September 2008

THE ONE BODY IS NOT THE CHURCH WHICH IS HIS BODY

We often see the term “the church of the one body” in literature concerning dispensational truth. The term implies that the church which is His body is the same as the one body. This paper is written in an effort to prove from scripture that they are not one and the same. “The church which is His body” and the “one body” are two different metaphors used to express two very different truths and cannot be the same because the metaphors contradict each other. We will discuss the following topics in our search of the scriptures in this matter:

Why Is The Term “One Body” Used?

The One Body Of the Acts Period Epistles

The One Body Of The Prison Epistles

More On The One Body of Ephesians Chapter Two

THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION

IS EPHESIANS 2:12 ABOUT SALVATION OR ABOUT DISPENSATIONAL BLESSINGS?

The Root Of The Difficulty

The Contradictions Between The One Body And the Church Which is His Body

Comments On The Argument Supporting The View That The One Body Is The Same As The Church, Which Is His Body

Why Is The Term “One Body” Used?

The phrase “one body” is used many times in the New Testament. In the sections below we will examine each occurrence that has any bearing on our topic. But in the paragraph below I would like to examine the reason the phrase is used.

In every occurrence, the phrase “one body ” is used of many believers who are one in Christ. Obviously, many believers do not literally occupy one body, therefore, we must conclude that it is used as a figure of speech, i.e. a metaphor. Figures of speech are used to enhance the sense of a passage. As the reader will see as we continue in the following sections, the concept that is being enhanced by the use of the metaphor “one body” is the sense of oneness and of equality of those in the “one body”.

The One Body Of the Acts Period Epistles

Let us now examine each of the occurrences of the phrase “one body” in the epistles written during the Acts period that impact on our study to test out the suggestion that it is a metaphor enhancing the concept of equality and oneness of the members in the one body.

The first two occurrences of the phrase “one body” are found n Romans 12:3-5, “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members of another“. Paul’s point is clear. His point was that one member of the body is no better than any other member of the body. Therefore, I believe that the suggestion that the metaphor of the one body is used to enhance the concept of unity and equality is shown to be true in this passage.

I Cor. 10:6-17, “….The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread”. Again the idea of community, of oneness is enhanced by the use of this metaphor of the one body.

I Cor. 12:12,13, 20 and 21, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. But now are they many members, yet but one body”. I Cor. 12:1 reads, “Now as concerning spiritual gifts….”. Spiritual gifts are the topic from verse 1 through to the end of the chapter. Why was Paul bringing up this topic? I believe that verse 25 puts the reason most succinctly. “That there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another“. As one reads this chapter it is is abundantly clear that Paul is telling these Corinthians that their spiritual gifts are meant to serve each other, not divide them: that they are one and equal in Christ.

The One Body Of The Prison Epistles

We come now to the use of the term “one body” in the prison epistles.

(Eph. 2:15-16) “Having abolished in His flesh the enmity even the law of commandments contained in ordinances for to make in Himself of twain one new man so making peace: that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross having slain the enmity thereby” . As we have seen in the section above, Paul, through the Holy Spirit, is absolutely consistent in his use of the term as a metaphor to enhance the concept of oneness and equality among believers. A great dispensational break has occurred in Ephesians. But Paul’s use of the metaphor has not changed at all. The concept of equality, (this time between Jew and Gentile) is still the overriding thought in the use of the metaphor both before and after Acts 28.

Eph. 4:3-5, “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One lord, one faith, one baptism”. Here again, Paul is perfectly consistent in his use of the metaphor. The use is to enhance the concept of unity among believers. Note the number of times “one” is used, and the use of the word “unity”. Note also, that these verses appear, not in the doctrinal section, but in the so-called “walk section” of the epistle.

Col. 3:15, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful”. Here again, this reference to the one body appears in the “walk section” of the epistle. The context, although not as clear in this passage, suggests the same use of the metaphor as every other time it is used, i.e. to enhance the concept of unity and equality.

More On The One Body of Ephesians Chapter Two

(Eph. 2:15-16) “Having abolished in His flesh the enmity even the law of commandments contained in ordinances for to make in Himself of twain one new man so making peace: that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross having slain the enmity thereby” .

