

***14: 9-10, “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb”. This is clearly the wrath to be meted out at the great white throne judgment against those who worshiped the beast.

***16:19, “….and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath“. This is clearly the wrath to be meted out in the day of His wrath, i.e. the Lord’s day.

***19:15, “And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: and He shall rule them with a rod of iron: and He treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God”. The fact that this verse speaks of the nations suggests that it is the day of the Lord that is the subject, not the great white throne judgment which is a judgment of individuals.

***We are now ready to consider Rom. 1:18, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of man, who hold the truth in unrighteousness”. I believe that the wrath spoken of in this verse is the wrath of the day of the Lord. Note that the wrath is “revealed from heaven“. We read in Rev. 16:17-19, “And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the Temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, ‘It is done’……..And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath”. We learn from this passage that the wrath of God in the day of the Lord will come from heaven.

Now let us consider the scene at the great white throne. We read in Rev. 20:11-12, “And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it……..and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God….”. Note that those who had been raised to stand for judgment were standing at the throne. We are not told where John saw the great white throne, but I cannot believe that God had all these unbelievers in heaven, I believe they were on earth. That means therefore, that the wrath was not “revealed from heaven”. Further, if we assume for the moment that the throne was in heaven, bearing in mind that the unbelievers were “standing at the throne” the wrath would have been revealed in heaven, not from heaven as it will be according to Rom. 1:18.

Given that there is no indication in Rom. 1:18 that the wrath was the wrath at the great white throne, I believe that it was revealed from heaven in the day of the Lord.

CONCLUSION

We have looked at several passages that say that unbelievers will not “awake”, they will not be “remembered”, that they have “no hope”, that they die as the animal dies, without hope of resurrection. It is only believers that will be redeemed from the grave, only believers that will be resurrected.

We have also seen passages that teach that the unjust will be raised for judgment. There is no contradiction here. There is an exception. The exception will be those unbelievers who worship the beast during the tribulation. They will be raised for judgment and judged according to what they had done.

There has been a great assumption that all unbelievers will be judged at the great white throne. This false assumption is made, in large part, because the great white throne has been taken out of the context of Revelation, which speaks of “Jacob’s trouble”, and it was made to apply to everyone who ever lived. In doing this, many have negated what Job, Solomon and others have written about the true nature of death; it is, for the unbeliever, the end of life and the end of hope.

APPENDIX I

After having completed this paper, I studied all the occurrences of the Hebrew and Greek words translated “judge”, “judged”, “judgeth”, “condemn” etc. I have put the results of that study in a paper on this web-site A Scriptural Study Of The Judgments Of God. That paper puts all the passages that have to do with God’s judgments into categories based on when those judgments will take place. It also proves that, except for the unbelievers of the tribulation, unbelievers will never be raised for judgment. May I respectfully encourage the reader to read that paper for further proof of the fact that there is no general resurrection of unbelievers.

APPENDIX II

Heb. 9:27-28, “Even as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin, unto salvation”. On the surface this verse does indeed seem to suggest that there will be a judgment after death and it does not come in the context of the judgment at the great white throne. But if we look only at the surface there are several difficulties with this verse. First of all, as Paul makes very clear in I Cor. 15:51-53, “we shall not all sleep”, i.e. not all will die, therefore it is not appointed unto all men to die. . Secondly, as we have already seen, throughout this study, with the exception of the unbelievers of the tribulation, there are no scriptures that say that the unbeliever will be raised for judgment. In fact, we are told just the opposite, i.e. “they will not awake, not be raised out of their sleep ” (Job 14:12). How are we to understand this passage in Hebrews 9?

In order to correctly understand this passage we must understand which judgment the writer of Hebrews has in mind in verse 27. A structure of verses 27-28 will give us that judgment.
A. men will die once B. the judgment

A1 Christ was offered once for sins

B1 the second coming

Note members B and B1 draw the parallel of judgment with the second coming of Christ. In other words, I believe that this structure shows that the judgment referred to in verse 27 is the judgment at His second coming. That judgment is, of course, the judgment of Israel as recorded in Ezek. 20:28. There is no resurrection associated with this judgment.

What does this verse teach? Of great importance is the contrast evident in the word “but”. Men will die, but after this the judgment. That contrast is between man’s appointment with death and the judgment. When Christ returns believers will be clothed with immortality (I Cor. 15:51-53). Hence the contrast between death and judgment which leads, for many, to life in Him at His coming.

Let me put this another way. From the fall of Adam until the second coming of Christ men have been appointed unto death. At His coming, Christ does away with the appointment unto death. That is to say, there will be death outside the Land of Israel during the millennium (death is not destroyed until after the millennium) but believers are inside the Land, and they will be clothed with immortality at His coming, so they will obviously not die. Therefore, all men will not be appointed unto death. The judgment of Israel, the reader will recall, is to separate believers from unbelievers. The former to enter the Land, the latter to be excluded. It follows then, that the judgment will mean death to some but not to others.

Therefore, I believe that Heb. 9:27 is teaching the following: Death has been appointed unto all men. But when Christ returns and judges some worthy of avoiding this appointment with death because of their faith, they will enter the Land for millennial blessings and will not die. Let me paraphrase this verse. “Even as it is appointed unto men once to die but after this the judgment which will determine that some will never die, i.e. are not appointed to death….”. This is consistent with the teaching Scripture regarding the judgment of the unbeliever (they will not be raised for judgment) and answers the difficulty implied in the fact that not all men are appointed unto death.

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond please e-mail me at: [email protected]

January 23, 2025/ Religion

A DISPENSATIONAL APPROACH TO SPIRITUAL WARFARE – Right Word Truth

maximios /

I believe that when God scattered the nations as recorded in Gen.11, He assigned to each nation a spirit being to rule that nation under Him, and that Satan then corrupted some of those spirit beings in an attempt to thwart God’s plans concerning the nations. In other words, there were spirit beings in heaven, some of which were under God’s rule and others under Satan’s rule, i.e. a spiritual warfare. But in the dispensation of the mystery there is a spiritual warfare that is not centered on nations, but rather it is centered on individuals. This difference is perfectly consistent with how God works in the dispensations in which there is a chosen nation, as opposed to how He works in the dispensation of the mystery in which God has temporarily put aside His chosen nation. This paper presents the Scriptural evidence for that belief.

The following topics will be discussed:

UNIVERSAL TRUTHS

SPIRIT BEINGS AND THE WARFARE ON EARTH

IDOLS

WHY DID GOD SCATTER THE NATIONS?

SPECIFIC BATTLES BETWEEN SPIRIT BEINGS

SPIRITUAL WARFARE IN THE DISPENSATION OF THE MYSTERY

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX I: A CONSIDERATION OF THE TERM “DIVINE COUNCIL”

UNIVERSAL TRUTHS

As stated above, I believe there is a dispensational aspect to the issue of spiritual warfare, but there is, loosely speaking, also a universal aspect. That is to say, there is one aspect of this question that is applicable to all believing individuals in every age and dispensation. But I say “loosely speaking” because the universal aspect centers on angels, whereas, as will be proved below, the spirit beings having to do with the dispensational aspect are not necessarily angels.

But let us consider Heb. 1:14 which reads, “Are they not all ministering spirits (angels, see verses 7 and 13) sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”. All believers of every dispensation are “heirs of salvation”. That makes the ministry of angels a universal truth.

Consider also Ps. 34:7 which reads, “And the angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him and delivereth them”. Is this a universal truth or a dispensational truth? I believe that question is answered in the following verse. Verse 8 reads, “O taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man that trusteth in Him”. All believers of every dispensation can trust God because He is good. So the context concerns universal truths.

As will be discussed in the last section of this paper, the believers of the dispensation of the mystery will be given “weapons” with which to combat spiritual wickedness in heavenly places. Does that mean that God will not also send His angles to minister to the “heirs of salvation” in the present dispensation? I do not believe that to be the case. That belief is based on the fact that the “weapons” spoken of in Eph. 6 are to be used by the believer, but that is a much different scenario than God sending His angels. That is to say, the former has to do with man’s work as he “wrestles” against spiritual wickedness, but the latter with God’s work as He sends His angles to minister. In short, God will never forsake His own, even as He has given them weapons with which to fight spiritual wickedness.

As mentioned above, there is also a dispensational aspect to this issue which will be discussed below.

SPIRIT BEINGS AND THEIR WORK ON EARTH

Let us begin with Gen. 11 which records man’s plans to build the tower of Babel. We read in Gen. 11:6-8, “And the Lord said, ‘Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let Us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech’. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city”. (See also Acts 17:26).

Deut. 32:8 also speaks of the nations that had been scattered; in this verse it is their inheritance that is the subject. That verse reads in the KJV, “When the MOST HIGH divided to the nations their inheritance He set the bound of the People according to the number of the children of Israel”. A consideration of the KJV translation is required if we are to correctly understand this verse.

Let us first consider the phrase, “set the bound of the People”. The word “People” in this phrase is in the plural in the Hebrew, so that phrase should read, “set the bound of the Peoples”, i.e. the nations as opposed to Israel. This translation is further proved by the fact that the next verse, i.e. verse 9, contrasts “Peoples” with Israel. Verse 9 reads, “For the Lord’s portion is His People; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance”. In other words, this passage speaks of the Gentile nations being given their inheritance, and it also speaks of Israel being God’s inheritance.

The other phrase that requires consideration is the phrase “the number of the children of Israel”. The ESV and other more modern translations have “according to the number of the sons of God”. The reason for the difference in translations is that the KJV translators based their translation on the Massoritic texts, whereas the ESV based their translation on the dead sea scrolls. But many scholars do not believe that the dead sea scrolls are to be trusted in this matter. How then, are we to determine which translation is correct? I believe the context will give us the answer to that question.

Let us begin with a careful consideration of verse 8 as it reads in the KJV, “…….He set the bound of the Peoples according to the number of the children of Israel”. We learn from this verse that God determined the boundaries for the nations that He had scattered as recorded in Gen. 11. Further, the KJV tells us that those boundaries were set “according to the number of the children of Israel”. How are we to understand the phrase “according to the number of the children of Israel”? In my opinion, it means that the land that God will promise to Abraham and to his seed, will not be allotted to the nations, i.e. it will be reserved for Israel. In other words, the boundaries that God set for each of the nations will not include the land that He would, in due time, promise to Abraham.

But the land that had been promised to Abraham had been allotted to those nations. How do we know that? We know that from the fact that when Israel had finally come to that promised land after Her 40 years of wandering in the desert, they had to battle those who were already there in order to occupy that land as recorded in the book of Joshua. That is to say, there was no land allotted to Israel when God gave each nation their inheritance. So that is one of the problems with the KJV translation of boundaries being set “according to the number of the children of Israel”.

But let us continue with verse 9. “For the Lord’s portion is His People; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance”. We may understand Deut. 32:9 to say that Israel is God’s part and that Jacob/Israel is God’s inheritance. It is clear that verse 9 is put in contrast with verse 8. That is to say, verse 8 speaks of God allotting boundaries to the Gentile nations which, in verse 9, is contrasted to God’s inheritance, i.e. Israel.

But verse 9 begins with the connecting word “for” in the KJV, which implies that verse 9 is the reason for what was written in verse 8, not a contrast with it. That is to say, “for” is used in the sense of “because”, it is not a word that is used to indicate a contrast. Because, as discussed above, the context has shown that the dead sea scrolls were correct with regard to the phrase “sons of God” in verse 8, I believe we may accept the dead sea scrolls version of the connecting word of verse 8 which is “but”. So that would read, “But the Lord’s portion is His People; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance”.

In short, because the boundaries God set for the nations did not allow for a land for Israel, and because there is a disconnect in the use of the word “for” in verse 9 of the KJV, I believe we may conclude that the translation “sons of God” is correct. Let us consider this passage with the correct translation. “When the MOST HIGH divided to the nations their inheritance, He set the bound of the Peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s portion is His People; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance”. So Deut. 32:8 tells us that God set the boundaries of the Gentile nations according to the number of the sons of God. And verse 9 contrasts that truth (i.e. “but”) by speaking of Israel as God’s own inheritance.

“Sons of God”

To whom does the phrase “sons of God” in Deut. 32:8 refer? In order to answer that question let us consider Job 38:6-7 which also speaks of the “sons of God” That verse reads, “Whereupon are the foundations thereof (i.e. the earth) fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” This verse is obviously speaking of the creation of the earth; therefore, the “sons of God” cannot refer to men because man was not created until the sixth day of creation. If not to men, to whom then does the phrase “sons of God” refer? I believe we may answer that question by considering the phrase “morning stars” as used in Job 38:7. That is to say, because the sons of God were spoken of in the same context as were the morning stars, by determining to whom the phrase “morning stars” refers, we may then have a better idea of to whom the phrase “sons of God” refers.

We read in Rev. 2:26-28, “And he that overcometh, and keepeth My works, unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And He shall rule with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of My Father. And I will give him (he “that overcometh” vs. 26) the morning star”. And we read in Rev. 22:16, “…..I, Jesus……am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright and morning Star”.

The morning Star, as we read in Rev. 22:16, is Christ Himself. Does verse 2:28 tell us then that the overcomer shall receive Christ Himself? I believe not. Rev.22:16 speaks of Christ as the “Root and Offspring of David”. The term “Offspring of David” is used to indicate that the King of Israel must come from the seed of David. So the term “Root and Offspring of David” points to Christ as the Ruler of nations. We read in Rev. 3:21 that “he that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne”. So the overcomer will reign with Christ (see also Rev. 20:4). I believe therefore that we may conclude that the overcomer receiving the “morning Star” means that the overcomer will reign with Christ. So in Rev. 2:28 the morning star symbolizes the reward of reigning with Christ, the King of kings, in the millennium.

But to whom does the phrase “morning stars” refer in Job 38? Note that “stars” are plural, so in Job 38 the phrase “morning stars” does not refer to Christ. And because Job 38 has to do with those at creation, i.e. before man was created, the phrase does not refer to men and certainly not to overcomers of the tribulation. So what is the commonality of the phrase “morning stars” in all its occurrences? All three occurrences of the phrase have to do with reigning. That is to say, Christ will reign as King of kings in the millennium, and as discussed above the overcomers of the tribulation will reign with Him.

It is clear that the phrase “morning stars” of Job 38 (“morning stars sang together “) is not to be understood literally. That is to say, literal stars do not sing, therefore, the “morning stars” were not literal stars. As is true of all figures of speech, the use of the phrase is used to enhance a truth. What truth is being enhanced with the phrase “morning stars”? I believe the phrase is used to enhance the truth that this passage concerns those who will reign.

We are now prepared to consider the phrase “sons of God” as used in Job 38. Again, that verse reads, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” I believe we have in this verse the use of the figure of speech Hendiadys”. That figure of speech is defined by Dr. E. W. Bullinger as, “Two words used, but one thing meant”. So that phrase should read, “the morning stars, even the sons of God”. So the term “morning stars” was used to bring attention to the fact that the sons of God were given the authority to reign. In short, the spirit beings, i.e. the “sons of God”, who were present at creation were created to reign. Because it was God Who set in place these spirit beings to reign, I believe we may conclude that these spirit beings were meant to reign under God’s authority.

There are other scriptures that speak of spirit beings in heaven reigning. Consider for example Dan. 4 which speaks of Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment for his pride (vs. 16, “let a beast’s heart be given him”). Verse 13 reads, “I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven”. Then in verse 17 we read, “This matter (Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment) is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the MOST HIGH ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men”. Note the phrase that tells us that an “holy one” came down from heaven. Because this being “came down from heaven”, I believe we may conclude that the watcher of Dan. 4 was a spirit being. But what is a watcher? The note by Dr. Bullinger in the Companion Bible on the word “watcher” reads, “suggests that we have in this verse the figure of speech Hendiadys”. Again, that figure of speech is defined by Dr. Bullinger as, “Two words used, but one thing meant”. So that phrase should read, “a watcher even an holy one” (Heb. “kodesh” a separated one). In other words the watchers were holy, separated ones. It is important to note also that the punishment of Nebuchadnezzar was “demanded by the word of the holy ones”. That speaks of reigning. So the watcher was a spirit being who reigned.

Now let us consider Ps. 89:5-7, “And the heavens shall praise Thy wonders, O God: Thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. 6) For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? Whom among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints. And to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him”.

To begin we must understand that the Hebrew word translated “saints” in the phrase, “the congregation of the saints”, and in the phrase “assembly of the saints”, is “kodesh”, and is usually translated “holy” which means “to be separated”. So those phrases are better translated “Thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the separated ones”, and verse 7, “in the assembly of the separated ones”. Note that the context in which we read of these separated ones has to do with beings in heaven, i.e. “the heavens shall praise” God. And please note the very important word “for” in verse 6 which connects that phrase to the previous ones, “for who in the heaven”. My point is that Ps. 89:5-7 speaks of separated ones, in heaven, i.e. spirit beings.

Before we consider the phrase “sons of the mighty” I would like to call the readers’ attention to the Hebrew word translated “assembly” in the phrase “assembly of the holy ones”. That Hebrew word is “sohd“. It is used 21 times in the Bible and in 10 occurrences it is translated “secret”. Let us consider just a few of the verses in which the word is translated “secret”. We read in Prov. 25:9, “….discover not a secret to another”. And in Ps. 64:2 we read, “Hide me from the secret council of the wicked”. Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary defines the word as, “a session, i.e. company of persons (in close deliberations); by implication intimacy, consultation, a secret”. I believe that we may conclude that even when translated “assembly” the word implies a secret assembly. So that phrase in Ps. 89 should read, “God is greatly to be feared in the secret assembly of the separated ones”. I believe we may conclude from the fact that the heavenly assembly is a secret assembly, that there are heavenly enemies in view from whom God’s assembly is being kept in secret. (This concept will be considered further in the section below).

The Hebrew word translated “mighty” in Ps. 89:6 is “el”. In the majority of the occurrences it is translated “God”, in other words, “El” is one of the many titles of Jehovah (see for example, Gen. 14:18 and 19). As is true of all the titles of Jehovah, the title “El” has a specific significance. Consider for example, Job 36:22 which reads, “Behold, God (Heb. “El”) exalteth by His power”, And in Ps. 50:1 we read, “The mighty (Heb. “el”) God (Heb. “Elohim”), even the Lord (Heb. “Jehovah”) hath spoken”. My point is that the title “El”, when used of Jehovah, is used to make the point of His power, thus His authority.

A further study of the Hebrew word “el” will support the suggestion that it means “power” and “authority”. Consider for example Gen. 31:29, “It is in the power (Heb. “el”) of my (Laban’s) hand to do you (Jacob) hurt”. Consider also Deut. 28:32 which reads, “Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people,….and there shall be no might (Heb. “el”) in thine hand”. In short, the core meaning implied in the Hebrew word “el” is “might”.

We are now prepared to consider the phrase in Ps. 89:6, “the sons of the mighty”. I believe that the phrase “sons of the mighty” as used in Ps. 89 refers to spirit beings in a secret congregation that have been given might to reign under God’s authority over the nations of the earth.

Let us pull together what has been discussed thus far. We learned from, Dan. 4 which speaks of Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment that the watchers/separated ones were given the authority to reign in that it was they who determined Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment. And we read in Ps. 89:5-6 of the “secret congregation of the separated ones”, i.e. the spirit beings, even the “sons of the mighty”. So the phrase “sons of the mighty” refers to the power of the spirit beings. In short, there is in heaven a secret “congregation” of mighty spirit beings who reign under God so that “the living may know that the MOST HIGH ruleth in the kingdom of men”.

For the sake of clarity I will list the things we have considered in the paragraphs above:

When not used of men, the phrase “sons of God” refers to spirit beings.

The phrase “morning stars” is also used of spirit beings, and the term is used to indicate reigning.

The phrases “holy ones” and “watchers” are used of spirit beings who reign under God’s authority.

God has a “secret assembly” in heaven, implying enemies are in play.

The phrases “the congregation of the holy ones” and “sons of the mighty” are used of spirit beings.

IDOLS

As discussed in the section above, I believe that as God gave up the nations as recorded in Gen. 11, He assigned spirit beings over each of those nations to reign under Him. In other words, Jehovah reigned over Israel, but He had put “elohim”, i.e. “gods” to reign over the Gentile nations, some of those were corrupted. I believe that Satan corrupted those spirit beings and used them to his own advantage in his attempt to reign over the world. Further, I believe that part of that corruption was in Satan putting it into the hearts of men to build idols which, to them, represented the physical appearance of the very gods that God had assigned to reign over them. This suggestion is consistent with the fact that Satan has often corrupted that which had been good. This also adds great weight to the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:3).

Let us consider the worship of idols. As mentioned above, idols are the supposed physical likeness of spirit beings, i.e. gods. The questions I would like to pose in this section are: 1) were those idols the assumed likeness of gods that did indeed exist? And 2) as suggested above, were the idols the physical representation of those gods whom God had put over each of the nations as He gave them up as recorded in Gen. 11, many of whom were subsequently corrupted by Satan?

Before we answer these questions from Scripture, I believe we must take a moment to reflect on the truth that there is, of course, only one true God. What distinguishes Him from all others that are called “gods” is that He alone is eternal, while in contrast to that eternity, all others were created.

Let us begin our search for the truth with respect to whether these idols were the supposed physical images of existing gods with a further consideration of the Hebrew word “El” and its plural “Elohim”. El” is, as shown above, one of the titles of Jehovah but it is also used of gods in, for example, Ex. 34:14 which reads, “For thou shalt worship no other god (Heb. “el”). If this god did not exist the command would have been an empty one. The Hebrew “elohim” is the plural of “el”. ”Elohim” is another title of Jehovah. We read, for example in Gen. 1:1, “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth”. But “elohim” is also used of gods as in Gen. 35:4, “And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods (Heb. “elohim”)….”.

Let us consider Ex. 12:12 which reads, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn……and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment….”. If these gods of Egypt did not actually exist this pronouncement of judgment would be meaningless. Note also that this verse speaks of a god associated with a specific nation which, in my opinion, suggests that the gods of Egypt were those that had been put in place, as recorded in Deut. 32:8, to reign over the Gentile nations. Obviously, they were at that time not doing the will of God, which leads us to conclude that they had been corrupted.

Ex. 18:10-11 is another passage which contrasts the God of Israel with the gods of a nation other than Israel. That passage reads, “And Jethro said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, Who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh ……..Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods; for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly He was above them”. Again, to say that the Lord is greater than non-existing gods is meaningless. Therefore, I believe that the gods of Egypt did indeed exist. Note also the phrase, “wherein they dealt proudly”. To whom does the pronoun “they” refer in this passage? I believe the most obvious reading is that it refers to those last mentioned, i.e. the gods of Egypt. Once again we have a contrast between Jehovah, the God of Israel, and the corrupted gods of another nation.

Deut. 29:18 reads, “Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations…”. This verse speaks of the gods of other nations. I believe this context suggests that these gods did indeed exist, i.e. they were created to reign over the nations apart from Israel.

Deut. 29:26 also alludes to the gods that God had created to reign over the Gentile nations. That verse reads, “For they (Israel) went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom He had not given unto them”. In other words, this verse speaks of gods which had not been given to Israel. That implies that they had been given to other nations. But in this context it is clear that because Israel was serving them, those gods given to other nations had been corrupted and worked in the interests of Satan in getting Israel to disobey God’s commandment and serve them.

We read in Judges 9:46, “And when all the men of the tower of Shechem heard that (Abimelech’s victory), they entered into an hold of the house of the god Berith”. Note that the Holy Spirit did not write of the house that the men thought was the house of Berith, rather He wrote that they entered into “the house of the god of Berith”. I believe that tells us that Berith was indeed an existing god, i.e. one who had been corrupted. Again, given that this was a god of a specific nation, I believe we may conclude that it was one of the gods that had been set over the Gentile nations as recorded in Deut. 32:8 and later corrupted.

Let us consider Judges 19:6 which reads, “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the Lord, and served not Him”. Note that there is a contrast between serving God, i.e. the God of Israel, and serving the gods, i.e. created beings, as opposed to the only eternal God .The contrast is meaningless if the other gods did not exist. Therefore, I do not believe that these gods were merely physical images of non-existing spirit beings, I believe that they were the supposed physical images of existing gods’. Given that these gods are associated with specific nations, I believe we may conclude that they were the gods that Jehovah had set over the Gentile nations, as recorded in Deut. 32:8 and later corrupted.

I Sam. 26:1-20 records Saul’s search for David in order to kill him. Verses 17-20 is a record of a conversation between the two men and we read in verse 19 David saying, “…..they (those pursuing him) have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying ‘Go, serve other gods”. The “inheritance of the Lord” is, of course, the land of Israel. This inheritance is put in contrast with the phrase “serve other gods”. In other words, by serving the Lord one inherits from Him the Land of Israel, but to serve other gods, is to inherit that which comes from these other gods, a different inheritance, a different nation. My point is that both the Lord and the “other gods” are, in this context, associated with that which would be inherited.

And we read in I Kings 11:1-2,”But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2) Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, ‘Ye shall not go in to them neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods; Solomon clave unto these in love”. The phrase, “their gods” refers to the gods of the specific Gentile nations mentioned in this context, i.e. the gods which Jehovah had set to reign over each Gentile nation which, I believe, Satan corrupted.

I Kings 11:33 also speaks of specific gods of specific Gentile nations. That verse reads, “Because that they have forsaken Me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, …..”.

Consider also Ps. 95:3 which reads, “For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods”. If these gods did not actually exist this verse would make no sense. That is to say, if God is said to be greater than beings who do not exist, that statement would be meaningless.

And we read in Ps. 96:4-5, “For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, But the Lord (Heb. “Jehovah”) made the heavens”. I believe the point of the phrase “the gods of the nations are idols” is that idols are created, which is put in contrast to Jehovah Who alone is eternal. But what is also significant in this passage is the phrase, “the gods of the nations”. Once again, this leads us to conclude that the phrase is used in reference to those gods who had been set in place to reign over the Gentile nations as recorded in Deut. 32:8 and later corrupted.

And we read in Ps. 97:7, “Confounded be all they that serve graven images; That boast themselves of idols: Worship Him, all ye gods”. I do not believe that the Psalmist was asking beings that did not exist to worship God. In short, I believe these spirit beings were existing gods.