What was the “middle wall of partition”? It was “enmity” between Jew and Gentile. It was “the law of commandments contained in ordinances”. Some have suggested that it was the ordinances given to the Gentiles by the council at Jerusalem that was abolished at the cross. “Wherefore, my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:18-19).

But was it the ordinances of the council at Jerusalem that was abolished by the cross? The Greek word translated “ordinances” in Eph. 2:15 is “dogma”. It is used of the ordinances of the council at Jerusalem in Acts 16:4 where we read, “And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees (“dogma”) for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem”.

But the word is also used of the Law of Moses. Col. 2:14 is the parallel passage to Eph. 2:15, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross“. In verse 16, Paul goes on to say “Let no man therefore, judge you in meat or drink or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days”. The ordinances issued by the council at Jerusalem were to abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:18-19). It is clear that Col. 2 does not refer to the ordinances of Acts 15, as they are entirely different ordinances. Because Col. 2:14 is the parallel passage to Eph. 2:15, we must conclude that it was not the ordinances of Acts 15 that were nailed to the cross; it was not the ordinances of Acts 15 that were “abolished at the cross“; it was not the ordinances of Acts 15 that was the middle wall of partition: it was the Law of Moses. Why do I say that it was the law of Moses that was abolished at the cross? Because Paul tells us in Col. 2:16 “Let no man therefore….”. The word “therefore” takes us back to verse 14 where Paul tells us to “let no man judge you in ” meat or drink or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days”. Those are the ordinances of the Law of Moses. So it was the Law of Moses that was abolished at the cross. (We will return to this in the paragraphs below.)

Consider also that the middle wall of partition was enmity between Jew and Gentile. The Greek word translated “enmity” is “ekthra”. It is used six times in the New Testament. The first occurrence is is Luke 23:12, “That day Herod and Pilate became friends-before this they had been enemies“. Note the contrast here between friends and enemies. In Romans 8:7 we read that the carnal mind is enmity against God”. And in James 4:4 we read that “friendship with the world is enmity toward God”. The ordinances of the council at Jerusalem would not qualify as enmity between Jew and Gentiles. On the other hand, the Law of Moses certainly would qualify as enmity between the two as it was the Law that separated Israel from every other nation of the world.

Having concluded that it was indeed the Law of Moses that had been abolished by the cross, let us determine what Paul meant when he wrote that it was “abolished”. The Greek word translated “abolished” is” katargeo”. It is also used in II Thess.2:8 where we read of the “wicked” one, i.e. the antichrist. “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming”. The word is also used in Heb. 2:14 of Satan, “…..that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil”. Consider also the use of the word in Romans 6:6, “Knowing this that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin”. It is clear that the word does not mean a temporary putting aside, it means a permanent doing away with.

Some have suggested that while the law was abolished by the cross, that abolishing did not go into effect until Acts 28 when Israel was put aside. The problem with that suggestion is that the law was only temporarily put aside at Acts 28, not abolished. That is to say, when Israel was put aside as God’s chosen people the law was put aside with Her. But it is clear from several Old Testament scriptures that the law would be observed in the millennial reign of Christ. Therefore it was put aside only temporarily at Acts 28. Let us consider some of those Old Testament verses which tell us that the law will be observed in the millennium.

We read of sacrifices in the millennial reign in Zech. 14:21, “Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them”. We read in Mal. 3:3 that , “…Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Lord, as in days gone by, as in former years”. Ezek. 36:27, “And I will put my spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws“. (See also Jer. 31:33 and Ezek. 20:40.)

Eph. 2:15 speaks of the abolishing of the law, which is permanent, not temporary. But the putting aside of the law at Acts 28 is temporary, i.e. until the millennium. To what then was Paul referring when he wrote in Ephesians two that the law was abolished by the cross? In the paper on this web-site Was The Law Of Moses Abolished At The Cross? I offer the scriptural evidence for my belief that the law was abolished by the cross for the purpose of separating Jew and Gentile. Several times in the New Testament (see for example Gal. 3 and Hebrews 10) we read passages which seem to suggest that the law should not be observed. But it is clear that the law was observed by Hebrew believers, including Paul all during the Acts period. (Please see the above mentioned paper for the scriptural proof of that fact.) I believe that the point of Gal. 3 is that the law was not to be observed for the purpose of bringing them to faith. And that the point in Heb. 10 was that the law was not to be observed for the purpose of remission of sins . Let us study Gal. 3 as an example of this truth.

Gal. 3:23-25, “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.  So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.  Now that faith has come we are no longer under the schoolmaster”. This passage seems, on the surface, to suggest that the Hebrew believers were no longer to observe the law. But the events recorded in Acts 21 make it clear that Paul went out of his way to prove that he himself was observing the law. There appears to be a contradiction. But we know there are no contradictions in the perfect Word of God so we must look deeper at this passage.

The law was the schoolmaster. What was the purpose of the schoolmaster?  To lead them to faith, so that they may be justified. Why did they no longer need the schoolmaster? They no longer needed the schoolmaster (the law) because they had already come to faith in Christ. If we add an ellipsis from the immediate context it will help make this passage a bit clearer.  Verse 25 would read then, “Now that faith has come we are no longer under the schoolmaster to bring us unto faith”. They were no longer under the schoolmaster to bring them unto faith because they already had faith. So they were no longer under the law for the purpose of bringing them to faith.

Eph. 2 speaks of the law serving as a partition between individual believing Jews and Gentiles. But at the cross the law, which was given, in part, for the purpose of separating Jew and Gentile, was abolished. That is to say, the reason for the breaking down of the middle wall as described in Eph. 2:16 was to “reconcile both unto God in one body”. So, for the purpose of separation of Jew and Gentile the law was abolished by the cross. In Galatians 3 the law, for the purpose of bringing Israel to faith was abolished, and in Hebrews 10 the law for the purpose of remission of sins was abolished. And in Ephesians 2, for the purpose of separating Jew and Gentile the law was abolished .

THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION

I have suggested above that for the purpose of separating Jew and Gentile, the law was abolished at the cross . If one does not understand that, one is left with an apparent contradiction in the perfect Word of God between Rom. 3:31 and Eph. 2:15.

We read in Romans 3:31, “Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law“. But in Eph. 2:15 we read, “Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments…..”. The Greek word translated “make void” in Rom. 3:31 is “katargeo” and is the same Greek word translated “abolished” in Eph. 2:15 . In Romans Paul says “God forbid” that the law should be katargeo, but in Ephesians Paul says the law was katargeo at the cross. Lest one think that this apparent contradiction is cleared up when one considers that Ephesians was written in a different dispensation than Romans, may I respectfully remind the reader that the law was abolished at the cross. Therefore, the change of dispensation has no bearing on this question.

How then can we explain the apparent contradiction? It is easily explained if we see that for the purpose of separating Jew and Gentile the law was abolished at the cross. So in Romans Paul could exclaim, “God forbid”, the law is not destroyed. and in Ephesians Paul could write that for the purpose of separating Jew and Gentile, the law had indeed been abolished.

.

The Contradictions Between The One Body And The Church Which is His Body

Let us come back to the point of this study, which is to prove from scripture that the one body is not the same as the church which is His body.

As mentioned above, the “one body” is a metaphor and the “church, which is His body” is also a metaphor. Metaphors may be combined if they do not contradict each other. For example in Eph. 2:15-16 we read of the “new man” and the “one body” where it is clear that both refer to the same thing. “Having abolished in His flesh the enmity even the law of commandments ….for to make in Himself of twain one new man…that He might reconcile both unto God in one body….”. In this passage there are two metaphors used of the same thing, but they are used to enhance two different concepts. The metaphor of the new man is used to enhance the concept of the newness of this creation. The metaphor of the one body is used to enhance the oneness of this new creation. We may conclude from the context that both refer to the same thing but with a different emphasis. The other reason we may conclude that they refer to the same thing is that neither contradicts the other in any way. If a contradiction does exist between the two metaphors, obviously, we may not conclude that they refer to the same thing.

And there are contradictions between the metaphor of the one body and the metaphor of the church which is His body. One contradiction is apparent as we look at Eph. 2:12-13. “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ“. These verses contrast the position of the Gentiles in relation to Jews before and after the cross. The position of the Gentiles changed from what it was as described in verse 12 to what is as described in verse 13. The event that brought about this change was Christ on the cross. What we learn from this is that the one body began at the cross. It was by the cross that Gentiles went from being “without God in the world” to being “made nigh”. Consider also verse 16, “And that ye might reconcile both by one body by the cross“. It is clear that the one body of Eph. 2 began at the cross.