Let us also consider Is. 14:13, “For thou (Lucifer) hast said in thine heart, ‘I will ascend into the heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north”. Ps. 75:6 helps to prove that “the north” in Is. 14 refers to heaven, i.e. the dwelling place of God. “For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south, But God is the judge”. Note that Is. 14 speaks of Lucifer’s congregation in heaven. In other words, God has a congregation in heaven, and Satan has a congregation in heaven.

For the sake of clarity I will list the things we have considered in the section above:

Corrupted gods are existing spirit beings in the “congregation” of Satan.

The corrupted gods in the congregation of Satan do Satan’s bidding.

We read of several spirit beings who were the gods of different nations.

WHY DID GOD SCATTER THE NATIONS?

I believe that as we consider the question of why God scattered the nations, the subject of this paper will be more easily understood. Let us begin with Satan. That is to say, what was Satan’s purpose in corrupting the gods? In order to address that question, let us consider another question, i.e. what was Satan’s uppermost ambition? We need not guess as to the answer to that question because it is given quite plainly in Is. 14:13-14 which reads, “For thou (Lucifer, vs.12) hast said in thine heart, ’I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the MOST HIGH”. The New Testament also speaks of that ambition. We read in II Thess. 2:4, “Who (“the son of perdition”, vs 3, i.e. the antichrist serving Satan’s ambitions) opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called god, or that is worshipped: so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”. In short, Satan’s ambition is to be God. And that was Satan’s purpose in corrupting the gods that God had set in place as He scattered the nations as recorded in Gen. 11. That is to say, Satan corrupted some of the gods that had been put in place in order for him, Satan, to reign over those nations as God.

I believe we are now prepared to address the question, why did God scatter the nations as recorded in Gen. 11? Most believe that it was a punishment for what they see as disobedience to God’s command recorded in Gen. 9:1 which reads, “….Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth”. There may have been an element of a punishment, but I suggest that in answering this question we consider the immediate context of Gen. 11:6 which speaks of the building of the tower of Babel. We read in verse 1, “The whole earth was of one language and of one speech”. And in verse 4 we read, “….Let us make a name lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth”. And verse 6 begins, “and the Lord said, ‘Behold the people is one, and they have all one language. And in verse 8 we read, “so the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the fact of all the earth”. I believe we may conclude that the basic reason for God scattering the people was centered on the fact that the people wanted to be united as one, while God wanted them to be scattered and speak different languages in order that they not be one.

So God scattered the nations, according to Gen. 11:6, to prevent the nations from being unified and to prevent them from doing that which “they have imagined to do”. What was it that they had imagined to do? It was to build a city and a tower in which they would all dwell and worship as one. My point is again that, in my opinion, the basic reason that God did what He did was to prevent the oneness of the people.

Why did God not allow the oneness of the nations? Let us consider that question in the context of Deut. 32:8 which also speaks of the nations, but in relation to their allotted boundaries. Deut. 32:8 describes God allotting each nation its own boundaries and its own spirit being through which He would reign over them. In my opinion, God foresaw Satan’s ambition to rule the world, and by separating the nations through different languages and by geographic distances, and by allotting them separate spirit beings to reign over each nation, that ambition would be more difficult to fulfill. That is to say, if there had been one people and one language and one spirit being reigning overreach nation, Satan’s ambition of corrupting that spirit being would have been made much easier than if they had been divided which was, of course, what God determined would be the reality.

SPECIFIC BATTLES BETWEEN SPIRIT BEINGS

Let us consider Dan. 10:13 and 20-21.We read in Dan. 10:13, “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and remained there with the kings of Persia”. And in verses 20-21 we read, “Then said He, ‘Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? And now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince”.

There are several important truths to be learned from this passage. To begin, the phrases “Michael, one of the chief princes” and “Michael your prince” refer to the angel Michael. It is important to know that Michael is a spirit being, i.e. an angel. To whom do the pronouns “me” (“withstood me one and twenty days”) and “I” (“I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture..”) refer? Let us, as always, take our answer from Scripture.

We read in Dan. 10:5, “Then I (Daniel) lifted up mine eyes, and looked and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphas; His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes are lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude”. Who was this “man”? Let us compare this passage with Rev. 1:13-18 which speaks of “the Son of Man”. Note the phrase in Rev. “girt about the papas with a golden girdle” and compare it with Dan. 10:5, “loins were girded with fine gold of Uphas“. Compare also Rev. 1:14 “His eyes were as a flame of fire” with Dan. 10, “his eyes are lamps of fire”. Also compare Rev. 1:15, ”His feet like unto the fine brass”, with Dan. 10, “his feet like in colour to polished brass”. And let us also compare Rev. 1:15, “His voice as the sound of many waters” with Dan. 10, ” voice of his words like the voice of a multitude..”.

The reader will see that the “Man” who appeared to Daniel, as recorded in Dan. chapter 10 is the same “Man” Who appeared to John as recorded in Rev. 1. If there should be any doubt as to Who this “Man” is, Rev. 1:18 puts that doubt to rest, “I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore. Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death”. That Man is, of course, Jesus Christ.

So chapter ten of Daniel records Christ speaking to Daniel. Verse 13 records Christ saying to Daniel, “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood Me ……but lo, Michael, one of the chief princes came to help Me; and I remained there with the king of Persia”. Michael is of course, an angel, i.e. a spirit being as opposed to a human being. And as we read in Jn. 4:24, “God is spirit”. In short, Christ is God, Whose basic nature is spirit. (The fact that Christ assumed visible forms does not change the fact that He is God, and therefore, His basic nature is spirit). Both Christ and Michael took on a physical appearance for this battle recorded in Dan. 10.

Now that we understand that Dan. 10:21-22 speaks of Christ battling with Michael the angel at His side, let us review who was on the other side of this battle. We read of “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” and “the prince of Grecia shall come”. Given that the combatants i.e. Christ and Michael on one side were spirit, I believe we may conclude that the combatants on the other side, i.e. “the prince of the kingdom of Persia”, was also a spirit being. So this battle was between Christ with His spirit beings, against spirit beings who were His enemies. In short, I believe we may conclude that the battle recorded in Dan. 10 was fought between spirit beings, i.e. Christ Whose basic nature as God is spirit, and with Him Michael the angel, against the spirit beings aligned against them. I believe those spirit beings who were aligned against Christ were of the congregation of Satan.

Note once again that this passage speaks of spirit beings associated with specific nations. My point is that this gives credence to the suggestion that they were spirit beings who had been put in place by God when He scattered the nations (Gen. 11) to reign over each nation, and were later corrupted by Satan.

Let us include one more passage in this discussion, i.e. Ezek. 28:12-14 which reads, ”Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, ‘Thus saith the Lord God; ‘Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been to Eden, the garden of God…..Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth…..” . This passage is an obvious reference to Satan who was in the garden of Eden. Note that he is called “the king of Tyrus”. I believe it is important to bear in mind that Persia, Greece and Tyrus were literal places. So just as there were spirit beings, i.e. gods, associated with Egypt and other named nations for which God had allotted bounds, so too were there spirit beings associated with Persia, Greece and Tyrus.

The New Testament supports the suggestion that there will be warfare between spirit beings in heaven. That is to say, in the end times there will be a war in heaven between spirit beings. The ones who had been true to God will war against those sprit beings who had been corrupted by Satan. Let us consider a few verses that may throw some light on that suggestion. We read, for example in Jn. 12:31 Christ’s statement that, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world (Satan) be cast out”. Indeed we read in Rev. 12:7, “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels”. And in Rev. 12:9 we read, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan….he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him”. Consider also Rev. 16:13-14. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty”.

In short, I believe that as God scattered the nations, He assigned to each nation a spirit being to reign over them to accomplish His will. But Satan brought to himself a congregation of spirit beings that he had corrupted in order to try to thwart that plan, and to set in motion the realization of his ambition to be God and as such, to reign over the nations.

SPIRITUAL WARFARE IN THE DISPENSATION OF THE MYSTERY

In the sections above, we considered the fact that there are spirit beings representing the nations of the earth who do God’s bidding, and some of those spirit beings were corrupted and did Satan’s bidding. But as the reader will see in this portion of the study, there is no mention of nations in the scriptures concerning the dispensation of the mystery with regard to a spiritual warfare. This is consistent with the fact that in the present dispensation God’s plans and purposes for the nations of the earth, as such, have been set aside with the setting aside of His chosen nation, Israel, and His plans and purposes for the heavens and heavenly beings have come to the fore. Please see the paper An Introduction to Dispensational Truth for a more complete explanation of this statement.

Let us consider Eph. 3:8-10, “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, Who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God”.

Paul was given the ministry to preach the dispensation of the mystery “to the intent”, i.e. in order that, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. I believe we may conclude that when the mystery was revealed to Paul, God’s wisdom in regard to His knowing and planning for all things that would happen, was revealed to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church. So in one sense, I believe it is the church as an entity that manifests God’s wisdom. That is to say, it was the church as a whole that, when revealed, showed God’s wisdom to the principalities and powers in heavenly places.

But as we consider once again Eph. 6:12 we will find that it is not only the church as an entity that is the witness to principalities and powers, it is also individual members of the church that witness to principalities and powers in heavenly places. That verse reads, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. Note the pronoun “we” in the phrase “we wrestle”. This suggests a warfare between individual believers against spirit beings in heavenly places. And then Paul goes on to tell us of the armor that God has given to individual believers of the present dispensation to protect us from the wicked spirit beings in heavenly places. Was this armor given to protect believers from spiritual wickedness, or was it given to manifest God’s manifold wisdom?

In my opinion, the armor was given to both protect believers and to show God’s wisdom. Let me explain the reason for that belief. We read in Eph. 3:10 that the manifold wisdom of God was made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. The note in the Companion Bible by Dr. E. W. Bullinger on the word “manifold” reads, “implies infinitely diversified“. But if we take that “manifold wisdom” to refer only to that which was made known by the revelation of the mystery, as profound as that revelation is, it does not in itself, as far as I can tell, show God’s “infinitely diversified” wisdom”. It shows that God had known that Israel would reject Her risen Messiah and that She would be put aside. I certainly do not mean to minimize that great plan, but I do not see that it shows God’s “infinitely diversified” wisdom”.

On the other hand, if we include the victories that are attained by each individual member of the church with the help of the God-given armor, it does indeed show a great deal more of that diversity. That is to say, there have been myriads of believers in the dispensation of the mystery, all who have had many of their own individual battles, each answered in an “infinitely diversified” manner by using the armor given them by God. So we have this armor both protecting believers from wickedness in heavenly places, and at the same time showing God’s infinitely diversified wisdom to heavenly beings.

In summarizing this section, I would say that as each individual believer in the dispensation of the mystery uses the God-given armor to wrestle against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places, God’s manifold wisdom is being manifested.

CONCLUSION

We are now prepared to focus on the dispensational difference between the work of spirit beings in previous dispensations and the work of spirit beings in the dispensation of the mystery. I believe the main difference is that in previous dispensations the work of spirit beings was in relation to the nations of the earth whereas the work of spirit beings in the dispensation of the mystery is in relation to individuals. This is perfectly consistent with the main difference between the dispensations in which God had a favored nation and the dispensation of the mystery in which that nation has been set aside as His favored nation. That is to say, with the exception of the dispensation of the mystery, God’s plans centered on the earth, whereas in the dispensation of the mystery, God’s plans center on heaven, but, of course, include those on earth.

APPENDIX I: A CONSIDERATION OF THE TERM “DIVINE COUNCIL”

The term “divine council” comes from the ESV translation of Ps. 82:1 which reads, “God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods He holds judgment”. The term is used by some to describe a council composed of God and those spirit beings that He had created to reign over the nations.

However, the English word “council” is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as, “An assembly summoned for consultation, advice etc.”. I do not believe that God summons anyone for consultation and/or advice. Neither do I believe that Scripture will support the translation of that term.

To begin, of the 26 translations I could find on the inter-net, only one, i.e. the ESV, had “council”. The Hebrew word translated “council” in the ESV in the phrase “divine council” is “gehdah “. “Gehdah” is used well over 100 times in the Old Testament and is never translated “council” in the KJV, it is translated “congregation”, “assembly” “people”, etc.. The English word “council” is found only one time in the KJV of the Old Testament, i.e. in Ps. 68:27 which reads, “There is little Benjamin with their ruler, the princes of Judah and their council…”. . The Hebrew word translated “council” in that verse is “rigmah”. It is obvious that the two Hebrew words are in no way connected. In short, I see no reason for the ESV translation of “council”.

Now let us consider the Hebrew word that the KJV has translated “mighty” and the ESV has translated “divine” in the phrase, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty” (or, as in the ESV, “divine”).That Hebrew word is “el”. The reader may recall that there are several scriptures quoted in the body of this paper which show that the basic meaning of “el” is “power” and “authority”. That is to say, it does not mean “divine” nor does it always refer to deity. In order to leave absolutely no doubt as to how this Hebrew word is used, I will quote several other scriptures which prove that its basic meaning is “power and authority”.

Job 36:22, “Behold, God (Heb. “el”) exalteth by His power (Heb. “el”)”. This verse is particularly helpful in that the Hebrew word “el” is used as one of the titles of God, and is also translated “power”. That is to say, when “El” is used as one of God’s titles, it is used to emphasize God’s power and authority.

Ps. 36:6, “Thy righteousness is like the great ((Heb. “el”) mountains…”.

Prov. 3:27, “Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power (Heb. “el”) of thine hand to do it”.

Mic. 2:1, “Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light they practice it, because it is in the power (Heb. “el”) of their hand”. See also Job 36:5, Ps. 29:1, Ps. 56:1, Is. 10:21, and Ezek. 31:11.

The point is that while it is true that “El” is one of the many titles of God and is often translated “God”, that does not mean that every time the word is used it refers to deity. So when we read that “’Elohim stands in the congregation of el”, we may understand it to say that God stands in the congregation of the mighty, just as it is translated in the KJV. (The question of to whom the term “el” i.e. “mighty”, refers in Ps. 82 will be discussed below).

In other words, there is no reason to translate the Hebrew word “gehdah“ as “council”, and, as proved above, the Hebrew word “el” does not always indicate deity, and in point of fact, its basic meaning is not “divine”. The determination of to whom it refer must be taken from the context.

Now let us come back to the question of to whom the term “the mighty” refers in the phrase, “standeth in the congregation of the mighty”. Let us consider the next phrase, i.e. “He judgeth among the gods”. As is often the case with the Hebrew poetry of the Old Testament, it is written in couplets, each part of the couplet clarifying the other. So in this case we have God standing in the congregation of the mighty, judging among, or in the midst of, the gods. As we picture God standing in the congregation of the mighty to judge in the midst of the elohim, we see how the couplet equates the mighty (Heb. “el”) with the gods (Heb. “elohim”). And the Hebrew words themselves translated “mighty” and “gods” in the couplet are also connected. That is to say, the Hebrew word translated “mighty” is “el” and the Hebrew word translated “gods” is “elohim”, which is the plural of “el”. In other words, the term “mighty” and the term “gods” as used in Ps. 82:1 refer to the same beings.

With that in mind we are prepared to address the question of to whom the terms “mighty” and “gods” refer in Ps. 82:1. Are these elohim spirit beings who judge the nations over which God had set them to reign, or are they men who had received their authority from God to judge other men? There is not one scripture that speaks of the elohim “as spirit beings”, or in fact of any spirit beings judging, but there are a few scriptures quoted below that do speak of men as elohim judging other men.

Let us consider a few passages in which “elohim” Is used of men. Consider for example, Ex. 7:1 which reads, “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee a god (Heb. “elohim”) to Pharaoh”. Moses was not turned into a spirit being at that moment, so how was he made a god to Pharaoh? The Hebrew word “el” which is the singular form of “elohim” and, as has been proved above, has the basic meaning of power and authority. So we learn from Ex. 7:1 that God made Moses as a power, i.e. a god to Pharaoh. Let us also consider Ex. 22:28 which reads, “Thou shalt not revile the gods (Heb. “elohim”), nor curse the ruler of thy People”. Is Moses speaking of spirit beings, and the “ruler of thy People”, or is he speaking of those men who are in authority and the ruler of Israel? In my opinion, the most likely reading is that he is speaking of those men who are in authority and the ruler of Israel. These passages do not speak of judging, but my point in quoting them is that they do refer to man as “elohim” having power.

Let us consider those passages which speak of men as “elohim” who judge. For example, we read in Ex. 22:8-9, “If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (Heb. “elohim”), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (Heb. “elohim”)……”.It seems to me that the fact that some will be “brought unto” the elohim, and “come before” them” suggests that in this context, the elohim were men.

And we read in I Sam. 2:25, “If one man sins against another, the judge (Heb. “elohim”) shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him?…..”. In my opinion, the point of this verse is to contrast that which the elohim will judge, with that which God will judge. That is to say, elohim will judge a man who has sinned against another man, but who will intreat for a man who sins against God. Spirit beings are not part of this context, and the contrast is not in evidence if we assume that the judges are spirit beings. But if we see these elohim as men, then the contrast is preserved.

In short, I believe that the elohim who are spoken of in Ps. 82 are men, not spirit beings.

But the argument is made that it is the “divine council” that is implied when we read, for example in Gen. 11:7, “Let Us go down and there confound their language….”. It is argued that the pronoun “Us” must refer to God and His divine council. Because, as proved above, the Word of God does not speak of a “divine council”, I would like to suggest an alternative to that presumption.

We read in Gen. 1:26-27, “And Elohim said, ‘Let Us make man in Our own image….. .So Elohim created man in His own image….”. But we read in Deut. 32:15 of Jeshurun, “he forsook Eloah which made him“. This verse tells us that Eloah created man. “Eloah” is another title of Jehovah. And in Deut. 32:18, we read, “….And hast El (yet another title of Jehovah) that formed thee…“. This verse tells us that El created man.

These are all titles of one God. So when we read in Gen. 11:7, “Let Us go down…” there is no reason to assume a divine council when the first occurrence of the pronoun “Us” when used of God is used of One Person with several titles. So too in Gen.11 the pronoun “Us” refers to God in several offices or titles.

It has also been suggested that I Kings 22 speaks of a supposed “divine council”. We read in I Kings 22:19-22, “….Hear therefore the word of the Lord; ‘I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, ‘Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said; ‘I will persuade him’. And the Lord said unto him, ‘Wherewith?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And He said, ‘Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so’”.

There are several reasons for my disagreement with the suggestion that this scene is one of a “divine council”. 1) There is no mention of a “council”. 2) It is clear that God did not seek “consultation” or “advice” which is how the word “council” is defined in Websters’ Dictionary. God’s only question was, “who shall persuade Ahab?”. That is not asking for advice, it is asking who will do His will. 3) The spirits in this context are not referred to as “gods”, or as “divine”.

In short, I Kings 22 does not speak of a council and it does not speak of any who are divine.

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond please e-mail me at: [email protected]

January 23, 2025/ Religion

“SIT THOU AT MY RIGHT HAND” – Right Word Truth

maximios /

“SIT THOU AT MY RIGHT HAND”

We read in Psalms 110:1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, ‘Sit Thou at My right hand……”. Psalms 110:1 has become, through misinterpretation, one of the verses which has been used to put Jesus Christ in a position of being less than equal, in the minds of some, to God, or, in the minds of others, to God the Father. That is to say, most Christians have a vague idea of a large throne in heaven with a lesser throne to its right. The larger throne is, in their minds, for God and the smaller is for Christ. That picture suggests that somehow Jesus Christ is less than God, which, of course, is impossible because Jesus Christ is God. God can not be less than God. (John 18:20 is another of those verses which diminishes the fact of Who Christ is and is discussed in the paper on this web-site “Jesus Christ Is Both Jehovah And The Manifestation Of Jehovah”).

Let us examine Psalms 110 with a view towards correcting that misinterpretation. Before we do that we must address the difficulty of the interpretation and translation of Psalm 110:1. It has been said that the Hebrew word “Adoni” is never used of God. The paper on this web-site A Study Of The Hebrew Word “Adoni addresses this problem and will prove from Scripture that Ps. 110:1 does indeed refer to Christ as Son of God in some places and as Son of Man in others. Jesus Christ is Jehovah (please see the paper mentioned above for proof of that statement.) One of the titles of Jehovah is “Adoni”. That means that Christ/Jehovah, will conquer the enemies of Adoni, a title of Jehovah, Who is Christ. So Adoni will be at the right hand of Jehovah.

But Christ is Jehovah. If we interpret the phrase, “at the right hand of God” literally and see God sitting on a big throne with Christ on a slightly smaller throne at His right hand, we have placed Christ (as Jehovah) on the big throne and Adoni (which is a title of Jehovah/Christ) on the throne at His right hand. Jehovah and Adoni are the same Person, Adoni is simply a title. I trust that the reader can see that if we interpret the phrase literally, confusion reigns.

I suggest that we may eradicate all this confusion by seeing the truth of the phrase “sit Thou at My right hand”. That truth is that the phrase must be figurative. That Jehovah/Christ is God, the one and only God (please see the paper on this web-site The Trinity, Is God Three Persons In One?).

I offer this paper to the student of God’s Word as a study of the true meaning of this verse.

The central issue of the phrase “sit Thou at My right hand” is whether it is literal or figurative. That is to say, is Christ seated now at the right hand of God in heaven, or is there a more profound meaning to this statement than to just tell us where Christ is seated in heaven? I believe that there is a deeper meaning than where He is seated in heaven.

Before we get to that meaning, may I say, lest I am misunderstood, that I do indeed believe that Christ is in heaven. Having said that let us now go to the Old Testament and study the phrase “right hand”. It is, in my opinion, very important to understand how the phrase was used in the Old Testament because that is how it would be understood by those living at the time of the writing of the New Testament. We will not study the passages that obviously refer to the literal right hand as opposed to the left, but only those verses that will help us in our study of the phrase found in Psalms. 110.

The first occurrence of the phrase is in Deut. 33:2, “…..from His right hand went a fiery law…”. Let us consider this phrase in terms of whether it is to be understood literally or figuratively. The literal meaning is, obviously, that the “fiery law” came from God. The phrase “from His right hand” therefore is a figure of speech. It is the figure of speech Metonymy of Adjunct, which is defined in the Companion Bible, Appendix 6 as, “when something pertaining to the subject is put for the subject itself”.

Figures of speech are used in order to enhance the literal meaning. How is the literal meaning enhanced by the figure of speech in this case? the fact that the law is described as “fiery” tells us that it came with power and it also hints of judgment if the law is not obeyed.

Psalms 16:8-11, “I have set the Lord always before me: Because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope. For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell: Neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in Thy presence is fulness of joy: At Thy right hand there are pleasures forever more”. Note verse 8 where we read that “He is at my right hand”. The writer is saying that God is always with him. He is using “at my right hand” as a figure of speech to emphasize the point. Note also verse 11 where we read that “at Thy right hand there are pleasures…”. Here again, the literal meaning is that God gives pleasures. But the figure of speech Metonymy enhances the literal meaning with the phrase “at Thy right hand”.

Psalms 17:7, “…..Thou that savest by Thy right hand”. It is, of course, God that saves, but the writer, by the Holy Spirit, enhances that thought by the figure of speech, Metonymy of Adjunct. “Thy right hand” is used for the saving power of God.

Psalms 20:6, “…..saving strength of His right hand”. Here the figure of speech employed in the phrase “His right hand” enhances the idea of the saving strength of God.

Psalms 48:10, “…..Thy right hand is full of righteousness”. Psalms 60:50, “…..save with Thy right hand….”. The phrase “Thy right hand” is the figure of speech Metonymy of Adjunct where “right hand” is used for God Himself. That is to say, it is not His right hand that saves, it is God Who saves.

Ps. 63:8, “…..Thy right hand upholdeth me”. Again, “Thy right hand” is used as a figure of speech for God Himself.

Ps. 74:10-11, “O God, how long shall the adversary approach? Shall the enemy blaspheme Thy name forever? Why withdrawest Thou Thy hand, even Thy right hand?” It is clear in all the scriptures quoted above that the phrase “Thy right hand” is not to be taken literally, that it is put as a figure of speech to indicate God’s presence. That is to say, the question is literally, why does God withdraw Himself?

Ps. 80:14-15, “Return, we beseech Thee, O God of hosts; Look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; and the vineyard which Thy right hand hath planted….”. Again, literally, it is God Who plants.

Ps. 98:1, “He hath done marvelous things. His right hand and His holy arm hath gotten Him the victory.” Here the phrase “His right hand” is used of God’s power unto victory.

Ps. 109:6, “Set Thou a wicked man over him (the wicked people of the previous verses) and let Satan stand at his right hand”. This verse is particularly helpful in our understanding of how the phrase “at his right hand” is to be understood. The Psalmist asks for Satan to stand at the right hand of a wicked man. It is clear, in my opinion, that to stand at one’s right hand is to stand in a position of influence. Again, we must take the phrase as a figure of speech, otherwise we learn only where the Psalmist asks for Satan to stand. When we interpret the phrase, as it should be,i.e. figuratively, we understand that Satan will occupy a position of influence.

Ps. 110:1, “The Lord (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Adonai), ‘Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool”. We have in this verse two phrases that are used as figures of speech, but not the same figure of speech. “At My right hand” and “Thy footstool”. The right hand of God, as we have learned from all the scriptures quoted above, refers, not to place, but to position. It refers to a position of influence and strength. “Footstool” refers to His enemies in a conquered state.

Let us continue with verse 5 where we read, “The Lord at Thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath”. Again, at the right hand of the Lord refers to a position of strength, not location.

Ps. 118:15-16, “…. The right hand of the Lord doeth valiantly. The right hand of the Lord is exalted”. This verse is perhaps the most obvious in its need to be taken figuratively. It is clear that the right hand of the Lord is not to be exalted more than any other part of the Lord. But the phrase “the right hand of the Lord” is used to mean the Lord in whatever characteristic the context implies. In this verse it implies the position of power and of wrath.

Ps. 138:7, “….Thy right hand shall save me…”. Ps. 139:10, “….Thy right hand shall hold me”. It is God who saves, not His right hand.

Ecc. 10:2, “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, but a fool’s heart is at his left”. This is another case where the phrase must obviously be taken figuratively. Here the heart being at the right hand of the wise man indicates the position of influence.

Is. 48:13, “Mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, My right hand hath spanned the heavens”. Obviously, God created, “right hand” is used figuratively.

Hab. 2:16, “… the cup of the Lord’s right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.” In my opinion, the “of” in the phrase “cup of the Lord’s right hand” is the Genitive of relation. That is to say, it means “the cup pertaining to…”. The cup pertains to God’s judgment.

Zech. 3:1, “Joshua…standing before the angel of the Lord and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him”. To say that the phrase “at his right hand” is simply a literal statement of fact, and means only the location in which Satan stood, greatly diminishes the meaning of this phrase. When we recognize that “at the right hand” is a position, not a place, then we understand that Satan occupies a position of power to resist the angel of the Lord.

Now that we see that “at the right hand” is a position, not a location, we are ready to go to the New Testament uses of the phrase “at the right hand”. The first occurrence is found in Matthew 22:44 which is a quote from Psalms 110:1. This verse has been discussed above and the reader may recall that the context of this Psalm very definitely shows “at the right hand” refers, not to location, but to position.

Mark 12:36 is a quote from Psalms 110:1.

Mark 14:62 is the same as Matthew 26:64.

Mark 16:19, “…. He was taken up into heaven and He sat at the right hand of God”. There is no question that Christ is in heaven, a literal location. That does not, however mean that the phrase “at the right hand of God” must also be taken literally. As we have seen thus far in our study, Mark would have understood the phrase as a figurative one.

Luke 20:42 is a quote of Psalms 110:1.

Luke 22:69, “…..from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of Almighty God”. This statement by our Lord comes as a response to the question asked by the chief priests, “Are you the Christ?” If our Lord was simply telling them where He would be it would really not answer their question. He told them so much more than where He would be. He told them by the phrase (which they would have understood from the Old Testament) that He would be exalted in His position.

Acts 2:25 is quoted from Psalms 16:8-11. “Because He is at my right hand I will not be shaken”. Please see the comments on that passage above.

Acts 2:33, “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear”. The word “exalted” is an obvious clue that the phrase is to be taken figuratively, as a position of honor and glory. If one takes this phrase literally none of that exaltation is understood.

Acts 2:34 is a quote of Psalm 110:1.

Acts 5:31, “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior ….”. This is the same phrase that we had read so many times in the Old Testament. Just as His “right hand” should be taken figuratively in the Old Testament, so must it be in the New Testament.

In Acts 7:55-56 we read of Stephan and his seeing “the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God”. The Greek word “kai” translated “and” in this verse can also be translated “even”. Because one can not really see glory, I believe that in this verse “kai” should be translated “even”. So Stephan saw the glory of God, even Jesus standing at the right hand of God. The fact that he saw Jesus Who is the glory of God suggests that “the right hand of God” is a position of glory, not a location.

Romans 8:34, “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ That died, yea rather, That is risen again, Who is even at the right hand of God, Who also maketh intercession for us”. The point of this verse is that Christ “maketh intercession for us”. Does He do that because He has a certain place? I believe that Christ makes intercession because He has the right because what He did for sinners. Therefore, this verse uses the phrase “at the right hand” as a figure of speech.

Eph. 1:20-22, “Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And hath put all things under His feet….”. We see in verse 22 a quote from Psalms 110:1 which is definitely figurative. That is to say, “all things under His feet” refers to the fact that Christ has conquered all things, not to a literal placement of all things under His feet. This verse does speak of Christ’s location above all principality etc. but to say that it speaks only of Chris’s is location is to greatly detract from the true meaning of this verse. The meaning is that He is so much more than all other things, not only that He is located above them.

Col. 3:1, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God”. There is no question that Christ is seated in heaven. The question is whether the phrase “sitteth on the right hand of God” refers to where in heaven He is seated or whether Paul is writing of the position Christ holds in heaven. I believe it is the latter.

Heb. 1:3, “Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”. This entire verse centers on Who Christ is. He is the glory of God, He is the image of God, He is all powerful and He has purged our sins. It is highly unlikely that the writer of Hebrews goes from such a lofty theme to tell his readers where Christ is seated. I trust the reader will agree that in this verse also, the phrase “on the right hand of the Majesty on high” refers, not to location but to position.

Hebrews 1:13 is a quote from Psalms 110:1.

Heb. 8:1, “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”. What are “the things which we have spoken” which the writer sums up? They are things that have to do with superiority of Christ, the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Note for example 7:26, “For such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens”. The phrase, “made higher than the heavens” is obviously meant to be taken figuratively. That is to say, He was made higher than anyone or anything on earth or in heaven. There are several things which point to the phrase “set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” as referring, not to location, but to position. Let us examine Psalms 110 with a view towards correcting that misinterpretation. Verse 8:1 is the sum of the previous statements of the writer. Surely, Christ’s location is not the sum of those things. It is His position that is the sum.

Heb. 10:12, “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God”. The message of Hebrews 10 is that unlike the sacrifices of old which had to be offered over and over again, Christ offered one sacrifice and was finished. I believe that the contrast is being made between the ineffectiveness of the old and the effectiveness of the new. Therefore, once again, the writer is emphasizing the position of Christ and not His location.

Hebrews 12:2, “Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith, Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God”. It is impossible to believe that the author of Hebrews was saying that Jesus Christ endured the cross and the shame that He is now literally located at the right hand of God. There is no Scriptural evidence to assume a literal throne, that too is figurative.

I Peter 3:22, “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God: angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him”. Angels and powers are not made subject to Christ simply because of where He is located. We must understand that “on the right hand of God” is a figure of speech emphasizing His position.

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond please e-mail me at: [email protected]

January 23, 2025/ Religion

Papers Concerning Other Subjects – Right Word Truth

maximios /

A STUDY OF THE SUPPOSED ERRORS IN THE BIBLE

PREDESTINATION

WAS JOEL’S PROPHECY FULFILLED AT ACTS 2?

ARE MEN IN AUTHORITY OVER WOMEN?

AT WHAT POINT DOES LIFE BEGIN?

WHO WAS RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE CROSS?

A LESSON IN THE STUDY OF THE PERSIAN KINGS OF GOD’S WISDOM AND LOVE FOR HIS OWN

THE EIGHT FEASTS OF THE MOSAIC LAW AND WHAT THEY TYPIFY

WHY WAS JESUS CHRIST BAPTIZED?

WHY WERE TABERNACLES BUILT AT THE TRANSFIGURATION? (New as of March, 2018)

“YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN”

A STUDY IN HOW TO INTERPRET THE PARABLES OF JESUS CHRIST

A STUDY OF THE TERMS USED OF GOD’S KINGDOMS

WERE THE REPHAIM PROGENY OF FALLEN ANGELS?

A STUDY OF THE OLIVE TREE, THE FIG TREE AND THE VINE

WILL THERE BE “MANSIONS” IN HEAVEN?

WAS PAUL CAUGHT UP TO PARADISE?

A STUDY OF THE VARIOUS GOSPELS MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

DOES GOD WORK IN OUR LIVES TODAY?

HOW LONG WAS CHRIST IN THE TOMB?

DID CHRIST MAKE TWO TRIUMPHAL ENTRIES INTO JERUSALEM?

JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT FORSAKEN ON THE CROSS

WAS JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED ON THE DAY OF PASSOVER?

THE TIME LINE BETWEEN CHRIST’S ARRIVAL AT BETHANY AND HIS ASCENSION

A STUDY OF GOD’S COVENANTS

A STUDY OF THE MEANING OF THE VARIOUS BAPTISMS OF THE BIBLE

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE KING JAMES ONLY DOCTRINE

SOME THOUGHTS ON COVENANT THEOLOGY

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE KORAN

THE GREAT COMMISSION: WHEN WILL IT BE FULFILLED?

WHO ARE THE “POWERS THAT BE” OF ROMANS 13? (new as of December, 2017 )

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE GEOCENTRIC THEORY?

“ALL THINGS WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD” (new as of March 2017)

January 23, 2025/ Religion

THE TRINITY PART FOUR: DOES JESUS CHRIST SIT NEXT TO GOD IN HEAVEN? – Right Word Truth

maximios /

Many Christians have a picture in their minds of God seated on a throne in heaven and our Lord Jesus Christ sitting next to Him at His right hand. And indeed there are passages that do seem to say just that. However, I disagree with that thinking. Part of the reason I disagree is because, as the papers on the doctrine of the trinity on this web-site will prove, God is One, not three Persons. Please see the following papers for the Scriptural evidence of that statement: The Trinity: Is God Three Persons In One?, and The Trinity Part Two: “Elohim” and also The Trinity Part Three: The Scriptures That Disprove The Doctrine.

The following topics will be considered in answer to the question, does Christ sit next to God in heaven?:

“THEOS”: THE GREEK WORD TRANSLATED “GOD”.

JESUS CHRIST IS JEHOVAH

A STUDY OF THE PHRASE “SIT THOU AT MY RIGHT HAND”

A STUDY OF THE PASSAGES IN REVELATION THAT SPEAK OF THE THRONE

“THEOS”: THE GREEK WORD TRANSLATED “GOD”

When we read the English word “God” in the New Testament, we must understand that it is not a name, it is a word used of Jehovah, Who is God. God has one Name, and that Name is “Jehovah”. Isaiah 42:8 reads, “I am Jehovah, that is My Name;…”. Exodus 6:3 is also helpful in establishing what God’s Name is, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by My Name, Jehovah, I did not make Myself known to them”. And in Isaiah 54:5 we read of His Name, Jehovah, plus one of the ten Jehovah titles, “For your Maker is your husband, Jehovah-Sabaioth is His Name.

Let us consider briefly the name as given in Ex. 3, “I AM”. Ex. 3:13-14, “….and they shall say unto me, ‘What is His Name’? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM……I AM hath sent me unto you”. Is this another name for Jehovah? I do not believe it is. As the reader may know, the original Hebrew Old Testament did not have points indicating vowels. That is to say, in the original language only consonants were used. So the spelling of Jehovah was JHVH or, JHWH. The spelling of the word translated “I AM” was HYH. The similarity in the spelling has led some Hebrew linguists to doubt the spelling of both words

Let us consider the slight difference in the Hebrew spelling of “Jehovah” and “I AM”. I believe that Is. 42:8, (“I am Jehovah, that is My Name) makes is clear that God has only one name, and the spelling is slightly different in Exodus 3 to make the point of What He is, i.e. eternal. In Is. 54:5, quoted above, the title “Sabaioth” was added to His Name, “Jehovah” in order to give a fuller meaning to His Name. So too, in my opinion, when Moses asked His name, Jehovah gave a slightly different spelling to His Name in order to give a fuller meaning.

JESUS CHRIST IS JEHOVAH

As we compare Is. 40:3 with Matthew 3:3 the reader will see just one of the many reasons for my belief that Jesus Christ is Jehovah and the manifestation of Jehovah. Is. 40:3 reads, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, ‘Prepare ye the way of Jehovah…..’”. In Matt. 3:1-3 we read, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea…..for this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord….”. In my opinion, scriptures cannot be much plainer. Isaiah speaks of one preparing the way of Jehovah. Matt. 3:3 tells us that what John the Baptist was doing fulfilled that spoken of by Isaiah. In other words, John the Baptist was preparing the way of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. The paper on this web-site Jesus Christ Is Both Jehovah And The Manifestation Of Jehovah will prove from Scripture that Christ is Jehovah.

What we have learned is that the Hebrew “Jehovah” is God’s name. So when we read of “God” (“Theos”) in the New Testament we are reading of Jehovah. We have also seen that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, which means of course, that when we read of God (Theos) in the New Testament, we are reading of Jesus Christ. For example when we read in Rev. 7:10 “…Salvation to our God Which sitteth on the throne…”, we are reading of Christ on the throne.

A STUDY OF THE PHRASE “SIT THOU AT MY RIGHT HAND”

We read in Psalms 110:1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, ‘Sit Thou at My right hand……”. Unfortunately, Psalms 110:1 has become, through misinterpretation, one of the verses which has, in the minds of some, placed Jesus Christ in a position of being less than equal, to God, or, in the minds of others, less than God the Father. That is to say, I have seen pictures of a large throne in heaven with a lesser throne to its right. The larger throne is, in the minds of some, for God and the smaller is for Christ. That picture suggests that somehow Jesus Christ is less than God, which, of course, is impossible because Jesus Christ is God. God can not be less than God. Let us examine Psalms 110 with a view towards correcting that misinterpretation.

Let us translate Ps. 110:1 using the Hebrew for a few words. “Jehovah said unto Adoni, ‘Sit Thou at My right hand’”. “Jehovah” is God’s name and Jesus Christ is Jehovah. “Adoni” is one of Jehovah’s many titles. So, if we interpret the phrase, “at My right hand” literally we will have Christ/Jehovah sitting on one throne with Christ/Adoni on another throne at His right hand. But Jehovah and Adoni are the same Person, Adoni is simply one of the many titles of Jehovah. I trust that the reader can see that if we interpret the phrase literally, confusion reigns.

I suggest that we may eradicate all this confusion by seeing the truth of the phrase “sit Thou at My right hand”. That truth is that the phrase must be interpreted figuratively. Jehovah/Christ is God, the one and only God (please see the paper on this web-site The Trinity, Is God Three Persons In One?). Christ will conquer His enemies and in His office (or title) of Adoni, He will reign over those enemies as their conqueror.

The central issue of the phrase “sit Thou at My right hand” is whether it is to be understood literally or figuratively. That is to say, is Christ seated now at the right hand of God in heaven, or is there a more profound meaning to this statement than to just tell us where Christ is located in heaven? I believe that there is a deeper meaning than where He is in heaven.

Before we get to that meaning, may I say, lest I am misunderstood, that I do indeed believe that Christ is in heaven. We are told as much in the Word and there is no doubt that He is in heaven. Having said that let us now go to the Old Testament and study the phrase “right hand”. It is, in my opinion, very important to understand how the phrase was used in the Old Testament because that is how it would be understood by those living at the time of the writing of the New Testament. We will not study the passages that obviously refer to the right hand as opposed to the left, but only those verses that will help us in our study of the phrase found in Psalms. 110.

The first occurrence of the phrase is in Deut. 33:2, “…..from His right hand went a fiery law…”. Let us consider this phrase in terms of whether it is to be understood literally or figuratively. The literal meaning is obviously, that the “fiery law” came from God. That is to say, the point is not that the law came from His right hand, but that it came from God. The phrase “from His right hand” therefore is a figure of speech. It is the figure of speech “Metonymy of Adjunct” Which is explained in the Companion Bible, Appendix 6 as, “when something pertaining to the subject is put for the subject itself”.

The literal meaning of Deut. 33:2 is that a law came from God. Figures of speech are used in order to enhance the literal meaning. How is the literal meaning enhanced by the figure of speech in this case? As we shall see as we continue in this study, the phrase, “His right hand” is used as a figure of speech to stand for God’s power and authority. In this verse it is His authority as He gives His law.

Psalms 16:8-11, “I have set the Lord always before me: Because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope. For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell: Neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in Thy presence is fulness of joy: At Thy right hand there are pleasures forever more”. Note verse 8 where we read that “He is at my right hand”. The writer is saying, literally, that God is always with him. He is using “at my right hand” as a figure of speech for God’s power and authority that is always with him.

Psalms 17:7, “…..Thou that savest by Thy right hand”. It is, of course, God Who saves, but the writer, through the Holy Spirit, enhances that thought by the figure of speech, Metonymy of Adjunct. “Thy right hand” is used for the saving power of God.

Psalms 20:6, “…..saving strength of His right hand”. It is, of course, not literally God’s right hand that saves, it is God who saves. Here the figure of speech employed in the phrase “His right hand” enhances the idea of the saving strength of God.

Psalms 48:10, “…..Thy right hand is full of righteousness”. It is not literally God’s right hand that is full of righteousness, it is God Who is “full of righteousness”. And more specifically, it is how God uses His power and authority that is righteous.

Psalms 60:50, “…..save with Thy right hand….”. The phrase “Thy right hand” is the figure of speech Metonymy of Adjunct where “right hand” is used for God Himself. That is to say, it is not His right hand that saves, it is God who saves.

Ps. 63:8, “…..Thy right hand upholdeth me”. Again, “Thy right hand” is used as a figure of speech for it is God Who upholdeth the Psalmist. .

Ps. 74:10-11, “O God, how long shall the adversary approach? Shall the enemy blaspheme Thy name forever? Why withdrawest Thou Thy hand, even Thy right hand?” In verse 11 it is obvious that “Thy right hand” is put for God Himself. That is to say, the Psalmist asks why God withdraws, not why His right hand withdraws. The figure of speech “Thy right hand” is used to emphasize the fact that it is God’s power and authority that has been withdrawn.

Ps. 80:14-15, “Return, we beseech Thee, O God of hosts; Look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; and the vineyard which Thy right hand hath planted….”. The intent of this verse is not to say that God used only His right hand to plant. It is to say that God hath planted. Again, “Thy right hand” is used as a figure of speech for God’s power and authority.

Ps. 98:1, “He hath done marvelous things. His right hand and His holy arm hath gotten Him the victory.” The point is not that God used one hand to get the victory. It is that God got the victory. Again, “His right hand” is used as a figure of speech to emphasize His power and authority.

Now that we see that the phrase “at the right hand” is used as a figure of speech we are ready to go to the New Testament uses of the phrase “at the right hand”. The first occurrence is found in Matthew 22:44 which is a quote from Psalms 110:1. This verse has been studied above and the reader may recall that the context of this Psalm very definitely shows “at the right hand” refers, not to location, but to position.

Matt. 26:64, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One coming on the clouds of heaven”. That the phrase is to be understood figuratively is obvious by the fact that the “Mighty One” is not also coming in the clouds. That is to say, bearing in mind that this verse speaks of what will be seen in the clouds , not what is in heavenly places, if the phrase “the right hand of the Mighty One” were to be taken literally as to location, then as the Son of Man came down from heaven the Mighty One would have to come down with Him. Otherwise He would not be literally at the right hand of the Mighty One. (I will say, however, that I believe the phrase “the Mighty One” is used of a different office of God, i.e. it is not used in reference to a different Person.)

Mark 12:36 is a quote from Psalms 110:1.

Mark 14:62 is the same as Matthew 26:64.

Mark 16:19, “…. He was taken up into heaven and He sat at the right hand of God”. There is no question that Christ is in heaven, a literal location. That does not, however mean that the phrase “at the right hand of God” must also be taken literally. Mark would have understood by how it is used in the Old Testament that the phrase is to be understood figuratively.

Luke 20:42 is a quote of Psalms 110:1.

Luke 22:69, “…..from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of Almighty God”. This statement by our Lord comes as a response to the question asked by the chief priests, “Are you the Christ?” Christ told them so much more than where He would be, He told them by the phrase “seated at the right hand” (which they would have understood from the Old Testament) that He would be exalted in His position.

Acts 2:25 is quoted from Psalms 16:8-11. “Because He is at my right hand I will not be shaken. Please see the comments on that passage above.

Acts 2:33, “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear”. The word “exalted” is an obvious clue that the phrase is to be taken figuratively, as a position of honor and glory. If one takes this phrase literally, i.e. denoting location, none of that exaltation is understood.

Acts 2:34 is a quote of Psalm 110:1.

Acts 5:31, “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior ….”. This is the same phrase that we had read so many times in the Old Testament. Just as His “right hand” should be taken figuratively in the Old Testament, so must it be in the New Testament.

In Acts 7:55-56 we read of Stephen seeing “the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God”. The Greek word “kai” translated “and” in this verse can also be translated “even”. Because God is Jesus Christ, I believe that in this verse “kai” should be translated “even”. So Stephen saw the glory of God, even Jesus standing at the right hand of God. The fact that he saw Jesus Who is the glory of God suggests that “the right hand of God” is a position of glory, not a location.

Romans 8:34, “Who is he that condemeth? It is Christ That died, yea rather, That is risen again, Who is even at the right hand of God, Who also maketh intercession for us”. I have tried to show that the phrase “at the right hand” is used figuratively for position. In this verse the context also suggests a figurative interpretation. That is to say that Paul’s point is not where Christ is, but that He is in a position of power and authority. There is a contrast between “died” and “risen” to show the contrast between Christ’s humiliation and His exaltation. His exaltation is described in His having been risen and figuratively of His position of power at the right hand of God. To interpret the phrase “at the right hand” literally tells us only where Christ is. That is not, in my opinion, what Paul intended.

Eph. 1:20-22, “Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And hath put all things under His feet….”. We see in verse 22 a quote from Psalms 110:1 which is definitely figurative. That is to say, “all things under His feet” refers to the fact that Christ has conquered all things, not to a literal placement of all things under His feet. To say only that Christ is located far above all principalities, powers, etc. is to greatly detract from the point of this verse. The point is that He is so much more than all other things, not that He is located above them.

Col. 3:1, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God”. There is no question that Christ is seated in heaven. The question is whether the phrase “sitteth on the right hand of God” refers to where in heaven He is seated or whether Paul is writing of the position Christ holds in heaven. I believe it is the latter because, as I have tried to show from Scripture, that is how the phrase is used.

Heb. 1:3, “Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”. This entire verse centers on Who Christ is. He is the glory of God, He is the image of God, He is all powerful and He has purged our sins. It is highly unlikely that the writer of Hebrews goes from such a lofty theme to tell his readers where Christ is seated. I trust the reader will agree that in this verse also, the phrase “on the right hand of the Majesty on high” refers, not to location but to position.

Hebrews 1:13 is a quote from Psalms 110:1.

Heb. 8:1, Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”. What are “the things which we have spoken” which the writer sums up? They are things that have to do with superiority of Christ, the High Priest after the order of Melchizedec. Note for example 7:26, “For such an High Priest became us, who is holy, blameless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens”. The phrase, “made higher than the heavens” is obviously meant to be taken figuratively. That is to say, He was exalted more than anyone or anything on earth or in heaven. Verse 8:1 is the sum of the previous statements of the writer. Surely, Christ’s location is not the sum of those things. It is His position that is the sum.

Heb. 10:12, “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God”. The message of Hebrews 10 is that unlike the sacrifices of old which had to be offered over and over again, Christ offered one sacrifice and was finished. I believe that the contrast is being made between the ineffectiveness of the old and the effectiveness of the new. Therefore, once again, the writer is emphasizing the position of Christ and not His location.

Hebrews 12:2, “Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith, Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God”. It is, in my opinion, impossible to believe that the author of Hebrews was saying that Jesus Christ endured the cross and the shame so that He would be located at the right hand of God. And if it does stand for position, then we should not take the phrase literally, since it is meant to be understood figuratively.

I Peter 3:22, “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God: angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him”. Angels and powers are not made subject to Christ simply because of where He is located. We must understand that “on the right hand of God” is a figure of speech emphasizing His position of authority and power.

A STUDY OF THE PASSAGES IN REVELATION THAT SPEAK OF THE THRONE

In the section above I have tried to prove from Scripture that Christ does not literally sit at the right hand of God. That is to say, Christ does not sit on a different throne than does God. But because some of the passages in Revelation speak of God and the Lamb on the throne I think it would be good to treat these passages in Revelation separately. That is to say, we know that “the Lamb” is Christ (see Jn. 1:29); does the fact that John speaks of God and the Lamb mean that there are two Persons?

Rev. 1:4-5 reads, “grace and peace from Him Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come: and from the seven spirits which are before His throne; And from Jesus Christ …..”. To begin, we must understand that in verse 5, the Greek word translated “and” is “kai”. “Kai” is often translated “even” and the context will always tell us how we are to understand it. Let us continue with this passage. There is only one Person Who is and was and is to come, i.e. the Lord, Jesus Christ. In other words, John sent a message of “grace and peace from” Jesus Christ. But verse 5 begins “and” which means that John sent the message of grace and peace from Christ (i.e. Him Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come”) also from Christ. Obviously, that makes no sense. How are we to understand this passage? In my opinion, the only way we can possibly make sense of this passage is to interpret “kai” as “even”. So the passage would read “grace and peace from Him Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come……..: Even from Jesus Christ …..” (the phrase “and from the seven spirits which are before His throne” is therefore parenthetical).

Rev. 3:21, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne”. This verse says that the overcomers (at the very least 144,000) will sit with Christ in His throne, (“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne”). If we interpret this verse literally the overcomers will all sit with Christ on one throne. Surely, they are not all going to literally sit on the same throne. In my opinion, common sense tells us that John in Rev. 3:21 is using “throne” as a figure of speech for the act of reigning with Christ. Specifically, I believe it is the figure of speech Metonymy of the subject. The Companion Bible defines that figure of speech as, “When the subject is put for something pertaining to it”. The subject in this case is reigning and the throne is what pertains to it.

This verse is not about overcomers sitting with Christ on one literal throne, it is about them reigning with Him. As is true of all figures of speech, this one enhances a truth. The truth is that overcomers will reign with Christ.

The preposition translated “in” in the phrase, “in His throne” tells us the same thing. That preposition is “en” and is defined in the Companion Bible as, “….it has regard to ….sphere of action. It is also used for the efficient cause as emanating from within, and hence has sometimes the force of by, denoting the instrument…….”. The “sphere of action” is of course, the throne and is the instrument through which the overcomers will reign. But people do not sit in a throne, they sit on it. Those who are said to be figuratively in the throne are those who will be in the sphere of Christ’s rule and will thereby reign with Him.

If this is true of the overcomers, logic dictates that it is also true of Christ and the Father. That is to say, Christ and the Father will not sit in the same literal throne. Christ and the Father will reign as One. Just as the overcomes will reign with Christ as one, so too will Christ and His Father reign as One.

In terms of the question addressed in this paper, (i.e. does Jesus Christ sit next to God in heaven?) we must conclude that this verse in particular does not support the idea that He will sit next to God. There are two reasons for that conclusion. 1) This verse uses the word “throne” as a figure of speech for the act of reigning and does not point to a number of thrones. 2) This verse speaks of one throne, not two.

Rev. 4:2-10 speaks of “One” Who sat on a throne. Who is that One? Verses 3-7 describe the One and His throne. In verse 8 we read of four beasts saying, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Which was, and is, and is to come”. Again, there is only One Who was and is and is to come, i.e. Jesus Christ. In verse 10 we read, “The four and twenty elders fall down before Him That sat on the throne” saying, “Thou art worthy……..for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created”. The One on the throne is He Who created all things? Who created all things? The answer to that is found in Col. 1:16-17, “For by Him (Christ, see vs. 14) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, ……..and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist”. We must conclude therefore that the throne of Rev. 4:2-11 is the throne of Jesus Christ in His office of Creator.