But the church which is His body did not begin at the cross. (Please see the paper on this web-site When Did The Church Which Is His body Begin? for the scriptural evidence that the church began after Acts 28.) Therefore, because the one body began at the cross and the church did not begin at the cross, we cannot refer to them as being one and the same.

Another contradiction between the one body and the church which is His body is that each resulted from a very different event. The one body, as we have seen, is the result of Christ’s death on the cross. The church which is His body on the other hand, resulted from Israel having been put aside.

There is yet one more consideration when determining if the one body is the same as the church which is His body. As we learned in the study of the one body, it is a metaphor that enhances the truth of the oneness and equality of believers in Christ. Believers of the dispensation of the mystery, i.e. members of the church which is His body, are also equal. But the metaphor of the church which is His body does not express that equality. It expresses the relationship of believers to Christ. Christ is the Head, and believers are His body, metaphoically speaking. This is not a contradiction, but it is worthy of note because at the root of the difficulty in regard to these two metaphors is an incorrect translation of Eph. 3:6. That difficulty will be discussed below.

There is one more thing worthy of note. Nowhere in the Bible is Christ ever referred to as the head of the one body. He is Head of the church, but never is He said to be the head of the one body. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible do we ever read the phrase, “the church of the one body”, the phrase is absolutely ascriptural and unscriptural.

IS EPHESIANS 2:12 ABOUT SALVATION OR ABOUT DISPENSATIONAL BLESSINGS?

“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world”. Is this verse speaking of Gentiles in times past having no hope of salvation or having no hope of dispensational blessings? I believe that an examination of each of the phrases describing their position will tell us that it is about dispensational blessings.

Let us consider first the phrase”strangers from the covenants of promise”. Salvation is not a covenant, it is a gift. Also, note that it is “covenants”, plural. How are we to explain the plural if this refers to salvation? I don’t believe that there is a reasonable explanation. On the other hand, if we see the “covenants of promise” as dispensational blessings all is clear. They include the covenant God made with Abraham in regard to His promise of the Land.They include the new covenant which promises that God will put the law into the hearts and minds of Israel. And it also includes the Davidic covenant where God promised David that his Seed will reign on the throne of Israel for ever.

Now let us consider the phrase, “having no hope”. Were Gentiles left with no hope of salvation if they had never heard of Jehovah or of Israel or of Moses? Not according to Paul. We read in Romans 2:13-15, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law. these, having not the law. are a law unto themselves; which she the work of the law written in their heart, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another”. Paul speaks here of Gentiles who did not have the law being “a law unto themselves” and if they obeyed that law (their consciences) they would be justified, i.e. saved. We must conclude therefore, that “no hope” did not mean having no opportunity for salvation, it meant not being able to partake in the dispensational blessings of Israel.

What about the phrase “without God in the world”? I believe that because Jehovah is the God of Israel, and certainly the idols the Genitles worshipped were not God, that the Gentiles were without God. Also, I believe that because the other phrases in this verse do not refer to salvation, it is only reasonable to conclude that this phrase also does not refer to salvation.

Let us consider the phrase “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”. It is clear that being of the commonwealth of Israel does not assure one of salvation. Therefore, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel does not exclude one from being saved. Because being aliens from Israel has nothing to do with salvation, I believe it has to do with dispensational blessings.

How does this impact on our question of whether the one body is the same as the church, which is His body? We read in verse 13, “But now”. That tells us that Paul is about to tell us how and in what way things were different for Gentiles. Verses 14-16 tell us how this change came about, ” Who hath made both one……..that He might reconcile both unto God in one body……”. In other words, with the creation of the one body Gentiles were equal in the sharing of all Israel’s dispensational blessings. In other words, as members of the one body believing Gentiles were equal partakers in the dispensational blessings of Israel.

If one takes the one body of Ephesians two to be the same as the church, which is His body, one is saying that believers of the dispensation of the mystery are equal partakers of Israel’s dispensational blessings. But the church which is His body does not partake in Israel’s blessings. The hope of the church which is His body is heavenly places, not the land of Israel. The church has nothing to do with the Mosaic law, not with the old covenant and not with the new covenant. The church does not have Christ as King, it has Christ as head.