Rev. 5:1-13 tells of the One of chapter 4 Who sits on the throne. This is a very complex passage and requires due diligence. Rev. 5:1 speaks of the “One” of chapter 4, i.e. Christ, the Creator, with a book in His right hand. Rev. 5:6-7 tells us that “in the midst of the elders stood a Lamb”. The Lamb is, of course, Christ as the sacrifice for the sins of the world. Verse 7 tells us that “He (the Lamb) came and took the book out of the right hand of Him That sat upon the throne”. Christ as Creator sat on the throne. But we read in verse 13, “…..Blessing and honour, and glory and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne (i.e. the One of chapter 4, Christ) and unto the Lamb….” . In other words, we have Christ as Creator sitting on the throne. We have Christ as the Lamb taking the book from Christ as Creator. This makes sense only if we correctly understand the Greek word translated “and” in the phrase “sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb.

The Greek word translated “and” in verse 13 is “kai”. May I respectfully remind the reader of the statement concerning Rev. 1:4-5, i.e “kai” is often translated “even”. I believe that it is abundantly obvious that in Rev. 5:13 it should also be translated “even”. So that would read, “”Blessing and honour…..be unto Him That sitteth upon the throne, even unto the Lamb….”. There is simply no other way to understand this passage. We must see that the “One that sitteth upon the throne” and the Lamb are one and the same Person in two different offices. The One on the throne is Christ in His office of Creator, and the Lamb is, of course, Christ in His office of He Who takes away the sins of the world. One Person, two offices.

In terms of the question being addressed in this paper I think we may conclude that this passage does not speak of two different thrones.

Rev. chapter six tells of the opening of six seals. In verse 16 we read, “And said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him That sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb”. The question we must address is: is the One sitting on the throne different than the Lamb? We know that the Lamb is Christ. Who is the One sitting on the throne? To answer that question we must go all the way back to Rev. 5:13. That verse is discussed above and, as shown from Scripture, refers to God the Creator. And as proved above, Christ is Creator.

If we translate “kai” as “even” in this verse all is clear. It would read, “….the face of Him That sitteth on the throne even from the wrath of the Lamb”. Again, in terms of the question being addressed in this paper, I think we must conclude that this passage does not speak of two different Persons, but to One Person, i.e. Jesus Christ, in His offices of Creator and of Lamb.

Rev. 7:9-17 mentions the throne of God five times. 1) Verse 9 reads, “And after this (the sealing of the 144,000) I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes……”. Again, the Lamb is Christ, and the One on the throne is the same One as 5:13 and 6:16, i.e. Christ in His office of Creator. Because the Lamb and the Creator are one and the same Person, “kai” should be translated “even” so it reads, “……stood before the throne even before the Lamb”.

2) Rev. 7:10, “…..Salvation to our God Which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb…..”. Just as the preceding verse (quoted above) refers to one Person, here too it refers to one Person, i.e. Jesus Christ. “Kia” then should be translated “even”, “…….God Which sitteth upon the throne, even unto the Lamb…..”.

3) Rev. 7:11, “And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces and worshiped God”. Here it is obviously one throne.

4) Rev. 7:15, “Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them”. Note there is just one Person sitting on one throne.

5) Rev. 7:16-17, “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them nor any heat. For the Lamb Which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes”. The phrase “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them” is quoted from Is. 49:8-10 where it is Jehovah Who will do those things. Jesus Christ is Jehovah. (Please see the paper on this web-site Jesus Christ Is Both Jehovah And The Manifestation Of Jehovah for the Scriptural evidence of that statement.) Therefore, Christ, Who is Jehovah will see to it that “they shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more”, etc. .

The phrase “and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes” is quoted from Is. 25:8 which tells us that it is Jehovah Adonai Who will accomplish that. “Adonai” is one of the many titles of Jehovah. If Jesus Christ is Jehovah, obviously He is Jehovah Adonai.

Note also the phrase “in the midst of the throne”. In all the verses that speak of the throne in Revelation there are some that speak of those around the throne, some that speak of Him on the throne, but this verse speaks of Him that is in the midst of the throne. (Rev. 3:21 translates the phrase “in the throne”.) But continuing with the phrase “in the midst of the throne”, I believe that every word of the Bible is inspired by God and the phrase “in the midst of” is meaningful. May I respectfully remind the reader of the comments above on Rev. 3:21 which used “throne” as a figure of speech for reigning. Just as in Rev. 3:21, I believe that here too, the word “throne” is used as a figure of speech for the act of reigning with Christ.

In Rev. 16:17 then, the Lamb Who is, of course, Christ, is said to be sitting in the “midst of the throne”. The Lamb is reigning with Him Who, we are told in previous passages, is “on the throne”, God/Christ as Creator. Therefore, once again, we have the Word of God telling us that Jehovah in His office of Lamb and in His office of Creator will reign. One Person in different offices, therefore one throne.

Rev. 8:3, “And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne”.

Rev. 12:5, “And she (Israel) brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God and to His throne”.

Rev. 14:3, “And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth”.

Rev. 17:5, “And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God”.

Rev. 16:17, “….and there came a great voice out of the Temple of heaven, from the throne saying, ‘It is done’”.

Rev. 19:4, “And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshiped God That sat on the throne, saying, ‘Amen; Alleluia’”. Let us back up to verses 1-2 of this chapter in order to determine Who was sitting on the throne and being worshiped. Verses 1-2 read, “…..Alleluia: Salvation and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are His judgments: for He hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand”. So the One sitting on the throne is the One Who will avenge the blood of His servants. In order to determine who “avenged the blood” of His servants we need to go all the way back to Rev. 6:1 and 10. Rev. 6:1 reads, “I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals……”. In verse 9 we read of the Lamb opening the fifth seal. And then in verse 10, “And they cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on the them that dwell on the earth?”.

We have learned that the One sitting on the throne in Rev. 19 is the One who will avenge the blood of His servants. In Rev. 6 we learned that it is the One who opens the seals, Who will avenge the blood. It is the Lamb Who will open the seals. It is the Lamb Who will avenge the blood of His servants. And it is the Lamb Who will be worshiped. Because Jesus Christ is the Lamb, we must conclude that Rev. 19:4 speaks of Christ as he That sat on the throne.

Rev. 20:11-12, “And I saw a great white throne, and Him That sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them, and I saw the dead small and great, stand before God (the texts, according to the note in the Companion Bible reads “throne”); and the books were opened…..”. Who will sit upon the great white throne? We read in John 5:22, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son”. And again in Jn. 5:26-27 we read, “For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man”. We must conclude that it is Christ in His office of “Son of man” Who will sit on the great white throne and execute judgment.

Rev. 21:5-6, “And He that sat upon the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new’. And He said unto me, ‘Write: for these words are true and faithful’. And He said unto me, ‘It is done, I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. ….’”. Rev. 1:8 tells us to Whom the phrase ” the Alpha and Omega” refers. Rev. 1:8 reads, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending’ saith the Lord, Which is, Which was, and Which is to come, the Almighty”. Only Jesus Christ can be He Which is and was and is to come. So then, these two passages taken together tell us that Jesus Christ is “the Alpha and the Omega”, He is “the Lord” and He is “the Almighty”.

Rev. 22:1 reads, “And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb”. How does the Holy Spirit mean for us to understand the Greek word “Theos” translated “God”? Most assume that it refers to God the Father. But John, through the Holy Spirit did not write “God the Father”, he wrote “God”.

And there is yet another consideration: If we take this verse at is written (i.e. we do not add the phrase “the Father”) it says that the throne is shared by God and someone else. Logic demands that the someone else is not God or he would have been included in the term “God”. That is to say, if two will reign, one is God implying that the other is not God. But the Lamb, Who is Jesus Christ is indeed God in His office of the holy Sacrifice.

But all is clear, and we do not demean the Lord Jesus Christ in His office of Lamb, if we translate “kai” as “even”. So that phrase should read, ” proceeding out of the throne of God even of the Lamb”.

Rev. 22:3, “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it…..”. Again, this should read “the throne of God even of the Lamb”.

The following papers discuss other aspects of the doctrine of the trinity:

The Trinity: Is God Three Persons In One?

Trinity Part Two: “Elohim”

The Trinity: Scriptures That Disprove The Doctrine

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond please e-mail me at: [email protected]

January 23, 2025/ Religion

A STUDY OF THE MEANING OF THE VARIOUS BAPTISMS OF THE BIBLE – Right Word Truth

maximios /

BAPTISM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND GOSPEL PERIOD

The New Testament opens with John the Baptist calling on Israel to “Repent … for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). Then we read in Matt. 3:5-6 that those who went out to John “were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins”. No one seemed to need an explanation as to why they needed to be baptized, or what water baptism signified. How did they know those things? They knew from the Old Testament, and those who preached the message knew the source from which their audience knew the meaning of baptism. That source was, of course, the Old Testament. My point is that the New Testament did not come out of a vacuum, so if we are to understand the purpose and meaning of water baptism we must understand it as the first century Jews understood it, i.e. from the Old Testament..

Before we address the question of baptism I believe that a word about repentance is called for because repentance is often called for in the same message as is baptism. The paper on this web-site called “Repent! Is Not A Message Of Salvation” will prove, that in the Old Testament repentance was always for the purpose of avoiding punishment or laying hold of earthly blessings. And as that paper will also show, the New Testament calls for repentance were for the same purpose. So first century Israelites would understand from the Old Testament that repentance was not for salvation, per se.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS IN REGARDS TO BAPTISM

In the section above I tried to make the point that first century Israelites did not need to be told what water baptism signified because they understood what it signified from the Old Testament. What is in the Old Testament about water baptism that would help them understand those things? We know that water baptism is a ceremonial washing. There are two such washings spoken of in the Old Testament that would have informed first century Israel of what baptism (washings) was, and more importantly, what those washings signified. Let us consider those two passages.

We read in Numbers 8:5-7, “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, ‘Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them, and thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean’”. But what was the purpose of being washed, what did the washing signify? Surely it was not only to be outwardly clean.

We read in verses 10-11 of that chapter, “and thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord: and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites: and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel, that they may execute the service of the Lord“. What was the significance of the children of Israel putting their hands on the Levites at this ceremony? Let us consider another passage in the Old Testament in which we read of the laying on of hands.

We read in Numbers 27:18-23, “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hands upon him; and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient……….and he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses”. By the laying on of hands Moses identified Joshua as the servant of God. Just as the laying on of hands identified Joshua for service unto God, so too, in my opinion, did the laying hands on the Levites signify the Levites being identified as God’s servants. This conclusion is supported by Numbers 8:11, “and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel, that they may execute the service of the Lord“.

Because the laying on of hands was part of the same ceremony as was the washing, I believe we may conclude that both had the same purpose, i.e. to be identified as God’s servants. But we should note that the ceremonial washing of the Levites had nothing to do with salvation.

The other ceremonial washing recorded in the Old Testament that we will consider describes the scene that took place just weeks after God led Israel out of Egypt. That scene is recorded in Ex. 19. We read in Ex. 19:3-6, “……Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel; ‘Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto Myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine. And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation……’” . Then in verse 10 we read, “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Go unto the People, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes’”.

The reader will note that Moses commanded Israel to wash their clothes, not themselves. We read in Numbers 8 in the passage that described the ceremony that separated the Levites unto God that they were also told to wash their clothes. God also told Moses that Israel was to be sanctified for two days. To be sanctified is to be separated unto God. Therefore, I believe the washing of their clothes on the third day was not just for the purpose of having clean clothes but had a reason of greater profundity. What was that reason?

Note that God, through Moses, told Israel that they would be “a peculiar treasure unto Me”. One of the definitions of the word “peculiar” is, “a characteristic of one only“. In other words, Israel would be like no other nation in God’s sight, i.e. they would be “peculiar”. The fact that Israel was a “peculiar treasure” meant that She was separated from all other nations as being the only nation belonging to God. My point is that just as the Levites were identified as God’s servants in the washing described in Numbers 8, so too the nation of Israel was separated and identified as God’s servants in the washing of their clothes described in Ex. 19.

I would like to say a word about the concepts of identification and separation. In Numbers 8 it is clear that identification was the primary concept in the ceremony recorded in that chapter. And in Ex. 19 it is separation (i.e. sanctification) that is the primary concept. I believe if we consider a tragic example from modern history, the reader will see that the two concepts of identification and separation are intrinsically connected. In Nazi Germany Jews were required to wear gold stars of David identifying them as Jews. That identification also separated them from non-Jews for persecution. My point is that identification and separation are inexorably connected.

We are now ready to consider the significance of water baptism in the New Testament. First century Jews knew from the Old Testament that washing was part of the ceremony ordained by God signifying an identification with Him as His servants. So when John the Baptist baptized (washed), the mind set of those Jews would have been to be baptized for the purpose of identification. In the case of the message to be baptized “for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” the identification was with the message, thus identifying themselves as believers of that message.

WATER BAPTISM IN THE ACTS PERIOD

ACTS 1:5

Acts 1:5, “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence”. What was the baptism with the Holy Ghost? The baptism with the Holy Ghost was the baptism whereupon the one being baptized received the spiritual gifts from the Holy Ghost (or Spirit, same word in the Greek). These gifts not only enabled the truth of the gospel to be spread throughout the world through, for example, tongues, but it also identified those with the spiritual gifts as God’s servants. This identification is, of course the same purpose as was in evidence in the ceremonial washing of the Old Testament.

ACTS 2:38

We read in Mark 1:4, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And we read in Acts 2:38, “Then Peter said unto them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost’”. The Greek word translated “remission” in this verse is “aphesis”. It is translated “remission”, and “forgiveness” and one time “deliverance”.

The reason for repentance and for being baptized is given, i.e. “for the remission of sins”. Many take this as the formula for salvation. That is to say, many believe that if one repents and is baptized they are saved. But let us not jump to conclusions just because something is widely accepted. Let us examine this view carefully.

When we consider I Cor. 1:12-17 discussed below, we will see that Paul did not baptize but just a few. And our Lord Himself baptized only His disciples (see Jn. 4:2). My point is that if baptism was required for salvation then Paul, and even our Lord, had left off a crucial aspect of their ministry in regards to salvation. Of course, neither Paul or Christ left off anything in regards to salvation because baptism, per se, is not part of God’s plan of salvation.

With that in mind let us also consider Acts 16:25-34 which records the incident in which Paul’s jailer asked Paul, “what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30). Paul’s answer was given in verse 31, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”. Note that Paul said nothing of baptism in order to be saved. The jailer was baptized after his statement of faith in Christ, but that does not change the fact that Paul does not mention baptism as a requirement of salvation.

Now let us return to Acts 2:38. Peter called for his audience to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ”. Was Peter simply telling them what needed to be said at the baptismal ceremony? I do not believe so. I believe that there is something much more crucial to God’s plan of salvation than merely what should be said at the ceremony of water baptism. In order to understand the importance of being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” we must understand what is meant by the phrase “in the name of”. “Name” is sometimes used as a figure of speech Metonymy of Adjunct, which is defined in the Companion Bible as, “When something pertaining to the subject is put for the subject itself”. In this verse the word “name” is used as that which pertains to Jesus Christ, Who is the subject. It is used as a figure of speech for Who He is. In other words, by being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” one is proving his belief in Who Christ is, i.e. the Son of God.

Salvation is the result of believing in Christ, i.e. Who He is, the Son of God, not of water baptism. The message of salvation is given in John 3:16, “for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life”. In point of fact that same message is repeated more than ten times in the New Testament. Again, there is nothing of baptism in this oft repeated message of salvation.

What then did Peter’s message of repentance and baptism have to do with the remission of sins? The answer to that question is that when one believes, he is saved, and God then chooses to forgive his sins. But again, one is saved through belief, not through water baptism, and not through repentance. Because one believes and is therefore saved, God forgives him his sins.

I have tried to show that the ceremony of water baptism itself did not save a person. One was baptized because they believed. And one’s sins were forgiven because they believed. The question remains then, what did the ceremonial baptism signify? Certainly it was a ceremony that proved that the one being baptized believed Peter’s message. But I believe it signified more than that. We are told quite specifically in Acts 2:38 that if they were baptized they will receive the Holy Ghost. As mentioned in the section above on Acts 1:5, the receiving of the gifts from the Holy Spirit identified them as having been separated unto God for service. So once again we see that the significance of water baptism is the same as the Old Testament baptism, i.e. identification as God’s servants.

ACTS 19:3-6

“And he (Paul) said unto them, ‘Unto what then were ye baptized?’ And they said, ‘Unto John’s baptism.’ Then said Paul, ‘John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him Which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus’. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied”.

This is a very interesting passage. Paul met some who had been baptized by John the Baptist before water baptism was accompanied with receiving the gifts from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. (John had been killed before Christ’s death and burial and of course, before Pentecost.) Again, it is important to bear in mind that this baptism was a baptism of believers. When they were baptized by John they did so because they believed in Christ.

Paul layed hands upon these believers so they would receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In other passages we have read that Peter baptized believers in water in order for them to receive the gifts from the Holy Spirit. The reader may recall the section above in which we are told that the Levites were washed (baptized) and hands were layed on them. This was all done as part of the ceremony that identified the priests as God’s servants. So too, in this passage we read of the same baptism and the laying on of hands in order to receive the gifts from the Holy Spirit which would in turn identify believers.

ACTS 22:16

We read in Acts 22:16 Paul’s account of his experience on the road to Damascus when Christ spoke to him and said,”And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”. Note the things Paul was told to do. He was told to, 1) be baptized and wash away his sins, and 2) call on the name of the Lord. In point of fact the water used in water baptism did not wash away his (or anyone else’s) sins. It may have been a symbol of God forgiving sins, but the sins were forgiven because one believed, not because one was baptized. (I should point out that Paul’s acceptance of the truth of Who Christ is, is not recorded. But in light of Paul’s life and ministry, I believe we may conclude that Paul had indeed accepted Christ as the Son of God.) My point is that by believing, Paul received “life through His name” (see Jn. 20:31).

So what was the purpose of the water baptism? It symbolized God’s forgiving of sins of the one who believed, and it was in keeping with the purpose as described in every baptism from the Old Testament, from the Gospel period, and throughout the entire Acts period, to be identified as God’s servant.

I CORINTHIANS 1:12-17

I Cor. 1:12-17 reads, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, ‘I am of Paul’; and ‘I of Apollos’; and ‘I of Cephas’; and ‘I of Christ’. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name………for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…..”.

There are several truths to be gleaned from this passage. Let us begin with what it means to say “I am of Paul” or “I of Apollos”. The “of” is, in my opinion, the Genitive of Possession which is defined in the Companion Bible as, “….. it may be said to answer the question ‘Whose‘? Luke 2:49, ‘The business of My Father’ = My Father’s business’……”. So in I Cor. 1:12-17 the phrase “I am of Paul”, for example, means “I am Paul’s”, i.e. “I belong to Paul”.

Paul explains to the Corinthians that there is a division amongst them that is due, in part, to the fact that they are claiming that they “belong to” the apostle by whom they were baptized. This “belonging to” means to be identified with some one or some thing. We learned from the section above that baptism/washing in the Old Testament signified an identification as God’s servants. The Corinthians mistakenly understood baptism to signify belonging to, or being identified with, the one by whom they were baptized. Even though that is a false notion, it does show that they understood baptism to mean an identification with.

Another important truth to be gleaned from this passage is that Paul wrote that he was sent to preach the gospel, not to baptize. This is absolute proof that baptism is not required for salvation. That is to say, Paul was sent to preach the gospel of salvation, but if baptism was a requirement of being saved, Paul had not finished the work for which he was sent. This would make his ministry flawed and incomplete. I don’t believe that is true of Paul’s ministry.

And there is something else of interest in the fact that Paul did not baptize but just a very few believers. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Baptism/washing was a ceremony associated with Israel. That is to say, in the Old Testament and during the Acts period there were ceremonial washings that signified an identification as God’s servant. Certainly Gentiles were baptized, we read in Acts 10 of Peter baptizing the Gentiles to whom he was sent. But it is interesting that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did not come to baptize.

SPIRITUAL (I.E. NOT WATER) BAPTISMS

I CORINTHIANS 10:1-4

“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink……”.

The first thing of note about this passage is that the baptism was not with water. Israel passed through the sea on dry land.

Secondly, what does it mean to be baptized “unto Moses”? I believe that because Paul wrote of Israel eating the same “spiritual meat” and drinking the same “spiritual drink” that being baptized unto Moses was a spiritual experience of being identified with Moses’ faith as Israel crossed through the sea on dry land. That is to say this baptism unto Moses was not a ceremony involving water, it was a spiritual experience of identification with his faith.

GALATIANS 3:27

Gal. 3:27 reads, “For as many of you as have been baptized into (Gr. “eis”, unto) Christ have put on Christ”. There are several things about this verse that need to be considered if we are to understand it correctly.

We learned from I Cor. 1:12-17 that Paul baptized very few because he was not sent to baptize. Because all believers are baptized unto Christ, we must conclude that the baptism unto Christ is without water, the same as the baptism unto Moses was without water. That is to say, if the baptism unto Christ was a ceremony of water baptism, almost all of those who Paul led to Christ would not be baptized unto Christ because he did not baptize with water. We must conclude therefore, that baptism unto Christ, much like baptism unto Moses is a spiritual experience, and has nothing to do with a ceremonial water baptism.

In this passage it is clear that to be baptized unto Christ is to have put on Christ. What does the phrase “put on Christ” mean? It is obviously a figure of speech as we cannot put on another Person. Figures of speech are used to emphasize a truth. What truth is being enhanced by the phrase, “put on Christ”? In my opinion Paul is saying that one who puts on Christ identifies with Him to such a degree that he becomes one with Christ.

Because to be baptized unto Christ is to put on Christ, we must conclude that to be baptized unto Christ means to identify one’s self with Him. Again, because to be baptized unto Christ means to be identified with Christ, baptism unto Christ carries with it the same significance as does the baptism in the Old Testament and Gospel and Acts periods. i.e to be identified with.

ROMANS 6:3-4

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into (Gr. “eis”, unto) Jesus Christ were baptized into (Gr. “eis”, unto) His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into (Gr. “eis”, unto) death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life”. What does the phrase “baptized unto His death” mean? Let us consider the context.

We read in Rom. 6:1, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” The subject of the context is how the believer should walk, i.e. not in sin, but in newness of life. In verse 2 Paul wrote that believers are “dead to sin”. How does God reckon us to be dead to sin? He reckons us to be dead to sin because He reckons us to be buried with Christ. How are we buried with Christ? We are buried with Christ “in baptism”, i.e. by being identified with His burial to the extent that we walk in newness of life.

The purpose of this baptism is no different than the baptism of the Old Testament, and it is no different than the baptism of the Gospel period. This baptism is an identification with Christ’s death and burial. In other words, because we are (or literally considered to be) buried with Christ, we can no longer walk in sin, but we are to walk in the newness of life. By being identified with His burial we are separated unto Him and unto good works.

I PETER 3:20-21

We read in I Peter 3:20-21, “Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was a preparing wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

Was Noah saved by water? He was not, he was saved from the water of the flood by the fact that he believed God’s message. We read in Heb. 11:7, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith”.

The Greek preposition translated “by” in the phrase “were saved by water” is .”dia” which is defined in the Companion Bible Appendix 104 as, “It has the general sense of through, as through dividing a surface into two by an intersecting line”.

Noah was saved through the water of the floods in that he did what God told him to do, i.e. he built an ark. What is the “like figure” that saves us? It is that those who were in the ark identified with Noah’s faith in the same way that we should identify with Christ’s resurrection. That is to say, the eight were saved by their identification with Noah’s faith. And we, as believers, are saved from the grave by our identificaiton with Christ’s resurrection.

BAPTISM IN THE PRISON EPISTLES

EPHESIANS 4:4-5

I believe that the “one baptism” of Eph. 4:5 is the baptism unto Christ spoken of by Paul in Gal. 3:27, “For as many of you as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ”. In this passage it is clear that to be baptized unto Christ is the same as to have put on Christ. What does the phrase “put on Christ” mean? It is obviously a figure of speech as we cannot put on another Person. Figures of speech are used to emphasize a truth. What truth is being enhanced by the phrase, “put on Christ”? In my opinion Paul is saying that one who puts on Christ identifies with Him to such a degree that he becomes one with Christ.

But some would object to that suggestion because Paul wrote of that baptism in an Acts period epistle and therefore would not be applicable to believers of the dispensation of the mystery. Let us examine that thought.

To be baptized unto Christ is to be identified with and separated unto Him. Believers of every dispensation have “put on Christ” and because to put on Christ is to be baptized unto Christ, we must conclude that believers of every dispensation have been baptized unto Christ. In other words, to have put on Christ and therefore to be baptized unto Christ is a universal truth, i.e. it is equally true in every dispensation. Therefore, baptism unto Christ is as much a blessed spiritual experience in the present dispensation as it was in the previous one.

COLOSIANS 2:11-13

Col. 2:11-13 reads, “In Whom (Christ) also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God Who hath raised Him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses”.

The similarity to Rom. 6:3-4 is undeniable. Let us review that passage. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized unto His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life”.

The baptism of Col. 2 is the same as the baptism of Rom. 6. It is a baptism that identifies believers with Christ in His burial to such a degree that we walk “in newness of life”.

Again, this is a universal truth. It is equally true in the present dispensation as it was in the previous one.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Baptism with water, and baptism with the gifts from the Holy Spirit, and the spiritual baptism of the baptism unto Christ and unto His death serve as an identification. The context will always explain with whom one is identified.

2) Paul, unlike Peter, did not come to baptize with water, although he had baptized a few. When Paul wrote of baptism in I Cor. 10:1-4, in Rom. 6:3-4, in Gal. 3:27, in Eph. 4:4-5 and in Col. 2:11-13 he was not writing of a ceremonial water baptism, he was writing of a spiritual experience that identified one with God. Peter also wrote of a spiritual baptism unto Christ and His death in I Peter 3:20-21.

3) Paul’s message of baptism was no different in the post-Acts period than it was in the Acts period. That is to say the epistles written during the Acts period speak of the baptism unto Christ and unto His death, which are the same baptisms Paul wrote of in his epistles written to the church which is His body.

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond please e-mail me at: [email protected]

January 23, 2025/ Religion

CAN A SAVED PERSON LOSE HIS/HER SALVATION? – Right Word Truth

maximios /

There are many verses offered on both sides of this debate, but obviously, both sides cannot be correct. I will begin by telling the reader that I believe that a saved person cannot lose his/her salvation. I will present the scriptures which lead me to that belief and I will present and discuss the other side of the coin, i.e. scriptures offered by those who believe that one can lose their salvation.

Many believe that if one dies without having confessed their sins, they will lose their salvation. As the paper on this web-site on forgiveness will prove from Scripture, forgiveness has nothing to do with salvation. I realize that this is not a widely held view and for that reason the paper on forgiveness discusses every time God’s forgiveness is mentioned in His holy Word. Obviously, that is quite a long study and I have, therefore, not included it in this paper. The reader is, however encouraged to consider this view as presented in the paper mentioned.

So that the reader may find a particular verse I have listed the section headings and each verse found under that heading.

1) SCRIPTURES THAT POINT TO A ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED POSITION

Eph. 2:8

Eph. 1:13-14

John 10:28

Romans 8:37-39

Philippians 1:6

2) SALVATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE GOSPELS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, MARK AND LUKE

Luke 8: The Parable of the Seeds

Matt. 7:23

Matthew 25:13

John 15: The True Vine

3) INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE LOST THEIR SALVATION

Saul: I Samuel 10:6 and I Samuel 5:11

Solomon: I Kings 11:4 and I Chron. 22:10

Judas: John 17:12

4) RIGHTEOUSNESS

Ezek. 18:24

5) PASSAGES TAKEN OUT OF THEIR DISPENSATIONAL CONTEXTS

Hebrews 6:4-8

Hebrews 10:26-31

6) OTHER PASSAGES FROM HEBREWS

Hebrews 2:3

Hebrews 3:6-4:16

Hebrews 3:12

Hebrews 5:8-9

7) “HE WHO ENDURES TO THE END”

Matthew 24:13

Matthew 10:22

8) “TWO SIDES OF A TRUTH THAT GIVE US A PERFECT WHOLE”

Philippians 3:11

Romans 2:5

9) NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES THAT REFER TO UNBELIEVERS

Romans 2:4

Romans 8:13

Romans 11-19-21

I Corinthans 10:12

Galatians 5:4

Galatians 5:21

II Thessalonians 2:3

James 1:14-16

II Peter 2:20-21

Rev. 3:4

10) PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF LOSS OF REWARDS, NOT LOSS OF SALVATION

I Corinthians 3:17

I Timothy 4:15-16

I Timothy 5:24-25

II Timothy 2:11-13

11) PASSAGES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH LOSS OF TEMPORAL LIVES, NOT ETERNAL LIVES

Luke 13:3-4

James 1:14-15

12) “IF” PASSAGES

Colossians 3:1

I Corinthians 15:2

13) Others

Rev. 2:5

Rev. 3:15-16

Rev. 22:19

1) SCRIPTURES THAT POINT TO A ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED POSITION

EPHESIANS 2:8

We read in Eph. 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God”. It is of extreme importance to note that salvation is a gift. But too many think of salvation as an agreement between themselves and God. That is to say that some think that because they have agreed to believe in Him, God will give them salvation. From that point they argue that if one party of the assumed “agreement” fails in that agreement, the agreement is cancelled.

But salvation is not an agreement, it is a gift. God gives this gift of salvation to those who believe in Him. Let us look at John 3:16 as an example of the message of salvation. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him shall….have everlasting life”. In other words, salvation is a gift that God chooses to give to only those who believe in Him. Salvation is not an agreement between man and God, it is a gift that God chooses to give to those who believe in Him.

It should also be noted that we read no less than nine times in the Word of God that one must believe in Christ in order to partake in this gift of salvation. I will quote those nine verses and ask the reader to please note that there is not one word of a condition attached to them. That is to say, surely if this gift could be withdrawn God would have explained when He offered it what the conditions were, but He did not. The gift of salvation is given to all those who believe and the gift cannot be withdrawn without God breaking His word. God cannot lie, and therefore, God cannot break His word. He promised the gift of salvation to those who believe in Him and that promise will be fulfilled, even if it is not appreciated.

Those nine verses that explain the gospel of salvation are:

Jn. 1:12, “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name”.

3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.

3:18, “He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already”.

6:40, “And this is the will of Him That sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day”.

6:47, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life”.

11:25, “Jesus said unto her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live”.

20:30-31, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name”.

Acts 16:31, “And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”.

Rom. 3:26, “….that He might be just and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus“.

EPHESIANS 1:13-14

We read in Eph. 1:13-14, “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession ….”. Note the three words highlighted in this passage. We were sealed, with a promise which is the earnest or guarantee of resurrection. This guarantee is a promise which is given when we were sealed. This promise does not come with any conditions. Therefore, God, Who cannot lie, cannot break this promise of resurrection to all who had been sealed, i.e. all who are saved.

JOHN 10:28

John 10:28, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand“. The Greek translated here “never” is “ou me”. The Companion Bible gives the following definition, “The two negatives when combined lose their distinctive meanings, and form the strongest and most emphatic asserevation“. Had the Holy Spirit used the Greek “me” alone He would have given a conditional aspect to the statement of this verse. The Companion Bible definition of “me” is, “expressing conditional negation….”. But the Holy Spirit did not use the conditional word, He used the phrase which makes the statement that “they shall never perish” unconditional.

ROMANS 8:37-39

Romans 8:37-39, “Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him That loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”.

PHILIPPIANS 1:6

Phil. 1:6, “Being confident of this very thing, that He Which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ”. The Greek word translated “perform” is “epiteleo”. It is translated “perform” 4 times, “do” once. But it is also translated “accomplish” two times and “perfect” or “perfecting” or “made perfect” and “finish”. In other words “epiteleo” carries the idea of finishing the act. Therefore, the NIV translation gives a better sense of the meaning of this verse. “being confident of this, that He Who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus”. The work that was “begun” was obviously, salvation. Here we are told that that work will be completed. The term “until the day of Christ Jesus” refers to resurrection day. Therefore, we are told in this verse that God will complete the work of salvation at resurrection. Note there is no condition attached, and it is not man, but God Who will complete the work.

A STUDY OF THOSE PASSAGES THAT SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT ONE MIGHT LOSE THEIR SALVATION

2) SALVATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE GOSPELS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, MARK AND LUKE

Too many Christians begin their study of God’s Word in the middle of the book, i.e. at the New Testament. There are any number of questions that are highly controversial, in part, because some don’t study the question beginning with the Old Testament. The question before us is one of those.

When the New Testament opens, Christ and His apostles were addressing, for the most part, Israelites. Christ and His apostles understood the mindset of those Israelites, because they understood that their mindset came from the Old Testament, and they addressed their audience with that thinking in mind. We must have the same thinking as did the audience of Christ and His apostles if we are serious about understanding their teachings. The New Testament did not come out of a vacuum, it began as a continuation of the teachings of the Old Testament. So let us look at what the Old Testament has to say about salvation and loss of salvation.

It may surprise some to know that, apart from the types and shadows, there are only four scriptures in the entire Old Testament that speak of salvation. They are: 1) “Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). 2) “I know that my Redeemer liveth” (Job 19:25). 3) “The just shall live by faith” (Hab. 2:4). 4) Ezekiel chapter 37 which speaks of the resurrection. There are no Old Testament scriptures that allude to the loss of salvation. (As we continue, we will discuss some Old Testament scriptures that are thought by some to be about loss of salvation, but, as the reader shall see in the section below, that is pure conjecture.)

It is clear that the Old Testament has very little to say about salvation. But the Old Testament has much to say about the blessings of the millennial reign of Christ. That is to say, the emphasis in the Old Testament was not on salvation for the individual, it was on the blessings for the nation of Israel associated with Christ’s reign, which would be a time of tremendous blessings. It is clear from such passages as Matthew 21:9 that that same emphasis was continued in the early part of the New Testament. That is to say, Matthew, Mark and Luke did not write primarily about salvation or about Christ in His office of Savior. Matthew 21:9 reads, “And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David….”. The title “Son of David” points to Christ as King, not to Christ as Savior. It was Christ as King, not Christ as Savior, that is the emphasis of the Gospel of Matthew. It is Christ as Servant, not as Savior, that Mark emphasizes in his Gospel. And it is Christ in His office of Son of Man, not in His office of Savior that Luke emphasizes in his Gospel. (For the Scriptural evidence of those statements please see the paper on this web-site The Kingdom of Heaven.) The first few chapters of the book of Acts also primarily presents Christ as King to Israel.

If we are to understand what the Bible teaches about salvation, we must not depend on that portion of Scriptures of which the primary emphasis is not on salvation.

THE PARABLE OF THE SEEDS

With that in mind let us now look at the parable of the sower as recorded in Luke 8. The parable itself is recorded in verses 5-8, “A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it: and some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. And others fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold”.

The explanation of the parable is recorded in verses 12-15, “Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience”.

The seed that fell by the “way side” were deceived by the devil. But we read in Romans 8, “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. The devil is a creature. We are specifically told that no creature can separate us from the love of God. Therefore, in order to avoid a contradiction in the perfect Word of God, we must conclude that those represented by the seed at the way side were not saved. It should also be noted that the Lord told us in the phrase, “lest they should believe and be saved” that these were not saved.

We read that those represented by the seed that fell on the rock were carried away by “temptation”. But temptation is something that will come. And we read in Romans 8, “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Therefore, in order to avoid a contradiction in the perfect Word of God, we must conclude that those represented by the seed that fell on the rock were not saved. But one might object that at first they did believe and therefore, must have been saved. But God knows who truly believed, and because those who are represented by those who fell on the rock succumbed to temptation, and temptation cannot separate true believers from the love of God, we must conclude that they were not true believers.

The seed that fell among the thorns represent those who are choked with cares and riches etc. of this life. But again, those are things of the present life and we read in Rom. 8, “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Again, in order to avoid a contradiction with Rom. 8 we must conclude that those represented by the seed that fell among the thorns were never saved.

In short, we may not assume that any of those represented by the seeds that fell in various places were saved, and then lost their salvation.This is especially true because Luke does not write primarily of Christ as Savior.

MATTHEW 7:23

Matt. 7:23 reads, “And then will I profess unto them ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity”. Let us consider the context as I believe it will explain this statement of our Lord’s. Verse 18 reads, “A good tree can not bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”. What do the good tree and the corrupt tree represent in this context? Given that we know that without faith we can do nothing to please God (Heb. 11:6), I believe that the good tree represents believers. If the good tree represents believers, then obviously, the corrupt tree must represent unbelievers.

So it is the unbeliever, even though he may do some good things, that Christ will not know. Therefore, this passage in Matt. 7 does not contradict anything else in the Word (there are absolutely no contradictions in the perfect Word of God). A believer cannot lose his salvation.

MATTHEW 25:1-13

We read in Matt. 25:1-13 the parable of the ten virgins. “Then shall the kingdom of Heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, ‘Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him,’ Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, ‘Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.’ But the wise answered, saying, ‘Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.’ And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, ‘lord, lord, open to us.’ But he answered and said, ‘Verily I say unto, I know you not.’“.

It has been suggested that virgins always represent believers in the Bible and I will address the scriptures used to prove that point.

Ps. 45: 1-15 speaks of the virgins that will be companions to the “kings daughter”. There is no hint here that the virgins represent believers or unbelievers. In this context they are simply virgins. Cant. 1: 3; 6: 8. The Hebrew word used in these verses is not “behomath”, which means “virgins”, it is “alomoth” which means “young maiden”. There are however, two of these references that do indeed use virgins to represent believers. They are Rev. 14: 4 and 2 Cor. 11: 2.

Rev. 14:4 speaks of those who are redeemed (vs. 3), so we may conclude that they were believers. And II Cor. 11:2 speaks of Paul presenting the church as a “chaste virgin”. My point is that both contexts tell us quite clearly that the virgins represent believers. But that doesn’t mean that every time we read of virgins, they represent believers. That would be like saying that because the lion represents the tribe of Judah, every time we read of a lion in the Bible it is in reference to the tribe of Judah. That is not only unscriptural, it is illogical as well. So how can we determine if the five foolish virgins represented believers or unbelievers?

I believe that as we consider the phrase “But he answered and said, ‘Verily I say unto, I know you not’”, we will have the answer to that question because Matt. 7 also records a situation in which the Lord tells some that He never knew them. As discussed above, in the section on Matt. 7, the ones that the Lord said He would not know were unbelievers. That being the case, we may conclude that those virgins who He would not know are also unbelievers.

It has also been suggested that none of the virgins, foolish or wise, would have been invited to the banquet unless they were believers in the first place”. I believe the parable of the wedding feast of Matt. 22 disproves that statement. That is to say, that parable tells of many who were invited to the marriage feast of the king’s son who not only did not come, but even killed the messengers who invited them. So it is not at all accurate to say that they must have been believers in order to have been invited.

THE TRUE VINE OF JOHN 15

Jn. 15:1-2, “I am the true vine, and My Father is the Husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit”.

It is obvious that when our Lord said, “I am the true vine” that He was not speaking literally, because He was not a vine, He was a Man. The “vine” therefore is a metaphor. As is true of all figures of speech, this metaphor enhances the truth for which the metaphor was used. What is that truth that is enhanced by the metaphor of the vine? The answer to that question is given quite specifically by our Lord and recorded in verses 4-5, “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing”. The truth that is enhanced by the metaphor of the vine is put most succinctly in the phrase, ” for without Me ye can do nothing”.

It is also important to know who is represented by the branches. I suggest that that question is answered once we determine what Christ meant by the “fruit” of the branches. The fruit of the branches can be one of two things. It can be, 1) the fruit of the spirit, or it can be 2) the fruit of one’s labors. Gal. 5:22 speaks of the fruits of the spirit, “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith…”. The more immediate context of Jn. 15 gives us an example of the fruit of one’s labour. We read in Jn. 15:16, “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain….”. Note the phrase, “that ye should go”. Going is not required to bring forth the fruits of the spirit. Therefore, I believe the most logical conclusion is that the fruit of the vine refers to the fruits of one’s labor, not to the fruits of the holy spirit.

I believe that the context will give the same answer to the question as to which fruit is meant in John 15. This chapter is part of a long discourse given by our Lord to His disciples at the last supper, or rather to eleven of them, as Judas had departed earlier (see Jn. 13:30). Jn. 13:1 sets the time of His discourse, “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father…..”. In other words, this discourse was given to the 11 at a time when Christ knew that His earthly ministry was coming to a rapid close.

Taking into consideration that chapter 15 comes in Christ’s last message to His disciples before the end of His earthly ministry, I believe it is more logical to conclude that the “fruits” of the branches of the vine are not the fruits of the spirit of Gal. 5, but the fruits of the labors of the disciples. That is to say, the “fruits” are those who the disciples “bring forth”.

We are now ready to discuss who is represented by the figure of the branches of the vine. We have already learned that Christ was speaking to the 11 disciples. The question is: was He speaking to them as followers or as believers. These 11 were, of course, both followers and believers, so the distinction is not that obvious. But we read in verse 16, “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit”. In my opinion, the phrase “I have chosen you and ordained you” points to the conclusion that Christ was speaking to them primarily as His followers. That is to say, not every believer has been “chosen” and “ordained” to go bring forth fruit. It is true that all believers are expected to bring forth fruits of the holy spirit as listed in Gal. 5:22, but not all believers have been chosen and ordained to go forth to bring forth other believers. But there are a few more hints in the context that Christ is speaking to the 11 primarily as His followers.

We read in 13:35, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another”. It is true of course, that this can be said of all believers, but it is significant that our Lord said that their love will show that they are His disciples, not that it will show that they are believers.

Consider also 15:8, “Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples“. Every word in the Bible is God inspired. Note that Christ did not say that their fruits showed that they were believers, but that their works showed that they were His disciples. I am suggesting that because the fruit of the branches represented those to whom the disciples were sent forth to reach for Christ, that the branches of the vine represented Christ’s disciples primarily as His disciples, i.e. followers, not primarily as believers.

Having determined that the branches of the vine represented the followers of Christ, more specifically the 11 disciples, we are now ready to consider who is represented by the branch of verse 2, the one that was cast away. I believe the branch of verse 2 was Judas. The branches represent Christ’s followers, Judas was a follower. Consider also verse 3, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you”. Compare that with Jn. 13:10-11, “……and ye are not all clean. For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, ‘Ye are not all clean’”. In my opinion there is an implied reference in this comparison to Judas, who was not clean and who was therefore, a branch that was taken out of the vine.

But Judas was not a believer (see the discussion of Judas in the section below “Individuals Who Are Said To Have Lost Their Salvation”). Therefore, as the branch that was taken out of the vine, Judas did not lose his salvation, because Judas as an unbeliever was never saved. Judas lost his place as a disciple of Christ, but he could not have lost what he never had, i.e. salvation.

We must consider verse 6, because that verse is not about just the 11, it is about any man. Verse 6 reads, “If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered….”. Logic plus the context demands that if the branch of verse 2 is Judas who was a follower, but not a believer who did not bring forth fruit, then the man of verse 6 is also a follower, but not a believer, one that did not bring forth fruit.

I believe that the branches that are taken out of the vine are those followers who do not bring forth other followers who will “remain”. This passage does not speak of loss of salvation, it speaks of followers who will be cast out of the Vine because they fail to bring forth the fruit for which they are sent, i.e. followers who will “remain”. Verse 2 sets the precedence for the conclusion that these followers who do not produce fruit, are unbelievers. So again, they did not lose their salvation because as unbelievers, they were never saved.

For the sake of thoroughness, we must consider the objection by some that we are told that these branches are “in Christ”, which makes them believers. Because the context is about the relationship of Christ’s disciples to Him as His followers, I believe that the context points to the phrase “in Me” as meaning that same relationship, i.e. follower to Master.

3) INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE LOST THEIR SALVATION

This brings me to a web-site that discusses how certain individuals in the Bible lost their salvation. That web-site address is: www.eternallysecure.com/examples.html. I would like to discuss just a few of these examples.

KING SAUL

King Saul is said on this web-site to have lost his salvation. The reference given to prove that he was saved is I Sam. 10:6. The reference given to prove that Saul lost his salvation is I Sam.15:11. Let’s look at those references.

I Sam. 10:6, “And the spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them; and shalt be turned into another man”. Does the fact that the spirit of the Lord coming upon Saul mean that he was saved? No. When the spirit comes upon someone, or someone is “filled” with the spirit it is power from the Holy Spirit. In those cases the figure of speech “Metonymy” is used. That figure puts the cause (the Holy Spirit) for the effect (the power from the Holy Spirit. ) For the Scriptural evidence of that statement please see the paper on this web-site A Study of Spirit.) The spirit of the Lord is always given so that the ones to whom it is given may accomplish a specific work in accordance with the will of God. That specific work for which the spirit was given is always described in the context. The power from the Holy Spirit is never given for salvation. That is to say, being filled with power from the Holy Spirit does not save a person. When a person believes in Christ that person receives the gift from the Holy Spirit, i.e. the spirit from above, but that is not the same as being filled with the power from the Holy Spirit.(Again, the above mentioned paper on Spirit will prove these statements.) Let us look at just a few examples for proof of that.

In the verse we are considering, Saul was given the spirit of the Lord so that he could prophecy. Salvation is not in view in this context. We are told only that the power from the Holy Spirit ( the figure of speech Metonymy is used) will come upon Saul and that he would prophecy.

Consider also Judges 14:6, “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands”. The spirit of the Lord came upon Samson for the very specific purpose of protecting him from the lion. This does not in any way allude to eternal salvation.

Consider also, Judges 15:14,”…. The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax and the bindings dropped from his hands”. The spirit of the Lord came upon Samson so that he could bring down the temple of the heathen. Again, salvation is not in view in this passage. In point of fact, it is destruction, not salvation that is in view.

Numbers 11:17, “I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of the Spirit that is on you and put the Spirit on them. They will help you carry the burden of the people so that you will not have to carry it alone”. Moses did not lose his salvation when the spirit of the Lord was taken from him, it was simply given to others in order to share his burden of leadership. Salvation is not in view in this context.

It is clear from these verses that the spirit coming upon someone does not imply salvation. That spirit is given so that the one who receives it may accomplish the specific will of God for which it was given. As for the phrase, “and shalt be turned into another man”, in view of the fact that the spirit coming upon him does not save, it is pure conjecture to assume that Saul becoming “another man” means salvation.

Now let us look at the verse given to prove that Saul lost his salvation, i.e. I Sam. 15:11, “It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments”. What we are told is that God did not want Saul to be king over Israel any longer. To see a loss of salvation in this verse is again, pure conjecture.

I am not saying that Saul was saved or that he was not saved. I don’t know, because we are not told, if he was or if he wasn’t. What I am saying is that the account of Saul becoming king is not an account of his salvation, it is of his being chosen by God to rule as king over Israel, and that rule was eventually taken from him, period. My point is that we must not see salvation, especially in the Old Testament and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, when salvation is not the message.

SOLOMON

The above mentioned web-site also claims that Solomon was saved and lost his salvation. The verse given to prove that Solomon was saved is I Chron. 22:10, “He shall build an house for My Name; and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever”.

The verse given to prove that Solomon lost his salvation is I Kings 11:4, “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father”. It is, of course, highly regrettable that the man responsible for building the temple of God had turned away to other gods. But there is nothing in this verse that implies that Solomon lost his salvation. Once again, to say so is pure conjecture.

The author of the web-site also suggests I Kings 11:9 and I Chron. 28:9 as the proof that Solomon lost his salvation. I Kings 11:9 tells us that “the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned from the Lord…..”. But this does not say that God took away his salvation. I Chron. 28:9 reads, in part, “if thou forsake Him, He will cast thee off for ever”. The Hebrew word translated “cast off” is “nagh”. It is used by David in reference to himself in any number of Psalms including Ps. 43:2, 44:9, 60:1, etc. One example should suffice to prove that “cast off” does not mean loss of salvation., “Ps. 43:2, “why dost Thou cast me off“. If one says that “cast off”, as applied to Solomon means loss of salvation, one must say the same of David. Given that David is spoken of as reigning as Christ’s regent in the millennium, it is quite impossible that David lost his salvation (For the Scriptural proof that David will reign as Christ’s regent in the millennium, please see the paper, Will David Reign As Christ’s Regent On The Millennial Throne?

My point is that much of the so-called proof that one can lose his salvation, especially in the Old Testament, which does not have salvation as its primary message, is pure conjecture.

JUDAS

It is often said by those who believe that one can lose their salvation that Judas lost his salvation, therefore that proves it is possible for anyone to lose their salvation. But as we read in John 6:64, Judas was never a believer, and therefore was never saved. “‘But there are some of you that believe not’. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him”. If Judas was not a believer, and this verse tells us that he was not, then he obviously was not saved. One cannot lose something he never had.

But some have pointed to Jn. 17:12 in an effort to prove that Judas had been saved. That verse reads, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy Name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled”. Does the phrase “those that Thou gavest Me” refer to those the Father gave to Christ to be saved? Obviously not, because Judas was not a believer and therefore never saved. The only way we can understand the phrase without contradicting Jn. 6:64 is to conclude that “those that Thou gavest Me” refers to those the Father gave to Christ to be followers, not to be saved.

I will not discuss any more of the individuals who are spoken of on the web-site mentioned. I hope that the reader will be able to see for himself/herself that the scriptures given on that web-site to prove that one is saved and then lost that salvation is pure conjecture.

4) RIGHTEOUSNESS

Ezek. 18:24 reads, “But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in them shall he die”.

We must understand the Hebrew word translated “righteous”. That Hebrew word is “tzadek”. This word does not mean “saved”, it means having done correctly or having done the right things. How do we know that? The meaning of a word is always derived from its usage and we read in I Sam. 24:17, “Thou art more righteous than I”. A person is not more saved than another. He may have done more of the right things, but he is not more saved. Consider also I Kings 2:32 which uses the word in the same way and reads, “…two men more righteous and better….”. Again, a person is not more saved.

Let us also determine from the context exactly what the Holy Spirit means by the phrase “the righteous turneth away from his righteousness”. In point of fact it is explained in the very next phrase, “and committeth iniquity”. In other words, to turn away from righteousness is to commit iniquity. This is consistent with the correct meaning of “tzadek”.

But many believe that this man lost his salvation because the Word says that he was “righteous”. But again, “righteous” does not mean “saved”. To say, therefore, that this man was saved is pure conjecture, there is no Scriptural evidence that he was ever saved.

Further, does this passage really speak of resurrection life? I think not. Let us review the phrases, “shall he live? ” and “in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in them shall he die”. In other words, this passage asks the question shall a man that turns from doing the right things live, or shall he die? In short, neither the word “righteous” nor the context suggests that this passage has to do with salvation unto resurrection life. It has, rather, to do with a man’s temporal life and his death.

5) PASSAGES TAKEN OUT OF THEIR DISPENSATIONAL CONTEXTS

HEBREWS 6:4-8

Heb. 6:4-8, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame. ………..But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned”.

The epistle to the Hebrews is not written specifically to believers, nor is it written specifically to unbelievers. It is written to Hebrews, which, of course, include believers and unbelievers. The context of each passage will tell us which the writer was addressing.

The question is, does Heb. 6:4-8 speak of believers or unbelievers? On the surface it seems that it refers to believers, but then how are we to explain the verses quoted above in the first section of this paper which tell us that one cannot lose their salvation? I suggest that we consider individual phrases of this passage so that we might discover the answer to the question as to whether the passage refers to believers or to unbelievers.

Let us begin with the phrase, “once enlightened”. The Greek word translated “enlightened” is “photismos”, and is defined in the Companion Bible as, “a lighting, illumination, shining”. As we all know, many have had the truth shown and/or illuminated to them, but have not accepted it. So I don’t think a strong argument can be made that being enlightened implies acceptance which leads to salvation.

Let us continue with the phrase, “have tasted of the heavenly gift“. The question is: is this “heavenly gift” eternal life? Let us consider a few individual words in this phrase in order to answer that question. I believe that if we consider the next phrase, we will have the answer to our question about what this heavenly gift is.

The Greek word translated “and” in the phrase “and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost” is “kai” and is often translated “even”. If we translated it “even” here we will have the answer to our question as to what the heavenly gift is. The heavenly gift is to have partaken in the “holy ghost”.

Now the question is what does it mean to have partaken in the holy ghost? Please note that I have put the “h” and the “g” in lower case letters. Greek rarely uses upper case letters and when used in the translation it is purely a matter of interpretation. I do not believe that any man can literally partake of God, the Holy Ghost and therefore, we must take this as a figure of speech. I believe that this is one of the dozens of cases where “holy ghost” is used as the figure of speech Metonymy of the Cause. The Holy Ghost is the cause and the result is His power. (Please see the paper on a study of Spirit for a further examination of this issue.) In other words, the writer of Hebrews is speaking here of having partaken of the power from the Holy Ghost. That power was seen all throughout the Gospel and Acts period as it was manifested in tongues, miraculous healing, prophecies, etc.