The only way to avoid this apparent contradiction is to see that the one body is not the same as the church which is His body.

The Root Of The Difficulty

Given the contradictions between the two metaphors, where did we get the idea that the church which is His body is the one body of Eph. 2? It is based, I believe, on Eph. 3:6 where the KJV translates the Greek “sussomos” as “same body” and the NIV translates it as “members together of one body”. But let us look at this Greek word in its context.

Eph. 3:6, “That the Gentiles (Gr. ethnos) should be fellow heirs (Gr. sunkleronomos) and of the same body (Gr. sussomos), and partakers of His promise in Christ….”. “Sussomos” (translated “same body”) is an adjective which modifies the noun “ethnos” translated “Gentiles”. In New Testament Greek an adjective must agree in number with the noun it modifies. The noun it modifies (Gentiles) is obviously plural and the adjectives that it modifies must also be plural. . “Sussomos” is an accusative adjective along with the other two adjectives in this verse (“joint heirs” and” joint partakers”) and all three adjectives must be translated in the plural in order to agree in number with the plural noun. . Therefore Eph. 3:6 should read “Gentiles (or more correctly “nations”) are joint heirs, joint bodies, even joint partakers……”. In other words, this verse says nothing of a one body, it refers to joint bodies, plural.

Comments On The Argument Supporting The View That The One Body Is The Same As The Church, Which Is His Body

There are only three arguments I have thought of or seen in support of the one body being the same as the church which is His body. The first is that the phrase “but now” refers to now after Acts 28, which is when Ephesians was written. The second is that the phrase “one body” is found in a prison epistle, i.e. Ephesians. The argument is that if indeed the one body began at the cross that would make it an Acts period truth. Why would Paul write of an Acts period truth in a post-Acts period epistle? The third argument is that because Paul speaks of the church which is His body at the end of chapter one, and of the the one body in chapter two, that the two are connected, and that the “most natural reading” is that they are one and the same. Let us discsuss the first one first, i.e. “but now” refers to “but now after Acts 28”.

We read in Eph. 2:11-12 of the situation of the Gentiles “in time past” (verse 11). Then verse 13 begins “but now”, and Paul contrasts the position of the Gentiles in “times past” with their position “now”. The argument has been stated that the phrase “but now” tells us that the position changed at Acts 28 because that is when Paul wrote Ephesians. But in my opinion, we must take the phrase in context.

Let me give an example of how and why we must understand the phrase “but now” by its context. . In reading a secular history book about the American Civil War, we might read something like this: “During the Civil War the American Negroes were slaves, but now they are freed by the Emancipation Proclamation”. We understand by the context that the freedom of the slaves did not come at the time of the writing of history book, it came at the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Let’s apply that to our passage in Ephesians two. Do we have any clues from the context as to when the “but now” is to be understood? We certainly do. We read in verse 13, “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ“. The “but now” begins when the blood of Christ was shed, i.e. at the cross. Let us compare this with our example from secular history so that I may make the point perfectly clear. “During the Civil War the American Negroes were slaves, but now they are freed by the Emancipation Proclamation“. We understand from the context of our example that the Negroes were freed, not at the writing of the history book, but at the time of the signing of Emancipation Proclamation. So too, we understand from the context of Eph. 2 that the position of the Gentiles changed, not when Paul wrote Ephesians, but at the time Christ’s blood was shed, i.e. at the cross.

Let us think in terms of an ellipsis in Eph. 2:13. We must choose one of two phrases to add as an ellipsis to clarify when the Gentiles’ position changed. . But they must be taken from the context. Shall we add, “But now after Acts 28 ye are made nigh by the blood of Christ”. Or shall we choose a different ellipsis? “But now after the cross ye are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” In my opinion, the choice is quite obvious. The Gentiles’ position changed by the cross and after the cross. That means that the “but now” means “but now after the cross” the Gentiles position changed.

Going on now to the second argument put forth, i.e. Why would Paul write of an Acts period truth in a post-Acts period epistle? We read in Eph. 2:1-3 of Paul’s reminder to the Gentiles what they had been “in time past” (verse 2). They had lived according to the flesh, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind…….”. Gratefully, we read in verse 4, “But God….hath quickened us together …….(by grace ye are saved)…..”. Salvation by grace through faith is certainly not a truth limited to the post Acts period, it is a universal truth. Why was Paul writing to the Gentiles about their salvation by grace in this first epistle written after the end of the Acts period? In truth we don’t really know. But, for what ever reason, it was, undoubtedly a reminder of what they had come to in contrast to what they had been.