I am suggesting, therefore that the heavenly gift is the power from the Holy Spirit (same word in the Greek as “Ghost”). So that this phrase should read,”and have tasted of the heavenly gift, even were made partakers of the power from the Holy Ghost”.

Does this mean that those referred to in this passage actually had the power from the Holy Spirit? Let us consider the Greek word translated “tasted’ in the phrase, “have tasted of the heavenly gift”. That Greek word is “guomai”. I believe as we consider how the word is used in Matt. 27:34 we will understand how the Holy Spirit used that word. “They gave Him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall; and when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink”. I believe it is obvious that the Greek “guomai’ tells us that one did not fully participate in what was offered.

Let us add to that a consideration of the Greek word translated “partakers” in the phrase “partakers of the Holy Spirit”. The Greek word translated “partakers” in this passage is “metokos”. The first occurrence is in Luke 5:7 which reads, “and they beckoned to their partners (Gr. “metokos”) which were in the other ship that they should come and help them…. “. Those in the other ship were not partaking of the same problem, but they were partners in that they were involved in the same activity, i.e. fishing. The word is also translated “fellows” and, of course, “partakers”. Let us consider for a moment the word “partakers” as it is used in Eph. 3:6. That Greek word is “sunmetocha”. It is the same root, but note the prefix “sun” is used which makes it “together partakers”. But the word in Heb. 6 is without the prefix and, in my opinion, that must be taken into consideration. In other words, without the prefix “metokos” does not mean “together partakers”. Also, I believe that the context of the passage in Heb. 6 helps us to interpret the word “partakers” as “partners”. That is to say, just as the ones in the other ship were partners, but not fully participating in the same struggle, so too those in Heb. 6 were not directly participating in the power from the Holy Spirit, but rather in a ship close by so to speak. In short, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that those referred to in this passage actually had the power from the Holy Spirit.

In short, those who are warned in this passage had not fully participated in the gifts from the Holy Spirit, they tasted, but did not eat.

Let us continue with the phrase, “and have tasted the good word of God”. Again the word “tasted” implies that they had heard the Word of God. But again, the fact that they had only tasted, i.e. not fully accepted it, suggests that they were not committed believers.

Going on with the phrase, “and the powers of the world to come”. The Greek word translated “world” is “aion” and means “age”, i.e. “powers of the age to come”. The age to come is obviously the millennium. Given that the verse speaks of the power from the Holy Spirit, I believe that the power spoken of in this phrase is the power that will be in evidence in the millennium spoken of in Joel 2, i.e. dreams and prophecies, etc. .

Now let us consider the phrase, “seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame”. Given that the phrases we considered above do not prove that this passage is in regards to believers, I see no reason to conclude that these phrases are in reference to believers either. In point of fact, because James tells us that our faith is completed by works (see James 2:22), I believe that anyone who lives as if he were crucifying Christ was never a believer and therefore does not lose something he never had.

Now let us turn our attention to the last part of this passage, i.e. verse 8 which reads, “that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing”. What is the curse that is alluded to in this verse? Is the loss of salvation ever referred to as a curse? It is not, mostly because there is no loss of salvation. What is referred to as a curse is the loss of the right of entrance into the Land. Ps. 37:22, “For such as be blessed of Him, shall inherit the earth ( Hebrew is eretz” and should be “Land”); and they that be cursed of Him shall be cut off”. Verse 9 explains what it means to be “cut off”. “For evildoers shall be cut off; but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth (again it is “eretz” and should be translated “land”, i.e. Land of Israel)”. And verses 28-29, “…..For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not His saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever”. What we learn from these passages is that to be blessed is to inherit the Land during the millennium, and to be cursed is to be denied entrance into the Land for millennial blessings.

How are we to understand the phrase, “whose end it is to be burned”? For that, we must turn to Matthew 13:41-43, “The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity: And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father……..”. I believe a few words of clarification are called for.

1) The phrase “furnace of fire” is obviously not to be taken literally. That is to say, there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that there is a literal furnace into which some will be cast. Therefore the phrase must be interpreted figuratively. It believe it is used in reference to the countries outside the Land which will not enjoy the blessings that the righteous in the Land will enjoy. (For the Scriptural proof of that statement please see the paper on this web-site, The Kingdom of Heaven. ) 2) This passage in Matthew speaks of those already in the Land at His coming who will be cast out because of their unrighteousness.

For the purpose of clarification I will offer a paraphrase of Heb. 6:4-8, “For it is impossible for those who had heard the word, and have only tasted and not fully accepted the heavenly gift which is the power from the Holy Spirit, and were made partners of those who had received the power from the Holy Ghost, and have tasted, but not fully accepted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame. ………..But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and will not enter into the millennial Land, but will instead be cast out of it to live among unbelievers of the nations.”

HEBREWS 10:26-31

Heb. 10:26-31, “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted, the blood of the covenant, wherewith He was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace? For we know Him that hath said, ‘Vengeance belongeth to Me, I will recompense’, saith the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord shall judge His people’. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”.

The phrase, “fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation” has led many to conclude that hell is in the mind of the writer of Hebrews. Let me say first that the traditional view of hell is unscriptural, and therefore does not enter into the interpretation of this passage. Please see the paper, A Study Of Hell on this web-site for the Scriptural evidence of that statement.

Next, let us consider the phrase, “fiery indignation”. The note on this phrase in the Companion Bible reads, “= jealousy, or fervour of fire. A Hebraism. See Ps. 79:5, Ezek. 36:5, 38:19, Zeph. 1:18, Cp. Deut. 29:20”. Let us look at just a few of these verses.

Ps. 79:5, “How long, Lord? wilt Thou be angry for ever? Shall Thy jealousy burn like fire?

Ezek. 36:5, “…..Surely in the fire of My jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen….”.

Ezek. 38:19, “For in My jealousy and in the fire of My wrath have I spoken….”.

This phrase then has nothing to do with hell, or with loss of salvation. The burning fire is a figure of speech used to enhance the picture of God’s anger.

Let us consider the phrases, “‘Vengeance belongeth to Me, I will recompense’, saith the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord shall judge His people’. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”. As we add together the picture of God’s anger and the “vengeance” of God, I believe we may conclude that the punishment of this passage in Heb. 10 refers to the day of God’s vengeance which will be meted out in the day of the Lord. (Please see the paper on the days of the end times for proof of that statement.) Believers will have been raptured before the day of God’s vengeance proving that this passage has to do with the punishment of unbelievers. Again, unbelievers were never saved because of their unbelief, therefore there is no loss of salvation in this passage.

6) OTHER PASSAGES FROM HEBREWS

Heb. 2:3, “…how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation….”. We must be constantly aware in reading Hebrews that it was written to Israel, some of whom were believers (and therefore saved) and some of whom were not. So we must ask ourselves was it believers or unbelievers that the writer warns of neglecting salvation? I believe a short study of the Greek word translated “neglect” will answer that question.

That Greek word is “ameleo”. The first occurrence is in Matt. 22:5 where it is translated “make light of“. In Heb. 8:9 it is translated “regard not“. In my opinion, the use of the word “neglect” points to this warning being directed to those of Israel who were not believers, i.e. who “regarded not” and who made light of the salvation that was in Christ. In other words, they never took the gift of salvation seriously enough to accept it. Note verse 4 which speaks of bearing witness by miraculous signs. Those signs were sent to unbelievers so that they would not “neglect” the salvation in Christ. So verse 4 also points to the warning of verse 3 as being directed to unbelievers. Unbelievers never had salvation and therefore never lost what they never had.

Heb. 3:6- 4:16 This passage concerns entering into God’s rest. It is true that those of Israel who God led out of Egypt did not enter into His rest, but we must ask ourselves why they did not. The answer is given very plainly in 4:6, “….and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief“. Those who use this passage to try to prove that believers were not allowed entrance into His rest miss the point. The whole point of this passage is that the reason some were not allowed entrance into His rest is because they were unbelievers. They never lost a salvation because as unbelievers they never had it. Note also 3:19 which tells us the same thing, “so we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. And 4:11, “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief“.

Having established the main subject of this passage let us consider a few verses that seem to say that one can lose his salvation. For example, 3:6, “…Whose house are we if we hold fast….”. Bearing in mind that this epistle was written to the Hebrews (some of whom were saved and others were not) we must consider the Old Testament and the emphasis therein of works. We read in the Old Testament that one is justified by faith. But as mentioned above, the Old Testament has very little to say about salvation. The main emphasis in the Old Testament was works, i.e. the obedience to the Mosaic Law in order to lay hold of earthly blessings and avoid earthly punishments. (Please see Lev. 26 as it is the cornerstone of the Old Testament.) So Israel was quite used to thinking in terms of works to please God. And James tells us that works completes ones faith (please the paper on this web-site Faith And Works In God’s Plan of Salvation for the proof of that statement).

The thought of works completing one’s faith is also seen in this context as we compare verses 17 and 19 of chapter 3. Verse 17 reads, “But with whom was He grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness”. But in verse 19 we read, “so we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief“. Verse 17 tells us that they did not enter into His rest because of their sin, but verse 19 tells us that they did not enter in because they lacked faith. There are no contradictions in the word of God. The only way we can avoid that contradiction is to consider James 2 which tells us that faith is completed by works.

Heb. 3:12 is helpful in understanding this passage. It reads, “Take heed brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God”. Note that it is not the believers who “depart from the living God”, it is unbelievers. Again we must bear in mind that Hebrews was written to believers and unbelievers alike of Israel. So verse 14 is also addressed to unbelievers.

Heb. 5:8-9 “…..he became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him”. Again, we cannot forget that this epistle was written to Israel, i.e. Hebrews. The Hebrews knew their own Old Testament and they knew the principle so clearly stated by James in chapter 2 of his epistle. That principle is that works complete ones’ faith. So yes, those who do not obey do not do not partake of the promise of salvation because their works (i.e. their lack of obedience) prove that they were not believers.

7) “HE WHO ENDURES TO THE END”

Matt. 24:13, “But he that shall endure unto the end shall be saved”. There are two questions that must be asked. 1) “Endures unto the end” of what? And 2) that person will be saved from what?

The context will answer our first question. The context is obviously about the great tribulation. Note verses 15-16, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place…..then let them which be in Judea flee into the hills” The answer to our first question is that he endures to the end of the tribulation will be saved.

Our second question asks, from what will he that endures to the end be saved? The paper on this web-site An Overview Of The End Times will show that immediately after the tribulation, the Lord will mete out His wrath in the day of the Lord. The rapture will save all believers from that wrath. In other words, he who endures to the end of the tribulation will be saved from the day of God’s wrath by the rapture.

Matt. 10:22 also uses the phrase “he that endureth to the end”. “And ye shall be hated of all men for My name’s sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved”. Is Matt. 10:22 also a tribulation passage? We read in verse 21, “And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death”. Let us compare that with Luke 21:16. Luke 21:16 is a tribulation passage which is proved by verse 12, “But before all these (the “fearful sights and great signs” from heaven, i.e. the signs of the day of the Lord), they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons….”. We read in this context verse 16, “and ye shall be betrayed both by parents and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends…..”.

In short, we know that Luke 21:16 is in the context of the tribulation. Luke 21:16 tells us the same thing as Matt. 10:22, therefore Matt. 10:22 is also a tribulation passage. Therefore, the same is true of the phrase “he who endures to the end” of Matt. 10:16 as was true of Matt. 24:13, i.e. he who endures to the end of the tribulation will be saved from the day of God’s wrath by the rapture.

8) “TWO SIDES OF A TRUTH THAT GIVE US A PERFECT WHOLE”

PHILIPPIANS 3:11

We read in Phil 3:11, “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead”. This verse seems to be saying that Paul was not sure he would be raised, i.e. that he might lose his salvation. But we have seen several passages that tell us that no saved person could lose his salvation. How are we to understand this verse? There are no contradictions in the Word of God, so we must look a little deeper at this passage.

The title of this section is a quote from Charles Welch taken from his article called “Second Step”. He writes, “Meanwhile his (Paul’s) ‘confidence’ in Philippians one and his ‘diffidence’ in Philippians three give us the two sides of truth that give us a perfect whole”. To what does Mr. Welch refer when he wrote of “Paul’s confidence”? He is referring to Phil. 1:6 where we read, “Being confident of this very thing, that He Which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ”. If Paul was so confident that Christ will continue the good work in the Philippian believers until resurrection in the day of Jesus Christ, how then is he so lacking in confidence as to his own resurrection? Let us examine the concept of two sides of a truth giving us a perfect whole.

Several things in the Bible seem to contradict themselves unless we see them as “two sides of a truth that give us a perfect whole” or opposite sides of the same coin. Take for example faith as opposed to the Law of Moses for justification. In Galatians 2:15 Paul writes, “We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners know that a man is not justified by observing the law……” But in Romans 2:13 he writes, “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Is this a contradiction? Of course not, it is simply “two sides of truth that give us a perfect whole”. That is to say, it is faith in Christ that makes one righteous, but the law was given to Israel to obey, and their obedience completed their faith in the One Who gave them that law.

Let us consider another example of “two sides of a truth that give us a perfect whole”. Eph. 2:8-9 reads, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast”. But James writes in James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone”. There is no contradiction here. That is to say, one is justified by faith, but “faith without works is dead”. This is another example of “two sides of a truth that give us a perfect whole”, two sides of the same coin.

Paul also writes in Philippians, “……Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”, (Phil 2:12). Did he mean that we are not saved by grace but by works? Of course not; he meant good works must accompany true faith. Again, “two sides of a truth that give us a perfect whole”. I’m sure the reader can think of other examples of Bible doctrine in which two sides of a truth give us a perfect whole.

Paul’s confidence in resurrection is expressed several times in his writings. See for example Eph. 1:6, “And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”. Note that Paul writes of resurrection in the past tense. This is the use of the figure of speech ““Heterosis”. It is used to express the absolute certainty that what has been promised will indeed be fulfilled. Note also Col. 3:1, “If ye then be risen with Christ…”. Again, note the tense.

The “diffidence” of Phil 3 is the uncertainty of attaining resurrection. In Ephesians Paul is certain of resurrection, in Philippians three he is uncertain of attaining it. Is this a contradiction? Of course not! It is “two sides of truth that give us a perfect whole”.

In his article mentioned above in the section called “Second Step”, Mr. Welch gives his reasons for preferring the R.V., so I will quote that version here. “Not that I have already attained or am already made perfect, but I press on if so be that I may apprehend that for which also I was apprehended by Christ Jesus”. What was it that Paul was apprehended for by Christ? Paul was apprehended by Christ for resurrection life. And yet Paul writes that he had not “already attained” it. Again, in this one verse we see two sides of the same resurrection coin. On one side of the coin we see that Paul was hoping to “attain” resurrection. And on the other side of the same coin Paul sees that Christ had already “apprehended” him for resurrection.

ROMANS 2:5

Some believe that Rom. 2:5 says that one can lose his salvation. That verse reads, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God”.

What did Paul mean by the phrase “day of wrath”?. We read in Ps. 110:5-6, “The Lord at Thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, He shall fill the places with the dead bodies; He shall wound the heads over many countries”. A comparison of the phrase “He shall fill the places with the dead bodies” with Rev. 19 will show that both refer to the second coming of Christ.

Let us also consider the phrase “the great day of His wrath”, which must in my opinion, refer to the same day. We read in Rev. 6:13-17, “And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men…….said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him That sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?’”. Again, the great day of His wrath is obviously at the same time as the day of wrath. Is there any significance to the addition of the pronoun “His”? In my opinion, it is a significant addition. It tells us that this wrath comes from God and none other.

A comparison of Joel 2 will reveal the fact that the cosmic signs described in Rev. 6 will occur before the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord is a time of God’s judgment of those who are alive at the time. Therefore, the day of His wrath, like the day of wrath is the time in which God will mete out His judgment of all those who worshiped the beast during the tribulation.

Coming back then to Rom. 2:5 (“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God”), we see that the day of wrath will be at the time of the day of the Lord and believers will not endure His wrath because they will be raptured. On the other hand, unbelievers, i.e. those who treasure up wrath, will not be raptured and they will indeed endure the day of wrath.

My point is that Rom. 2:5 concerns only those unbelievers of the end times and, more to the point of our study, were never saved and therefore, could not lose their salvation.

9) NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES THAT REFER TO UNBELIEVERS

ROMANS 1:24

Romans 1:24, “….wherefore, God also gave them up”. Were those who God gave up saved? Some have jumped to the conclusion that because we read in verse 21 that they “knew God” that they were saved. Let us look at the context to decide if these people whom God had given up were saved.

We read in verses 21-25, “Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more that the Creator, Who is blessed for ever…”. Were these people ever believers? Let us continue in this same context.

We read in Rom. 1:26-32, “for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaning the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers , without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them”.

Does this sound like people who have the new nature which is the guarantee of resurrection life? No, it does not. But one might object, it says that they “knew God”. I believe that Rom. 1:19-20 will add some light to that verse, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even, His eternal power and Godhead”. The point is that these people knew about God, but their lives proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did not acknowledge Him as God.

One other point should be made. James tells us that “faith without works is dead”. In other words, if one says he has faith but his life does not show it, he does not have faith.

ROMANS 8:13

“For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live”. We need to consider this verse in context.

We read in verses 8-9, “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His”. This passage tells us that believers have the Spirit of God in them and unbelievers do not, so they live in the flesh, i.e. the sinful nature. Therefore, when we read in verse 13 of those who “live according to the sinful nature”, we are reading of those who do not have the spirit of God in them, and are therefore “none of His”, i.e. they are unbelievers. In other words, believers have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, but unbelievers do not and will therefore die.

In short, Romans 8:13 is a warning to unbelievers and as such never had a salvation to lose.

ROMANS 11:19-21

Rom. 11:19-21, “Thou wilt say then, “the branches were broken off that I might be graffed in’. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off. and thou standest by faith, be not high minded. For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest He also spare not thee”.

This passage is used to try to prove that one can lose their salvation because it is assumed that the good olive tree represents the church. That assumption is incorrect. Let me explain why I say that.

We read in verse Rom. 11:17 of the good olive tree, “And if some of the branches be broken off….”. These branches were broken off because of unbelief (vs. 23). That tells us that originally, the good olive tree had unbelievers who were eventually broken off. Christ’s church has no unbelievers in it. So the good olive tree could not represent the church. If it doesn’t represent the church, what does it represent?

Rom. 11:24 reads, “….how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree”. The natural branches were, of course, Israelites. How do we know that the natural branches were Israelites? We read in verse 13 that Paul was speaking to Gentiles, “For I speak to you Gentiles….”. Then in verse 17 we read, “….and thou (Gentiles) being a wild olive tree.…”. If the Gentiles were the “wild olive tree”, obviously Israel was the good olive tree. Therefore, this passage could not be more clear; the good olive tree is Israel.

I suppose the reason so many think the good olive tree represents the church is because it is said to be “holy”. But the Greek and Hebrew words translated “holy” mean only “set apart”. Certainly Israel was a nation set apart.

Let us not make the common mistake of beginning our study of the meaning of “holy” with the New Testament. The New Testament did not appear out of a vacuum. First century believers would have had a very clear idea of the meaning of the word “holy” from their knowledge of the Old Testament. So we will begin our study with the Old Testament study of the Hebrew word translated “holy”.

The Hebrew word translated “holy” is “kodesh”. The first occurrence is in Ex. 3:5, “the place wherein thou standest is holy“. This obviously means “set apart” as special. That is to say, the place is set apart from all other places because it was at that place that Moses spoke with God. The second occurrence carries the same meaning. We read in Ex. 12:16 of “the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you”. The first day was set apart as a special one unto the Lord. Ex. 16:23 speaks of the “holy sabbath“. Ex. 29:6 speaks of the“holy crown”. Verse 29 of that same chapter speaks of the “holy garments of Aaron”. All these occurrences speak of things that are set apart unto God, not of things being saved.

It is clear that the Hebrew word “kodesh” means “set apart” as special unto the Lord. Let us continue with the New Testament study of the Greek word translated “holy”. But, again, we must bear in mind that the Hebrews, to whom the apostles addressed their comments, would certainly have understood “holy” to mean “set apart” unto God, not “saved”.

The Greek word is “hagios”. It is used in the term “Holy Ghost”. It tells us that the Spirit of God is set apart in His specialness from all other spirits. In Matt. 4:5 we read of the “holy city”, i.e. Jerusalem. That city has been set apart unto God as the city of David. The word is translated “saints”. We know that “saints” are saved, but that is not what the Greek (or Hebrew) word tells us about these people. It tells us that they had been set apart unto God.

What Romans 11 tells us is that the good olive tree represents Israel and the unbelievers of Israel were cut off from their nation. But believing Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree (Israel) in their stead. But if the Israelites who were cut off because of unbelief would come to believe, they too would be added into the olive tree.

So Romans 11 does not tell us that believers are cut off from the church, it tells us that unbelievers were cut off from Israel.

I CORINTHIANS 10:12

I Cor. 10:12 reads, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall”. What did Paul mean when he wrote of a “fall”? Was he speaking of losing your salvation? Let us consider the context in order to answer that question.

We read in verse 11, “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come”. Verse 6 also speaks of examples, “Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted’.

Let us first consider those who served as an example as recorded in verses 1-5. Obviously, these verses refer to the generation of Israel that had been led out of Egypt, but with whom, “God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness” (verse 5). The writer of Hebrews also speaks of those who were “overthrown in the wilderness”. Let us consider Heb. 3:17-19, “But with whom was He grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? and to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that believed not? so we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief“.

What we learn from Heb. 3 is that those about whom Paul wrote as an example in I Cor. 10 were unbelievers. That is to say, Paul’s message in I Cor. 10 has nothing to do with believers losing their salvation, it has to do with unbelievers falling because of their lack of belief. But let us continue with verses 7-10 of I Cor. 10.

Paul speaks of those who” rose up to play” in verse 7. Who were they? We read of them in Ex. 32:1-6, “And when the People saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the People gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, ‘Up, make us gods, which shall go before us’: as for this Moses, the man that took us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what has become of him’”. And they made a golden calf, “and they said, ‘These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” (vs. 4). And in verse 6 we read of these Israelites of whom the writer of Hebrews said were unbelievers, “and they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought pace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play“. So just as I Cor. 10:1-5 speaks of unbelievers, so too does verse 7 speak of unbelievers. Note that verses 8,9 and 10 all speak of “some of them“. The “them” refers, of course, to those unbelievers of Israel who were led out of Egypt and fell in the wilderness because of their unbelief.

The point is that I Cor. 10 does not speak of believers losing their salvation, it speaks of unbelievers falling into sin. So that we may understand Paul’s point in this passage let us add an ellipsis to I Cor. 10:12 that is taken from the context, “wherefore, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall into sin“.

Galatians 5:4

We read in Gal. 5:4, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace”. Does the phrase “ye are fallen from grace” refer to a loss of salvation? We must consider the context if we are to come to the truth of what God has for us in this epistle. Let us first determine the overall reason for Paul’s writing this epistle.

In Gal. 1:6 we read, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel“. We learn from this that the Galatians had listened to someone other than Paul, and that this person had led them astray from the truth of the gospel.

We see the same thing in 3:1, “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?…..” and 5:7, “You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?”

Gal. 2:15 is helpful in determining just what this false teaching was that was “bewitching” the Galatians. “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” We are getting a clue in this verse as to why Paul was so discouraged about the false teaching in Galatia. Someone was leading the Gentile believers to believe that they needed to be circumcised and observe the law in order to be justified. They were teaching that faith was not enough, that they must also keep the law. That is the reason for Paul’s question in 3:3b, “After beginning with the spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”

In 3:2-5 Paul sets the problem out for all to see. “I would like to learn just one thing from you? Did you receive the spirit by observing the law? or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing- if it really was for nothing? Does God give you His spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

The problem that Paul addresses in his letter to the Galatians was that some were preaching that faith in Christ was not enough for salvation; that they also needed to observe the law. That their “believing” was insufficient and that “human effort” was required of them.

Gal. 3:6-7, “Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Understand then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.” Here again, Paul is stressing the point that, just as was true of Abraham, they too are made righteous by faith, without the law.

Gal. 3:11, “Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘The righteous will live by faith”.

Gal. 3:18 reiterates the point, “For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in His grace gave it to Abraham through a promise”.

Consider also 3:21-22, “Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe”.

Now let’s consider chapter 5 in light of the reason for Paul’s writing this epistle to the Galatians. Let us consider verse 4 once again. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace”. What is Paul’s point in this verse? The entire epistle concerns the fact that they are justified by faith, not by the law. Obviously, therefore, Paul was not suggesting that one could be justified by the law rather than by grace through faith. The point of verse 4 is that if they think they are justified by the law, they are, in effect, denying the necessity of Christ’s death and resurrection because they are trying to earn their salvation by observing the law. So if they do not recognize that salvation is by grace, through faith, they are failing to see that they are saved by grace.

In short, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with losing one’s salvation. It has to do with the question of being saved by grace as opposed to being saved by observing the law.

GALATIANS 5:21

Gal. 5:21 is another verse that is purported to teach that one can lose his/her salvation. That verse reads, “…..they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”. I suggest we consider the context in order to understand the point of this passage.

We read in verses 16, “Walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh”. Here we have a contrast between walking as believers, i.e. in the spirit, and unbelievers who fulfill the lusts of the flesh. And we read in verses 24-25, “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit”.

I believe that the key, to this entire passage in terms of our present discussion, is in the phrase of verse 24 which reads, “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”. In other words, as James put it in James 2, faith is completed by works. That is to say, one cannot say that he is a believer in Christ and consistently do the things described in Gal. 5:21. If one does those things he proves himself to be an unbeliever, i.e. he has not “crucified the flesh” and he is not Christ’s.

So coming back to verse 21, I believe Paul’s point in this passage is that if they do not walk after the spirit, as described in verse 22, but rather walk after the flesh, as described in verse 21, they will not enter into the kingdom of God because they will have proved themselves to be not Christ’s.

In short, only believers are allowed into the kingdom of God and those who act according to the acts described in verse 21 are not believers. As such, they will not lose their salvation because, as unbelievers, they never had salvation.