Let us now consider verses 11-22 of Eph. 2. Again, we read the phrase “in time past” (verse 11). That phrase connects Eph. 2:1-4 with Eph. 2:11-22. They have a significant phrase in common. The commonality is that both passages remind the Gentiles of what they had been and contrasts that with what they now are in Christ. Unlike verses 1-4 however, where Paul speaks of salvation, in verses 11-22 Paul speaks of dispensational blessings.

I believe that Paul wrote of an Acts period truth in Eph. 2:11-22 for the same reason he wrote of a universal truth in verse 1-4. It was to remind the Gentiles of their former position in regard to salvation and dispensational blessings in contrast to what their position had been.

Was the beginning of a new dispensation an inopportune time for the Gentiles to be reminded of their blessing in Christ?. Is there ever an inopportune time to be reminded of our blessings in Christ? I don’t believe there is.

Now let us consider our third “proof” posed above, i.e. that because Paul speaks of the church which is His body at the end of chapter one, and of the the one body in chapter two, that the two are connected, and that “the most natural reading” is that they are one and the same. That is to say, that because Paul writes in 1:22-23, “….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”, and then goes on to describe the one body, that the “most natural reading” is that they are the same thing. Let’s look at Ephesians 1:22 through 3:19.

In Eph. 3:1 we read, “For this cause…”. But Paul doesn’t tell us what he will do, or for which cause he will do it, until verses 14-19. In verse 14, after one of his long parenthetical statements (which is his style) Paul repeats “For this cause”. And he tells us what he is going to do; he is going to “bow my knees”. Paul is going to pray that God would grant them “to be strengthened with might….. in the inner man that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye may be rooted and grounded in love…..and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God“. Note that Paul uses almost the exact same phrase in 1:23 as he does here in 3:19 except he writes “Him” in the former phrase and “God” in the latter. In 1:23 he writes “the fulness of Him” and in 3:19 he writes, “the fulness of God“. I do not believe that the repetition of the phrase is coincidental. I believe that 1:23 is connected to the “cause” for which Paul was praying. That cause was that the church which is His body, (not the one body)” the fulness of Him”, will be filled with “the fulness of God”. That makes chapter two one of many parenthetical statements Paul is so accustomed to using

Let us consider this passage from Eph. 1:22 to 3:19 omitting the parenthetical statements for a clearer sense of what Paul was saying in this passage. “And hath put all things under His feet, 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. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of Whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you according to the riches of His glory to be strengthened with might by His spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God“.

Because chapter two of Ephesians is a parenthetical statement, we may conclude that there is no connection between the one body of chapter two and the church which is His body.

CONCLUSION

When determining which of two views are correct one must, in my opinion, do two things. One must 1) give a clear presentation of their views supported by scripture, and 2) account for the arguments purported to prove the opposing view. It is clear that I am not a writer, but I have tried to present my view as clearly as I could. I believe that I have given the scriptures to prove my view. I also believe that I have accounted for the tthee arguments for the opposing view. If the reader can think of an argument that I have not encountered, I would very much appreciate hearing of it.

If you would like to respond to this paper, you may write to Joyce Pollard at: [email protected]

It has long been taught that all unbelievers of every dispensation will be judged at the great white throne. Let us consider this teaching by searching the scriptures.

Rev. 20:11- 12 reads, “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who was seated on it. ….Books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books”.

Please note that they were judged “by what they had done”. But man has always been saved by grace through faith in every dispensation, including the dispensation of Law.. In Rom. 4:3 Paul quotes Gen. 15:6 when he writes, “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness“. And in the next verses Paul writes, “Now when a man works his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God, ….his faith is credited to him as righteousness”. (Rom. 4:4-5) Even though Abraham lived before the dispensation of Law, we know that salvation was by grace through faith for the entire dispensation of Law because in the next verse Paul writes that, “David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works; ‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him”. (Rom. 4:6-7) So Paul, in verse 5 tells us that for the man who trusts God, his faith is credited as righteousness. And then, by the Holy Spirit tells us that David says the same thing in Psalms 32:1-2. We must conclude that those who lived in the dispensation of Law, as well as every dispensation, are saved by grace through faith.

The fact that those who will be judged at the great white throne by what they had done should make us, at least, consider the question as to who was judged and why they were judged by what they had done?

Let us back up a little to Rev. 20: 4-6. “….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 worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands.” This tells us that John is speaking of those who went through the great tribulation, he is not speaking of all souls from the beginning of time. The scope of what John is writing about in this chapter is limited to the tribulation and does not include all ages and dispensations from the beginning of time. Let us go on with verses 4-5, “They (i.e. those who had not worshipped the beast during the great tribulation) came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (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 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. Let us go on with verse 6, “Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them …..”. We see in Rev. 20:14 that “The lake of fire is the second death.” Who are those who are cast into the lake of fire? The rest of the dead of Rev. 20:5.

Most Bible believing Christians will agree that Revelation is in large part about the tribulation. We read in Jer. 30:7 of “Jacob’s trouble” which the context will show to be the great tribulation. Also in Daniel chapter nine we read of the 70 weeks, the last half of the last week being the great tribulation (compare Matt. 24:15-29). It is important to note that in Dan. 9:24, “Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city”. This, of course, refers to Israel and Jerusalem. Since the tribulation is centered on Israel, those judged at the white throne judgment will be those of Israel who worshipped the beast, i.e. the anti-Christ during the tribulation.

I’m sure to most readers of this paper this seems like a very limited view of the great white throne judgment. Perhaps it would be good to look at the scope of the entire book of the Revelation and get a feel for the context of Rev. chapter 20. It is important to realize the extremely Jewish character of the book of Revelation. For example, 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….”. When we read Exodus 19:6 we will see that it is to Israel that the Revelation is addressed. 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”.

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 the scattered 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. This is not to say, of course, that when we read in Rev. 1:5, “to Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins through His blood…” that only Israel was so blessed. Of course not! It does tell us however, that John’s revelation was written specifically to Israel and that all Bible believing Christians could read and understand this Book better if it is understood to be addressed to Israel.

One last thing that shows the Jewish character of Revelations 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.

I am suggesting that the entire book of Revelation is about a very specific time, (the tribulation, the second coming of Christ and the Lord’s Day) and it centers on a very specific people, Israel. (The reader is invited to read the paper on this site, The Tribulation Is Not World Wide for evidence of the very limited scope of the tribulation and of the book of Revelation.)
 

OTHER PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE THAT HAVE TO DO WITH RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT  

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Daniel 12:1-2 is a passage which speaks of resurrection and judgment. “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? Does it concern everyone who ever lived whose name is written in the book of life?

Some of 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 is about the time of the greatest distress, i.e. the great tribulation. This makes sense, the tribulation is to be centered on Israel who is Daniel’s people.

We read of those whose name is written in the book of life. While it is true that believers of the dispensation of the mystery 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 take the phrase “book of life” in Daniel out of context and force a meaning that the context will not allow.

The fact that Daniel 12:1-2 refers to the judgment at the great white throne is clear in that it refers to the tribulation, and to those whose names are written in the book of life. The reader will recall that both these phrases come in the context of the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20.

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 later in this paper.

 
  IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

There are several passages in the New Testament about judgment. We will not look at passages that speak of the judgment of the resurrected Church, the Body of Christ, as that is a judgment of rewards. There are also passages in the New Testament of judgments that do not refer to those who are resurrected but of those who are alive when our Lord returns, Matthew 25 is an excellent example of that. As those passages do not impact on our study of those resurrected to be judged at the great white throne, we will not look at those either.

Other than the passage in Revelation 20 about the great white throne judgment there are two passages in the New Testament that will impact on our study. The first one is in John 5:25-29. John 5:25 reads, “….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.” And then in verses 28-29 He 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 “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Man and those who hear will live“. But in verses 28-29 we are told that all in the graves will hear His voice and come out but not all will live. “Those who have done evil will rise to be condemned”. There seems to be a contradiction in this passage. That is to say, in verse 25 our Lord says those in their graves who hear His voice will live. But in verses 28 and 29 He says that some of those in the grave who hear His voice will not live but be condemned.