II THESSALONIANS 2:3

II Thess. 2:3, “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition”. The “man of sin” is, of course, the antichrist. The argument is that those who are deceived into following the antichrist are believers, and because they follow Satan, who controls the antichrist, they will lose their salvation. But who are those that will be deceived? Verse 10, “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved”. Those that are deceived had never been saved. The phrase, “them that perish” is defined in the Companion Bible as, “the perishing. See the same phrase in I Cor. 1:18, II Cor. 2:15 and 4:3”. Let us look at those passages.

I Cor. 1:18, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness…”. Here it is clear that those that are perishing are the unsaved.

II Cor. 2:15, “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved and in them that perish”. Here again, it is clear that Paul is referring to those that are perishing as the unsaved .

II Cor. 4:3, “For if our gospel be hid it is to them that are lost“. The phrase, “them that are lost” is the same in the Greek as in the other verses quoted, and refers obviously, to them that are perishing, i.e. the unsaved.

Note also the phrase, “they might be saved”. This phrase is in my opinion, clear. If they “might be saved”, they obviously were not saved.

II Thess. 2:3 therefore speaks of the unsaved who will be deceived by the antichrist, not the saved who will lose their salvation.

II PETER 2:20-21

II Peter 2:20-21, “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”.

To whom does Peter refer by the pronouns “they” and “them”? For the answer to that question we must go all the way back to verse 9 where we read, “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished”. Note the contrast between the “godly” who will be delivered out of temptations, and the “unjust” who will be reserved unto judgment. Let us see if there is a thread that will lead from the unjust of verse 9 to the “they” and “them” of verses 20 and 21.

Verse 10, “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness….Presumptious are they…”. The “them” and the “they” here refers back to the unjust of verse 9.

Verse 12, “But these ….”. The “these” refer back to the unjust of verse 9.

Verse 13, “….as they count it pleasure to riot”. Here again, “they” refers back to the unjust of verse 9.

Verses 13-16 describe those spoken of in the previous verses. Then in verse 17 we read of “These are wells without water. Again, “these” are the unjust of verse 9.

Verse 18, “For when they speak great swelling words”. Here too, the “they” refers back to the unjust of verse 9.

And verse 19 speaks of “they themselves are the servants of corruption”. Once again “they” refers to the unjust of verse 9.

We have followed the thread from verse 9 to verses 20-21 and have seen that those for whom “the latter end is worse with them than the beginning” are the unjust, i.e. the unsaved, not the saved. But what of the fact that Peter wrote in verse 20 that they had “the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”? Does that mean that Peter was writing about the saved?

Let us consider word “of” in the phrase “the knowledge of the Lord….”. The word “of” is the Genitive of Relation defined in part in the Companion Bible as, “pertaining to”. We would understand the “of” to mean “the knowledge pertaining to the Lord….”.. But knowledge pertaining to the Lord is not what saves. It is faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God that saves (see Jn. 20:30-31). :

The word “of” in the phrase, “the way of righteousness” is also, in my opinion, the Genitive of Relation. So that phrase is to be understood as, “the way pertaining to righteousness” But obviously, because the subject of this passage is unbelievers, they may have known about the way of righteousness, but they were certainly not righteous.

Now let us consider the phrase “to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”. The subject of “the commandment” brings us to works, i.e. obedience to the holy commandment. And that in turn brings us to James’ point that “faith without works is dead”. That is to say, if those about whom Peter wrote were true believers rather than just having knowledge pertaining to the Lord, they would not have become “entangled” with the pollution of the world again.

In short, those about whom Peter wrote in this passage had some knowledge of Jesus Christ, and had known the way of righteousness, but they proved by their actions that they had not been true believers.

For the sake of clarity let me suggest a paraphrase based on what we have learned about this passage, “For if after they (unbelievers) have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge pertaining to the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they (unbelievers) are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them (unbelievers) than the beginning. For it had been better for them (unbelievers) not to have known the way pertaining to righteousness than, after they (unbelievers) have known it, to turn from the holy commandment ( the Mosaic Law given to them in order to complete their faith) delivered unto them”

REV. 3:4

We read in Rev. 3:4, “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white: for they are worthy”. Note that there will be only some in the church at Sardis that will be worthy. Does that mean that those who will not be worthy lost their salvation? I believe not.

The assumption is that all those in the Sardis church were saved because they will be in the church. But that is based on an incorrect understanding of the Greek word translated “church”. The Greek word translated “church” is “ekklesia” and means literally “called out”. The word is used in Act 7:38 for the “church” in the wilderness. That “church” was composed of Israelites who had been brought up out of Egypt and about whom we read in Heb. 3:18-19 that they were unbelievers, i.e. they were never saved. My point is that the word “church” does not tell us that those in the church are believers. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the church at Sardis was made up of only believers.

Further, let us consider the next verse as well. Verse 5 reads, “he that overcometh the same shall be clothed in white raiment.”. First of all, we may not take this verse out of the context of the book of the Revelation. When we read of “overcoming” in Revelation, we must understand it as overcoming the testing that will be carried out by the antichrist during the great tribulation. Secondly, let us consider the “white raiment”. That phrase takes us Rev. 7:13-14, “…..what are these that are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? …..And he said unto me, ‘Sir, thou knowest.’ These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb”.

So we have a church composed of some who will not overcome the testing of the tribulation, i.e. some will receive the mark of the beast. Are those who will receive the mark of the beast believers? In order to answer that question let us consider James 2:22 which reads, “seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect” (should read “complete”).

Those who were not found worthy were those who received the mark of the beast and thus proved that they were never saved. So Rev. 3:4 tells us that those who were not found worthy to walk with Christ in white were unbelievers, they did not lose their salvation because they were never saved.

10) PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF LOSS OF REWARDS, NOT LOSS OF SALVATION

I CORINTHIANS 3:17

I Cor. 3:17, “If any man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the Temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” Let us consider the context. Verses 14-15, “If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward“. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire”. It is clear that verse 17 is in the context of rewards. But how are we to understand the phrase “him shall God destroy”?

The Greek word translated “destroy” is “phthiro”. It is used nine times in the New Testament, and is translated “corrupt” in all but the two occurrences in I Cor. 3:17 where it is translated”defile” and “destroy”. If, for the sake of consistency we translate the word in I Cor. 3 the same as it had been translated in every other occurrence it would read, “If any man corrupt the Temple of God, him shall God corrupt“. Given that this verse comes in the context of rewards, I believe that is a better translation. And given that we are quite specifically told that “he (whose work shall be burned) himself shall be saved“, we must conclude that I Cor. 3:17 does not speak of a man losing his salvation, it speaks of him losing his rewards.

I TIMOTHY 4:15-16

I Tim. 4:15-16, “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee”. Let us consider the Greek word translated in verse 15, “profiting”. The Greek word is, “prokopee” and it is used three times in the New Testament. Phil. 1:12, “unto the furtherance of the gospel”. Phil. 1:25, ” for your furtherance and joy of faith”. And lastly, in I Tim. 4:15. So the meaning is “furtherance“. The NIV translation of verse 15 is, “Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them so that everyone may see your progress“. Progress towards what? Salvation is not a matter of progress, it is a matter of accepting Christ, which Timothy had already done. What is a matter of progress is the life that leads to rewards. Because Timothy’s salvation (as is everyone’s) based on the acceptance of Christ by faith, and not a question of progress, I believe that this passage is speaking of progress toward rewards in resurrection life.

I TIMOTHY 5:24-25

I Tim. 5:24-25, “Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid”. Is this a judgment of the believer for salvation? I believe that the fact that verse 25 speaks of “the good works of some” points to a judgment of rewards. Good works in and of themselves have nothing to do with salvation, but it does have to do with rewards. So when the believer is judged for what rewards he may or may not receive, his sins and his good works will be considered.

II TIMOTHY 2:11-13

II Tim. 2:11-13, “It is a faithful saying saying :’For if we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him: if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we believe not, yet He abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself”. What does it mean that He cannot deny Himself? He cannot deny Who He is. For one thing, God cannot lie. God cannot break the promise of salvation to those who believe. But there does seem to be a contradiction in this passage. On the one hand we read that “if we deny Him, He also will deny us”. But on the other hand we read that “He cannot deny Himself”.

What does it mean when we read, “if we deny Him, He also will deny us”? That He will deny us comes in verse 12. Let’s look at the entire verse. “If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him: if we deny Him, He also will deny us”. Suffering does not produce salvation. But if we endure suffering in faith we will receive rewards. But if, in our suffering, we deny Him, He will deny us the rewards of a faithful life.

Therefore, I believe that if we do not continue in faith He will deny us the reward of reigning with Him. But He cannot deny Himself. That is to say, .He cannot deny salvation to those who are saved.

If we do not see the denial in terms of rewards, we have a contradiction with the verse in this same context that tells us that “He cannot deny Himself”.

11) PASSAGES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH LOSS OF TEMPORAL LIVES, NOT ETERNAL LIVES

LUKE 13:3-4

Luke 13:3-4, “I tell you, ‘Nay’; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Of those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem”? This passage is speaking of those who died in accidents and warning of loss of temporal lives. This passage is not speaking of losing salvation. Therefore, it has nothing to say about salvation or loss of salvation.

JAMES 1:14-15

James 1:14-15, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed; then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin; when it is finished, bringeth forth death”. The phrase “and sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death” is not a new thought. Paul expressed the same thought in Romans 6:20-21, “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death”. It is clear that neither of these passages has to do with loss of salvation. The only difference is that Paul makes it more clear that it has to do with the loss of temporal life.

12) “IF” PASSAGES

COLOSSIANS 3:1

Col. 3:1, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God”. The word “if” (Ge. “ei”) gives the impression that perhaps not all believers are risen with Christ. But we read of the word “if” of Col. 3:1 in the Companion Bible Appendix 118, 2 a, “Followed by the Indicative Mood, the hypothesis is assumed as an actual fact, the condition being unfulfilled, but no doubt being thrown upon the supposition”. If Paul, through the Holy Spirit, wanted to convey a conditional resurrection, he would have used the Greek word “ean”, not the one he did use, i.e. “ei”.

I CORINTHIANS 15:2

I Cor. 15:2 uses the same Greek word translated “if” as in Col. 3:1 and, of course, tells us the same truth, i.e. the “if” is “assumed as an actual fact”. That verse reads, “By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain”.

Let us also consider the phrase, ” unless ye have believed in vain”. Is there such a thing as believing “in vain”? Of course not. To what then is Paul referring? I believe that Paul is referring to the fact that some among the Corinthians had been saying that there is no resurrection of the dead. We read in I Cor. 15:12, “….how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” We read in verse 14, “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain“. Obviously, neither Paul’s preaching or their belief in Christ was in vain. Paul’s point is that if there is no resurrection, that would make his preaching and their belief in vain. So too in verse 2 where we read, “unless you have believed in vain” the point is that if what some had been saying was true, i.e. that there is no resurrection, that would mean that their faith was in vain.

13) OTHERS

Galatians 8:-9

We read in Gal. 1:8-9, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, ‘If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed’”. What does it mean to be accursed? Does it mean to lose one’s salvation? “Accursed” is, of course, the noun of the verb “to curse”. “To curse” is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “a prayer or invocation for harm or injury”. To be saved is to be saved from the grave. If one is not saved he remains in the grave and “is no more” (Job 14:10, “But man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more“.). So there is a loss of eternal life in not being saved, but there is no harm or injury as one cannot suffer harm or injury (or anything else) when he is “no more”. (Please see the paper on death for a more complete discussion of this much misunderstood issue). Therefore, I believe we must conclude that to be cursed is a prayer for harm or injury during one’s temporal life.

The word translated “accursed” in Gal. 1:8 and 9 is the Greek word “anathema”. The first occurrence is found in Acts 23:14 which reads, “And they (“certain Jews”, 40 in number-see vss. 12-13) came to the chief priests and elders and said, ‘We have bound ourselves under a great curse, (Gr. “anathema”) that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul’”. We have in this verse exactly what this curse was, i.e. “we will eat nothing” until Paul was slain. My point is that the curse is explained in the context and it is in accordance with the definition of the English word “curse”, i.e. an “invocation for hurt or harm”. It is certainly not a lose of salvation, it is one that is suffered during one’s temporal life.

In short, Paul’s point in Gal. 1:8-9 was not that one who preached a different gospel should lose their salvation, it was that they should suffer an injury or harm in their temporal life.

REVELATION 2:5

We read in Rev. 2:5, “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen and repent, and do the first work; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place except thou repent”.

We read in Rev. 1:20, “…And the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches”. In other words, if those of the church of Ephesus do not repent, the church will be removed. I cannot say what the removal of the church means, but I cannot believe, especially considering the passages quoted at the beginning of this study which say that one cannot lose their salvation, that an entire church will lose their salvation because they left their first love (vs. 4).

REVELATION 3:15-16

Rev 3:15-16 reads, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth”.

What does “spue” mean”. Does it mean that they will lose their salvation? The Greek word is used only here, so we have to take the meaning from the immediate context. We read in verse 19, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten…”. God does not chasten unbelievers in order for them to love Him fully, i.e. unbelievers do not love Him at all, which is proved by their unbelief. So I believe that this passage is in reference to believers. So what will happen to these lukewarm believers when God spues them out of His mouth? We are told quite specifically that they will be chastened. One may think that this chastening means that God will take away their salvation, but there is nothing in the context to support that thought. Rather let us consider what Heb. 12:7-8 has to say about chastisement, “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? but if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons”. Note that we are “all” chastised. If one says that the chastening is to take away one’s salvation than no one is saved. I believe therefore that we must conclude that Rev. 3:15-19 does not say that God will take away one’s salvation when He spues them out of His mouth, but that He will chastise them because they are His sons and he loves them.

REVELATION 22:19

We read in Rev. 22:19, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”. First of all we must be clear that this verse is in reference to the book of Revelation only, not to the entire Bible, i.e. “take away from the words of this prophecy“.

I believe that this verse does speak of one losing his salvation. But let us also consider the meaning of the Greek word translated “if” in this verse. Dr. E. W. Bullinger defines it as, “…it expresses a hypothetical but possible condition”. It seems to me that this verse says that it is hypothetically possible for one to take away the words….and therefore lose his salvation. However, I believe that because of the several promises of God that one cannot lose their salvation, that the hypothetical will never come to fruition. Consider that Christ could have said “when” rather than “if”. Every word is inspired, and the “if” is not coincidental. I can not believe that God, Who made an unconditional promise of everlasting life to all those who believe, will break that promise. That makes Him a liar and God cannot lie.

But some may object that if God knew that no believer would take away the words of the prophecy doesn’t that make the threat meaningless? No, I don’t believe it does. Let us consider God’s threat to Nineveh as recorded in the book of Jonah. We read in Jonah 3:4 of Jonah’s cry to Nineveh, “….Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”. But we read in verse 10, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that He would do unto them: and He did it not”. God, of course, knew from the beginning that He would not destroy Nineveh because they would repent. But the threat of destruction was what made them repent, so it was not a meaningless threat. So too, in my opinion, no believer will take away the words of the prophecy for fear of being taken out of the book of life, which makes this, rather than a meaningless threat, a very meaningful one.

We might also ask, why, of all the prophecies in the Bible does this threat appear in the book of Revelation? We can’t know for certain because, as far as I can tell, we are not told. But Revelation is the most comprehensive record of what will happen in the end times and of the second coming of Christ. Without this record those who live in the end times will not have sufficient knowledge to recognize the works of the antichrist and thus are more likely to fall prey to his wiles and evil plans.

But I suppose some will take this verse as proof that one can lose their salvation, so I will add a comment on that thinking. Rev. 22:19 speaks of a very specific act (taking away the words of the prophecy) and the punishment is also given very specifically. But most who are of the opinion that one can lose their salvation believe that it is sin in a person’s life that will cause them to lose their salvation. That is never stated with any degree of clarity as is the statement in Rev. 22. Therefore, in my opinion, this verse in Rev. 22 does not prove what the Armenians are trying to prove, i.e. that sin can lead to a loss of salvation.

CONFESSION OF SINS

Many believe that one must daily ask for forgiveness of sins daily or he will lose his salvation. The paper on forgiveness in God’s plan of salvation lists and discusses every occurrence of the word “forgive”, “forgiveness”, etc. This paper proves from Scripture that forgiveness is not part of God’s plan of salvation. In point of fact, the only reason that God forgives sin in the dispensation of the mystery is for fellowship. That being the case confession of sins does not impact on one’s eternal security.

CONCLUSION

For the most part, I have chosen the passages used by those who do believe that one can lose their salvation. If I have missed some that the reader feels is compelling I would appreciate knowing of them.

This paper is written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond to this paper, please e-mail at: [email protected]

January 23, 2025/ Religion

CAN JESUS CHRIST BE BOTH MAN AND GOD? – Right Word Truth

maximios /

CAN JESUS CHRIST BE BOTH MAN AND GOD?

Most Bible-believing Christians would say that the answer to the question posed in the title of this study is yes, because as we read in Luke 1:37, “With God nothing shall be impossible”. Some, however would answer with a no, one can not be both man and God. This paper will present the Scriptural proof that Jesus Christ is both Man and God.

There is no question that Christ was, while on earth, fully Man. The question that we will study in this paper is whether He was also fully God. We will look at the following headings in the search for truth in this all important study:

What Do The Old Testament Prophets Say As To Who The Messiah Will Be?

Christ, The Son of God

The Genitive of Origin

How Did First Century Jews Understand The Title “Son of God”?

New Testament Quotes of Ps. 110:1

Scriptures Which Prove That Christ Is God

Titles of Jehovah Ascribed To Christ

WHAT DO THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS SAY AS TO WHO THE MESSIAH WILL BE?

When Christ made His triumphal entrance into Jerusalem the crowds hailed Him as “the Son of David”. That means, of course that they accepted Him as their King. As the verses quoted below will show, they understood from these Old Testament scriptures, that their King would be God. In other words, they understood these verses to say that Messiah would be God, and so too should all who read them.

Psalm 2:6-7

We read in Ps. 2:6-7, “Yet have I set My king upon My holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree; The Lord hath said unto Me, ‘Thou art My son….”.As will be shown in the section below, Jews understood that God’s Son was deity. We have then, in this verse a very clear declaration that the King that God will set on the throne will be God.

Psalm 45:6

We read in Ps. 45:6, “Thy throne O God is for ever and ever; The scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter”. We have in the very first phrase the declaration that the King will be God.

Isaiah 7:14

Is. 7:14 reads, “…the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. “Immanuel” means, of course “God with us”. Again, Jews understood that the Messiah would be God, i.e. “God with us”.

Isaiah 40:10

We read in Is. 40:10, “Behold, the Lord God will come with a strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him….”. Again, we have a very clear statement that Jews understood that God would rule. That is to say, because they expected their promised Messiah to rule, they would see that that promised Messiah would be God.

Isaiah 40:3, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah”. (The KJV has “the Lord” but the Hebrew is “Jehovah”). We read in Matthew 3:3 a quote of Isaiah 40:3. “For this is he (John the Baptist) that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His path straight”. The one for whom John the Baptist was preparing the way was Christ. John the Baptist was fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah who wrote that he would prepare the way for Jehovah. By comparing the prophecy (Is. 40:3) with the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 3:3) we see that the “voice of him crying in the wilderness” was preparing the way for Jehovah, Who is God. Since Christ was the One for Whom John the Baptist was preparing the way, we must conclude that Christ is Jehovah, i.e. God in the flesh. (For further evidence that Christ is Jehovah, please see the paper on this web-site Jesus Christ Is The Manifestation of Jehovah).

Is. 48:16, “Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was there am I: and now Adonai Jehovah, and His spirit, hath sent me”.

The pronoun “me” in the phrases “Come ye near unto Me and “hath sent me” is obviously in reference to Christ Who was sent by God to the the Saviour of all who believe. So too where we read “i have spoken” the pronoun “I” is also in reference to Christ. So when we read,”from the beginning; from the time that it was there am I”. So also when we read that from the point at which time began, i.e. “from the time that it (time) began,:Christ was there. (Please see the note on Jn. 1:1 below).

I believe that one further passage from the Old Testament will also prove that the Old Testament teaching concerning the Messiah is that He would be God. We read in Gen. 1:1 “in the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth”. We may conclude therefore that Elohim is God. With that in mind, please consider, Zech. 14:4, “And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives….”. Verse 5, “And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains…. And Jehovah my Elohim shall come and all the saints with Thee” (should read “Him”). These verses have to do with the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, Christ is Elohim. If Elohim is God, and Christ is Elohim, Christ is God.*

CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD

We are told in Romans 8:14 that “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”. And in Gal. 3:26 we read, “Ye are all the sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus”. All believers are sons of God. Does that mean that Christ was no different than any believer, just a man? One difference between Christ and believers is that Christ is “the only begotten” Son of God.

We must understand that Christ was not Joseph’s Son, but God’s. We read in Luke 1:35, “And the angel answered and said unto her, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy Thing Which shall be born of thee shall be called the ‘Son of God’”. Let us be very clear on this matter. Christ was called the Son of God because (“therefore”) the Holy Ghost came upon Mary and God was His Father in a very unique way.

Furthermore, Matthew tells us quite specifically in 1:18, that Joseph was not the father of Christ. “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: when as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost”. *

THE GENITIVE OF ORIGIN

Let us consider the “of” in the titles “Son of man” and “Son of God”. The “of” is, the genitive of origin. So in the title “Son of man”, the “of” tells us that because Christ’s mother was a human being, Christ was a human being when He was born to Mary. He was a man. hence the title “Son of man”. The “of” in the title “Son of God” must tell us the same thing as does the “of” in the title “Son of man”. It tells us that God was Christ’s Father and that makes Christ God. So the genitive of origin tells us that Christ was from man and from God. And the fact that He was from man tells us that He was man, and the fact that He was from God tells us He is God.

I hope the reader will not mind if I add a personal thought here. I sometimes marvel at the vastness of the universe which was created by Christ in His office of Elohim. Not only its vastness but its beauty and the fact that the variety is incomprehensible. And then I consider that the One Who created “all things” actually, out of love for His world, became a Servant in the form of man, and even died a horrible and humiliating death. And what makes me literally weep is that Christ’s humiliation is so misunderstood that it leads some to doubt His deity. *

HOW DID FIRST CENTURY JEWS UNDERSTAND THE TITLE “SON OF GOD”?

It is assumed by many that the title “Son of God” means that Christ was not God, but God’s Son. But, as the scriptures quoted below will prove, that is not how first century Jews understood the title. We cannot assume that what we in the 21st century believe the title to mean is what the first century Jews understood it to mean. And, of course, it is their understanding, not ours that is correct. Let us consider several passages that tell us how first century Jews understood the title “Son of God”.

MATTHEW 14:26-33

In Matthew 14:26-33 we read of Jesus walking on water and calming the winds. In verse 33 we read, “Then they that were in the ship came and worshiped Him, saying, ‘Of a truth Thou art the Son of God’”. When Christ walked on water He conveyed the truth that as God He has authority over all the elements of the earth. When His disciples saw Him do that, they worshiped Him as God, Who has all authority over the elements. And what they declared in that worship was that He was “the Son of God”. His disciples understood that the title, “Son of God”, referred to His deity.

JOHN 9:37-38

A similar proof of the fact that the title “Son of God” when used of Christ, means that He is God, is found in John 9:37-38. “When He found him (the blind man whom He had healed), He said unto him, ‘Dost thou believe on the Son of God?’ He answered and said, ‘who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him?’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou hast both seen Him and it is He That talketh with thee. And he said, ‘Lord, I believe’. And he worshiped Him“. Once again, the man worshiped Christ once he discovered that He was the Son of God. Only God is worthy of worship. The man was worshiping God and he recognized Him as such when he realized that he had been speaking with “the Son of God”.

LUKE 22:70-71

Luke 22:70-71 records, in part, the scene of Christ being questioned before His crucifixion. “……..Then said they all, ‘Art Thou then the Son of God?’ and He said unto them, ‘Ye say that I am’. And they said, ‘what need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth”. The Lord’s accusers believed that His saying that He was the Son of God was enough to hand Him over to be crucified. Surely, if the phrase “Son of God” meant nothing more than a mere man, this would not have been sufficient evidence to put Him to death. Some might object that Christ never actually said that He was the Son of God, but that is not the point here. The point is that the Jewish leaders questioning Christ understood that the title “Son of God” meant that the Son of God is God and that was sufficient evidence, in their minds, to kill Him.

JOHN 5:18

John 5:18 reads, “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God”. The Jews tried to kill Him “because He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God”.

The Greek word translated “equal” is “isos” As we look at each and every occurrence of that Greek word I believe the reader will agree that it means “the same”. The Greek word is used eight times. Let us first consider the times that it is translated “equal”.

Matt. 20:12, “…These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us…”. This comes in the context of one of the parables of Jesus Christ. The parable tells of each man having received the same amount of payment though they worked a different number of hours. Each man received a penny (vs. 10). Because each man received the same amount, we must understand “isos” in this context, at least, to mean “the same”.

We will come back to Jn. 5:18.

Phil. 2:6, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”. Please see the discussion of this verse below.

Rev. 21:16, “…and the length is as large as the breadth……The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal“. Given that we are told that the length and height are “as large”, I believe we must conclude that here too, “isos” means that they are the same.

Now let us consider the verses in which the word is not translated”equal”.

Mark 14:56, “For many bare false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together”. Here the word is translated “agreed”. What is this verse telling us? It is telling us that the witnesses’ accounts were not the same. Again, “isos” is used to mean “the same”.

Mark 14:59 is the same use as in verse 56.

Luke 6:34, “And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thanks have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again”. Here the word is translated “as much”. In other words sinners want the same amount in payment as they lent out.

Acts 11:17, “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He gave unto us….”. The “like gift” was the gift from the Holy Spirit. In point of fact, it was the same gift.

Now let us consider once again Jn. 5:18. The Jews tried to kill Christ “because He was calling God His own Father, making Himself “equal with God”. Actually, if we are to be consistent in our understanding of “isos” the Jews understood Christ to say that He was the same as God, and that is why they tried to kill Him.

JOHN 19:7

John 19:7, “The Jews answered him, (Pilate) ‘We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God”. The Jews understood full well that His title “Son of God” meant that He was God, and that’s why they tried to kill Him in John 5, and the reason they gave in John 19 for wanting to crucify Him. We may conclude therefore, that first century Jews understood the title “Son of God to mean that Christ is God.

JOHN 10:31-33

John 10:31-33 reads, “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone ye not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God”. Again, we learn from this verse that when Christ told them that God was His Father they took up stones against Him because they understood Him (correctly) to say that He is God.

ACTS 9:20

Acts 9:20, “And straightway he (Paul) preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God”. If this title did not mean that Christ was God, what then would be the importance of Paul teaching that He was the Son of God? It is clear that in this context, “Son of God” means that Christ is God.*

NEW TESTAMENT QUOTES OF PS. 110:1

Psalm 110:1 reads in the KJV, “The Lord (Jehovah) said unto my Lord, ‘Sit Thou at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool”. Let me begin by saying that the phrase “My right hand” is not to be interpreted literally, but figuratively. “At my right hand” is a phrase often used in the Bible to express a position of power, authority and favor. That is proved in the paper on this web-site Sit Thou At My Right Hand.

Ps. 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament seven times. By studying all seven occurrences we will learn a great deal of what this verse has to say about Who Christ is. We will see that this verse is quoted several times by our Lord Himself to prove that Messiah is the Son of God. But it is just as true that Messiah was the Son of man. Both are equally true, and neither truth detracts from the other.

The first time Ps. 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament is in the context of Matthew 22:41-44. In verse 41 we learn that Pharisees were gathered together and Jesus asked them, “What think ye of Christ, Whose Son is He”? And the Pharisees answered, “The Son of David” (verse 42). And our Lord’s answer is significant, “He said unto them, ‘How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool’. If David then called Him Lord, how is He his Son?”

The point Christ was making to these Pharisees was that David refers to the coming Messiah as “Lord” and this proves that the Messiah was going to be much more than only man. (Some believe that the Hebrew word “adoni“translated “Lord” in the phrase “said unto my Lord” is never used of God and therefore proves, in their minds, that Christ is not God since He is referred to in this verse as “adoni”. The paper on “Adoni” will prove from Scripture that the word is indeed used of God). Who could David, the King of Israel have possibly called Lord other than God Himself? No one. Therefore, the lesson of this discourse is that the Messiah, Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Going now to the second time Psalm 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament, we find it in Mark 12:36. Once again Christ asked, this time of the common people, “How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David Himself said by the Holy Ghost, ‘The Lord said unto My lord, sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. David therefore, himself calleth Him Lord; and whence is He then his son?” (verses 35-37). This is the same point made in the same way as we read in Matthew 22. That point being that David would not have called his own son “Lord” unless He were God.

Luke 20:41-42 is the third time Ps. 110:1 is quoted and it is quoted to prove the same point as was Matthew 22 and Mark 12. That David would not have called his own son “Lord” unless He was God.

Acts 2:34-35 is the fourth occurrence of the quote and shines a different light on the quote. In this context Peter is making the point stated in verse 30, “Therefore being a prophet (referring to David) and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on His throne”. As mentioned above, Christ is the Son of man and the Son of God. One truth does not negate the other. In this context, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Son of man. So when Peter, in verse 34 quotes Ps. 110:1 it is to show that Christ fulfilled the prophecy given to David, that “the fruit of his loins” will fulfill the prophecy of Ps. 110:1. To suggest that this proves that Christ is the Son of man is true, but we must also consider the other references to this Psalm which were quoted above to prove that Christ is the Son of God. Both are true, neither cancels out the other.

The fifth time Ps. 110:1 is quoted is in I Cor. 15:25. Because it does not shed any light on our study we will not dwell on it. I will however comment on verse 28 as that has sometimes been used to try to prove that Christ is not God. “And when all things shall be subdued unto Him then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him That put all things under Him”. Some believe that the fact that “the Son” will be subject to “Him” proves that Christ is not God. In the paper on this web-site The Trinity: Is God Three Persons In One? I give my reason for believing that “the Son” in this verse refers to one of the titles of God. It is the office of Son that will be subject to God, Who is Christ.

Going now to the sixth quote of Psalm 110:1 which is found in Heb. 1:13. Let us examine this chapter so that we may put the quote in its context. Note verse 4, “Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they”. Note that it was not something He did that gave Him a “more excellent name” than the angels, it was “by inheritance”. In other words, it was because Who He is, not by what He had done that gave Him that more excellent name. Who is “more excellent” than the angels “by inheritance” if not God? The point of this entire chapter is found in verse 3, “Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person….”. Man could never be the “express image of His person”. This can be said only of Christ as the Son of God. Therefore, we may conclude that once again this quote is being used to prove that Christ is God.

The last time the Psalm is quoted in the New Testament is in Heb. 10:13. Here the point is that Christ as priest offered Himself once a sacrifice for sin. This is in contrast to every other priest who because of their own human sin nature could not really satisfy the requirements of God as to making a righteous sacrifice. As in Act 2, the Psalm is quoted to show that Christ is the Son of man. But as is true of Acts 2, this does not cancel out the other truths we have learned in the quotes of the Psalm in the New Testament, i.e. Christ is fully man and fully God.

Let us return to the Psalm in the Old Testament. Does it refer to Christ as God as in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Hebrews one or does it refer to Christ as man as in Acts two and Hebrews ten? I believe that because this verse is used to prove that Christ is the Son of man and also that He is the Son of God, that we have in this verse the use of the figure of speech “double meaning”. That figure of speech is defined in the Companion Bible as, “A word or phrase susceptible of two interpretations, both absolutely true“. In other words, we may understand Ps. 110:1 to say that the Messiah will be fully man and fully God. *

Other Scriptures Which Prove That Christ is God

MATTHEW 1:23

Matthew 1:23, “Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

In point of fact, there is no record of anyone calling Jesus “Emmanuel”. I believe there is an important lesson to be learned from that. It is important to understand that “name” is sometimes used as a figure of speech metonymy of adjunct, which is defined in the Companion Bible as, “When something pertaining to the subject is put for the subject itself”. In this verse the term “name” is used as that which pertains to Jesus, Who is the subject. It is used as a figure of speech for Who Christ is, Emmanuel, i.e. God with us.

JOHN 1:1

John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. The Greek word translated “was” in the phrase “in the beginning was the Word” is “en”. I am indebted to Sam Shamoun for his article on the deity of Christ. He wrote, “en is the imperfect tense of the verb eimi and denotes continuous existence or action in the past. And, “how continuous depends on the context”. The context is about “the Word”. The “Word” is, of course, Christ. Logic and the imperfect tense tells us that Christ, is eternal, i.e. His existence was “continuous”. Only God exists continually. Therefore, Christ, i.e. “the Word”, is God.

Some would object that the last phrase in this verse, i.e. “the Word was God” is misleading because there is no definite article before “theos“, translated “God”. One person of that opinion wrote, “Since the definite article is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,”) the usual meaning would be “god” or “divine” but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs”.

This idea that the absence of the definite article proves that the second “theos” is not God is just not true. It is one of those things that seems to be passed down from one “scholar” to the next and appears so often that it is taken for fact. Let us, as true Bereans, look at just a few of those occurrences where “theos” is used of God where the Greek does not have the definite article.

Matt. 6:24, “……you cannot serve God and mammon”. There is no article in the Greek before “theos”. Obviously, it is indeed God that one cannot serve along with mammon.

Jn. 1:18 reads, “No man hath seen God at any time….”. There is no definite article in the Greek before “theos”. Obviously, it is indeed God that no man hath seen.

Acts 5:29 reads, “Then Peter…..said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men”. Again, there is not definite article in the Greek before “theos”. Obviously, Peter was saying that they must serve God rather than men.

In short, the Bible does not support the idea that because there is no definite article in the Greek before “theos” in the phrase ” and the Word was God” that the Word was not God.

Is. 48:16 quoted above, also speaks of Christ when time began. That verse reads, “Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was there am I: and now Adonai Jehovah, and His spirit, hath sent me”.

John 1:10

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”

We read in Gen. 1:1 that “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth”. Is there any evidence that Jesus Christ fulfilled the office of “Elohim”? There is. We read in Zech. 14:4, “And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives….”. Verse 5, “And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains….And Jehovah my Elohim shall come and all the saints with Thee”. These verses have to do with the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In short, Jesus Christ is “Elohim”. If Elohim is God and Christ is Elohim, Christ is God.

But the Greek preposition translated “by” in the phrase, “the world was made by Him” is “dia” and bears consideration.

“Dia” is defined in the Companion Bible as, “denotes any cause by means of which an action passes to its accomplishment”. Let us consider a few examples of how the Holy Spirit used this word.

We read in Matt. 1:22, “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by (Gr. “dia“) the prophet”. We learn from this verse that the prophecy was given by the Lord through (Gr.“dia”) the prophet. Let us consider also Acts 3:18, “But those things which God before had shewed by (Gr. “dia” through) the mouth of all His prophets….”). Obviously “dia” is used in the same sense as it is used in Matt. 1:22.

So Jn. 1:10 tells us that the world was made through Christ. That means that just as prophecy was given by God, Who used the prophets as instruments to bring His message, so too God created all things and used Christ as an Instrument so to speak, to accomplish those acts of creation. But let us not, as too many do, stop there, because there is a great deal more to learn about Who created.

We read in Isaiah 44:24, “Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am Jehovah that maketh all things: That stretcheth forth the heavens alone; That spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself”. And in Is. 45:12 we read, “I (Jehovah, vs. 12) have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded”. And in Zech. 12:1 we read,”The burden of the word of Jehovah for Israel, saith Jehovah, Which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him”.

My point is that Jehovah created all things. But we read in Gen. 1:1 that “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth”. There are, of course, no contradictions in the Word of God. As the paper on Jehovah will prove from Scripture, Jesus Christ is both Jehovah as spirit, and Jehovah manifest in the flesh. That means that Jehovah created in His office of Elohim. Or to put it another way, Christ Who is Jehovah as spirit, created all things in His office of Elohim.

Let us try to pull this together:

1) We learn in Jn. 1:10 that the world was made “through” (Gr. “dia“) Christ.

2) We lean that Jehovah created all things and we have also learned that Elohim created the heaven and the earth.

3) Because there are no contradictions in the Word of God, we must conclude that Jehovah (i.e. Christ) created all things through His office as Elohim, Who is Christ.

Let us also consider Col. 1:16 which also uses the preposition “dia” in reference to Christ’s act of creation. That verse reads, “For by (Gr. “dia“, i.e. through) Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominion, or principalities or powers all things were created by Him, and for Him”. As shown in the paragraphs above, Jehovah, in His office of Elohim created all things. In other words, Jehovah created all things through Elohim. But, as also proved above, Christ is Jehovah and Christ is Elohim. So all things were created through Jehovah/Christ in His office of Elohim/Christ.

JOHN 1:18

John 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, Which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him”. * The word translated “declared” means “revealed”. If Christ were not God He could not have revealed God.

However, there is reason to believe that the many texts which read “the only begotten God” are correct. That is to say, there is good reason to believe that this phrase should read, “the only begotten God, Which is in the bosom of the Father”.

Many would argue that because Jesus was a “begotten God”, He was not eternal, i.e. that He had a beginning, He was therefore “ a lesser god”. Let us consider that argument.

“The only begotten God” refers to Christ. Which tells us that Christ is God. That is to say, one verse tells us that Christ is the only begotten Son and another tells us that He is the only begotten God. So logic dictates that He is the Son Who is God. But, again, some would suggest that He is a lesser god because He, unlike Jehovah Who is eternal, had a beginning.

As we consider Jn. 1:1, I believe it will be clear that Christ was not a “lesser god”. “In the beginning was the Word”. The “Word” of course is Christ. I would like to quote a note from Dr. E. W. Bullinger. “Greek ‘logos’. As the spoken word reveals the invisible thought, so the Living Word revealed the living God”. In other words, in the beginning of time Jehovah/Christ, Who is spirit took on a visible form so that He might reveal the invisible God.

Now, let’s consider if this makes the Living Word a lesser god. Jn. 1:1 continues, “And the Word was God”. The translation “a god” has been discussed in the section on Jn, 1:1 and proved there that the absence of a definite article before “Theos”, i.e. “God” does not mean that it should be translated “a god”. So when Christ became the only begotten God, He became the Word, which, we learn in Jn. 1:1, was God. To say that He was a lesser God when this happened is not supported in Scripture. Let me put this in other terms for clarity.

Christ, Who is Jehovah as spirit, is eternal. But “In the beginning” i.e. when time began, Christ took on the form of man, i.e. He became the manifestation of God, i.e. the Word. When Christ became the Word, it could be said that He became “the only begotten God”.

JOHN 2:19 AND 21

We read in Jn. 2:19, “Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. Then in verse 21 we read, “But He spake of the Temple of His body”.

We read many times that Christ was raised by the Father, and in the verse quoted above, we read that Christ will raise up His body (“I will raise it up”). There are no contradictions in the Word of God. How should we understand this statement? Once we see that Christ fufills all the offices of Jehovah, including “everlasting Father” (see Is.9:6) we understand this verse. (Please see the paper on this web-site The Trinity: Is God Thee Persons In One? for the Scriptural evidence of this statement).

But what is important in the context of our present study (can Christ be both God and man) is that Christ tells these Jews that He will raise Himself up, and because we read so many times that the Father raised up Jesus, our Lord leaves no doubt that He does indeed fulfill the office of Father as well as Son. No one doubts that the Father is God, and because Jesus Christ fulfills the office of Father, we must conclude that Jesus Christ is God.

JOHN 3:13 AND JOHN 6:62

John 3:13, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of man”. Here our Lord refers to Himself as “the Son of man”. But the fact that no one had been in heaven but God, and Christ came from heaven, proves that Jesus Christ is God.

Jn. 6:62 reads, “…and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before”. We have a clear statement from Christ Himself that He had been in heaven before He came to earth. This separates Him from being only man, because this can be true of God alone.

JOHN 8:58-59

John 8:58-59 reads, “Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am’. Then they took up stones to cast at Him…”. What did Christ mean by the phrase, “Before Abraham was”? I believe the most obvious reading is that He was saying that He lived before Abraham. A mere man could not have lived before Abraham and still speak to the men of His time. The Jews understood Christ to say that He was no mere man, He was God and that is why they took up stones against Him.

Jn. 19:30

We read in Jn. 19:30, “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, ‘It is finished’; and He bowed His head and gave up the ghost”. This is part of the record of the death of Jesus Christ. How does this help to prove His deity? For the answer to that question we must consider the word “ghost”.

“Ghost” is a translation of the Greek word “pnuema”. Let us consider Luke 4:18, “The spirit of the Lord is upon Me….”. The Greek word translated “spirit” in this verse is “pneuma”. Now let us consider the Old Testament verse from which Luke 4:18 was quoted. That verse is Is. 11:2 which reads, ”The spirit of the Lord is upon Me….”. The Hebrew word translated “spirit” in this verse is “ruach”. In short, we may learn from these two verses that the Hebrew “ruach” means the same as the Greek “pnuema”.

The Hebrew word “ruach” and the Greek word “pneuma” are used in several ways. They are used, for example, in the title “Holy Spirit”, they are used of God, Who is spirit. And they are used of the breath of life. The context will always tell us how we are to understand the word. Let us consider the use of “ruach” and “pneuma” as the breath of life.

Gen. 6:17 and 7:15, “And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath (“ruach”) of life from under heaven….”. Gen. 7:22, “All in whose nostrils was the breath (“ruach”) of life ….died”.

Let us come back then to Luke 4:18 where we read that Christ gave up the “ghost” (Gr. pneuma, the same word translated “spirit”). I believe it is quite clear that in this context, “pneuma” is used of the breath of life. Now let us consider Ecc. 8:8, “There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit: neither hath he power in the day of death… .”. Here too it is obvious from the fact that this verse speaks of the “day of death” that the “spirit” should be understood as the breath of life. (It is true, of course that there are suicides, so man may kill himself, but not by giving up the breath of life, which Solomon wrote no man can do).

We read in Ecc. 8 that no man has the power to give up the spirit, and we read that Christ did exactly that, He gave up the spirit, i.e. the breath of life. If no man can do what Christ did, it is clear that Christ is also God.

JOHN 20:27-28

In John 20:27-28 we read of Thomas’ acceptance of Who Christ is. And what he says after coming to that realization is important. “And Thomas answered and said unto Him, ‘My Lord and my God’“. Surely, if Christ were not God He would have corrected Thomas . But there is no such correction because Christ is indeed God.

PHIL. 2:5-8

Phil 2:5-8 reads, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal (Gr. “isos“, “the same as”) with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men”.

What is the point of this passage? We read of “selfish ambition” (1:15; 2:3) and “vain conceit” (2:3), arguing and lack of consideration for others, (2:4 and 14) and a need for humility, purity and blamelessness (2:3 and 15). The point concerns Christ not grasping at the honor due Him as God, but instead taking upon Himself the office of a servant. Paul was telling these Philippians that they should be like Christ in that just as He did not grasp the honor due Him, but instead humbled Himself to servanthood, so too they should do the same, i.e. humble themselves.

Let us continue with this passage and focus on the contrast in it. That is to say, Paul wrote, “but made Himself…”. So there is a contrast between the phrase before and the phrase after the “but”. The phrase before is, ” thought it not robbery to be equal (Gr. “isos“, “the same as”) with God” but made Himself ….a servant and in the likeness of men”. The contrast is between what Christ was before and after He began His earthly ministry. After He began that ministry He was a servant and a man. What is the contrast with the time before His earthly ministry? He “thought it not robbery to be the same as God”. Let us put that in the positive for clarity. If Christ had thought of Himself as the same as God it would not have been robbery. In other words, He would have been justified in thinking of Himself as the same as God. Further, if the contrast after He began His earthly ministry was that He was a man, He must have been something other than a man before His earthly ministry or there would be no contrast. What else could Christ have been before His earthly ministry if not God?

EPH. 1:10

“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him”. The Greek word translated “gather together” is “anakephalaioomai”. We learn from the note on that word in the Companion Bible that it means literally “head up”. The only other time it is used is in Rom. 13:9, “…..and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, ‘Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself’”.* Here the word is translated “briefly comprehended”. The note in the Companion Bible defines the word as “sum up”. I believe “sum up” is a correct definition as it fits the literal translation of the word, and it fits its other usage in Romans 13.

Eph. 1:10 tells us that in the dispensation of the fulness of times Christ will sum up all things. If Christ is not God, He could not sum up or head up all things in the dispensation of the fulness of times.

COL. 2:9

“For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” What is meant by the term “Godhead”? Many believe it refers to the three Persons of the trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But I believe that it refers to the fact that Jesus Christ fulfills every title of Jehovah (please see the paper on this web-site Jesus Christ Is Both Jehovah And The Manifestation Of Jehovah for the Scriptural evidence of that statement). However, either way, whether the term refers to three Persons or the many titles of Jehovah, Christ is the fulfillment of the Godhead. Christ could not possibly be the fulfillment of the Godhead unless He is God.

But Charles Welch speaks of Col. 2:9 in his “An Alphabetical Analysis” saying that it should not be interpreted as proving the deity of Christ. On page 271 of Part 3 of that volume Mr. Welch wrote, “Identical language, pan to pleroma ‘all the fulness’ is found in Ephesians 3:19, Col. 1:9 and 2:9, and these passages cannot be separated and interpreted independently of each other”. But as we consider each of these verses we will see that even though the same phrase (i.e. “all the fulness”) is used in each verse, they teach entirely different truths. In other words, the use of the same phrase does help us in determining the meaning of the phrase, but it does not demand that each verse teaches the same thing. We will study each of these verses in order to determine if the fact that the same phrase is used means that they teach the same truth. If they do not, we may conclude that Col. 2:9 does teach that Jesus Christ, is the fulness of the Godhead, i.e. He is God.

Eph. 3:19 reads, “And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God“. On page 270 Mr. Welch wrote of this verse, “The prayer of Ephesians 3 is that the believer may be ‘filled with all the fulness of God’ and if to be filled with all the fulness of the Godhead bodily teaches the Deity of Christ in Col. 2:9, what does Ephesians 3:19 teach of the believer?.” I believe that the context must be considered. That is to say, just because the same phrase is used, the same truth is not necessarily taught by it. The context of Eph. 3:19 clearly points to believers, while in Col.2:9 the context clearly points to Christ. The context of Eph. 3:19 tells us that by knowing the love of Christ believers may be filled with all the spiritual blessings that are ours in Christ. But Col. 2:9 is an entirely different subject. It is not the believer that is the subject of Col. 2:9, it is Christ. It is not believers who fill up the Godhead, it is Christ. In short, just because the same phrase is used in several passages, does not mean that the context must be ignored. The context concerns very different truths about very different subjects, and the use of the same phrase, in my opinion, does not mean that all the verses that use that phrase must be interpreted as if they all taught the same truth.

The third verse in which the same Greek phrase is used is Col. 1:9, “For this cause we also…..do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding”. Again the subject of this verse is believers being filled, not Christ as in Col. 2:9. And this is Paul’s prayer for them, while in Col. 2:9 it is a completed truth that Christ is the fulfillment of the Godhead. Again, the use of the the same phrase helps us to understand the meaning of that phrase, but does not, in my opinion, mean that all verses teach the same truth.

One verse that uses the same phrase but is not mentioned in the quote above from Mr. Welch’s volume is Eph. 1:22-23, but I believe it would be good to consider it. That passage reads, “……and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all”. Many understand this verse to mean that Christ was fulfilled by believers of the dispensation of the mystery, i.e. those believers who make up the “church which is His body”. But that would mean that before the dispensation of the mystery was revealed and before the church was revealed, Christ Himself was lacking in some way. That is to say, if one is filled up at a certain time, obviously before that time he was not filled up, i.e. he was incomplete. Surely Christ was not incomplete before the church was revealed to Paul after Acts 28. As we look at how the Greek word translated “filleth” in the phrase “That filleth all in all”, I believe we will see that Christ Himself was not incomplete before Acts 28, His plans were incomplete. That is to say, before the dispensation of the mystery was revealed, His plans for the heavens were incomplete. So the church is the fulness of Christ’s plans, not of Christ Himself.

The Greek word translated “filleth” in the phrase “That filleth all in all” is “pleeroo“. The first occurrence is found in Matt. 1:22 where we read, “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet….”. In this first occurrence, as well as many others, it is prophecy that was fulfilled. In my opinion, “fulfilled” has the sense of “completion”. That is to say, a prophecy is fulfilled when what has been prophesied is completed. Indeed it is translated “complete” in Col. 2:10 and Col. 4:12. Col. 2:10 reads, “And ye are complete in Him Which is the head of all principality and power”. And Col. 4:12 reads, “……that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God”. Col. 1:25 also uses the word where it is translated “to fulfill” but obviously is used in the sense of “complete”, “Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you to fulfill the word of God”. The revelation of the mystery completes the Word of God.

Let us come back to Eph. 1:23. I believe that we have here a use of the figure of speech, i.e. ellipsis so that we may understand this verse to say, “the church which is His body, the fullness of His plans, Who filleth all in all”. I am suggesting that it was Christ’s plans that were completed by the revelation of the church which is His body, it was not Christ Himself that was completed by the church. It could not have been Christ Himself because He was never incomplete.

It may be argued that Christ had divested Himself of His glory when He fulfilled His earthly ministry, but that was reversed as He rose from the dead, not at the revelation of the church.

The point of discussing these passages is to show that the same phrase can be used without it having to teach the same truth. The phrase means the same in each usage, but it does not teach the same truth. Therefore, when we read that Christ is the fulfillment of the Godhead bodily, we may see that statement as further proof of His deity, because only God can fulfill the Godhead.

TITUS 2:13

We read in Titus 2:13 as clear a statement of the deity of Christ as one can hope to find. That verse reads, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”. The Greek word translated “and” in the phrase, “appearing of the great God and our Saviour” is “kai” and is often translated “even”. It should have, in my opinion been translated “even” in this verse as well. That opinion is based on the fact that whenever the Bible speaks of “looking for the blessed hope” and of the “glorious appearing” it is always used in reference to Christ. In other words, this verse should read, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God even our Saviour Jesus Christ”.

Yes, there are some who would argue with the translation of the KJV. But when taken along with all the other scriptures that prove the deity of Christ, there is no reason to object to the KJV.

HEBREWS 1:3

In Hebrews 1:3, the writer says of the Son (verse 2) “Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Person……”. Dr. Bullinger’s note on the phrase “express image” is helpful. He wrote, “The word means the exact impression as when a metal is pressed into a die, or as a seal upon wax”. Again, if Christ were not God, He could not be the exact impression of God.

Titles of Jehovah Ascribed To Christ

In the paper on this web-site Jesus Christ Is Both Jehovah and The Manifestation of Jehovah I have given many of the titles of Jehovah ascribed to Christ. In my opinion, this goes a long way towards proving that Christ is Jehovah. Some however, object to that reasoning and have said that these titles do not mean that Christ is Jehovah, but only that Christ is doing the Father’s will in fulfilling those titles. Let us look at just two of these titles to see if that objection is valid.

Hosea 13:4, “Yet I am Jehovah thy Elohim….There is no Savior beside Me“. Note Jehovah says, “There is no Savior beside Me”. If Jehovah had sent His Son to be the savior of the world in His stead, He could not have said that there was no savior beside Him. So Jehovah did not relinquish the office of savior by sending His Son. Jehovah became flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Job 19:25, “For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth”. Note that Job knew that his Redeemer would stand on the earth. That points us to Christ. We know that Jehovah is our Redeemer from these passages and more.

Psalm 19:14, “Let the words of my mouth…be acceptable O Jehovah, my strength and my Redeemer”. Is. 41:14, “Jehovah and my Redeemer”. Is. 43:14, “…..I will help thee saith Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel…”. We can not say that Christ was only sent to be the Redeemer, because Jehovah is our Redeemer and Jehovah will stand upon the earth. We must conclude therefore, that Christ, who will stand upon the earth is Jehovah our Redeemer. Jehovah is God, Christ is Jehovah in the flesh, Christ is God.*

Conclusion

Our question is; can Christ be both God and Man? There is no doubt in any believer’s mind that Christ was the Son of man. He was fully man, that is proven in any number of ways in the New Testament.

I have tried to show that Christ is/was fully God. He was the Messiah who was prophesied as being God.

He was the Son of God, a title, which when used of Christ, was used in reference to His deity.

There are several passages that show that He was God during His earthly ministry including some in which He Himself claims His deity.

I have quoted passages which ascribe to Christ the titles of Jehovah.

In short, Scripture is clear that Christ is man and Scripture is equally clear that He is God. Therefore, where Scripture is clear we have no choice but to accept it regardless of whether it fits human reason.

*The bold type in the quoted passages were added.

I would like to hear your thoughts. Please e-mail me at: [email protected]

1 2 3 4 ›»