The key to understanding this passage is to note that both statements begin with “A time is coming”. The time referred to in verse 25 is when the Lord returns at the beginning of His millennial reign when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (I Thess. 4:16). The “time is coming” in verse 28 is after the millennial reign, i.e. when the 1,000 years were over at the great white throne when “the dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books (Rev. 20:12). I realize that this view seems a bit contrived but without this time distinction our Lord is contradicting Himself, and we know that that is absolutely impossible.

So then, at the return of Christ, at the beginning of the millennium the “just” will be raised unto life. We know from other scripture passages that the just from all dispensations will be resurrected at the second coming of Christ, but this passage in John 5 is limited to Israel, as the secret concerning the Church which is His Body was not revealed to Paul until many years after Christ spoke the words recorded in John 5. After the millennium the unjust will be raised for judgment. As we have seen these are not the unjust of all times, they are the unjust of the tribulation, i.e. those who worshipped the anti-Christ.

Another passage having to do with the topic of this paper is found in Acts 24:14-15. Paul writes, “….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 in the Old Testament to the resurrection of the wicked is Daniel 12:1-2. That scripture has been discussed above. As we have seen it refers to the great white throne judgment.

We might ask ourselves why out of all the times of history are the unbelievers of the tribulation raised to be judged for what they have done. I believe that the answer lies in Rev. 3:20 where we read that the time of testing will come upon the inhabited world to test Israel. (Please see the paper on this web-site The Tribulation Is Not World Wide for the reason for this translation of Rev. 3:10).

What is the tribulation all about? It is about Satan, with the anti-Christ as his agent, “pulling out all the stops”, so to speak, to try to get Israel, God’s chosen people, to forsake God and worship Satan. The very first commandment that God gave to His chosen people (“Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”) tells us how He would feel about them worshipping Satan. While it is true that Israel worshipped idols throughout their Old Testament history, there is no record of them having worshipped God’s arch enemy, Satan. 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 worshipping Satan. Those who remain true to God and refuse to worship the anti-Christ 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 Him. Those who do receive the mark of the beast and who do worship the anti-Christ may save their temporal lives but will be judged at the great white throne and suffer the second death, i.e. they will be cast into the lake of fire.

Some might object that some unbelievers, i.e. those that live during the tribulation period and in the day of God’s wrath, 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 were 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?

Yes, I believe that it is true that some unbelievers (those of the tribulation period and the day of God’s wrath) 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.

APPENDIX

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 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.

  .
 

I would love to hear your thoughts. Please E-mail me at:

[email protected]
.

This paper has been written by Joyce Pollard

WILL DAVID REIGN AS CHRIST’S REGENT ON THE MILLENNIAL THRONE?

We know that Christ will reign in the millennium from such scriptures as Ps. 2:8-9, “Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance. and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel”. But how are we to understand such scriptures as Jer. 30:9, “But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king whom I will raise up unto them”? Does Jer. 30:9 refer to David or does it refer to Christ, the Son of David? Let us search the scriptures for the answer to that question.

In Appendix 88 of the Companion Bible, number 8, paragraph 3 we read, “This (the gate of the outward sanctuary) will then be closed for all purposes of general ingress and egress; and is reserved strictly for the use of ‘the Prince’ (the risen David?) who, as Messiah’s viceregent (cp. Ezel. 37:24-25) will alone be permitted to make use of it”. The suggestion here is that while Christ will rule, David will be His “viceregent”. What is a viceregent?

We read in II Kings 12:2, “And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” The priest, Jehoiada could not sit on the throne of David, as he was not of the tribe of Judah. But he instructed Jehoash; that made Jehoiada a viceregent. Also, we read in Appendix 50 in the Companion Bible of Ahaziah who ruled while his father was sick. As long as he was alive, the father was King. But his son Ahaziah was his viceregent. That is to say, Ahaziah took instructions, when possible, from his father. We learn from this that to have a viceregent on the throne of Israel is not without precedence. That, of course, does not prove the David will be Christ’s viceregent, it only shows that there is a precedence.

Let us first establish as scriptural truth that Christ will rule in the millennium, and then we will examine those scriptures which concern David’s role during the millennial reign.

We read in Is. 9:6-7, “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end; upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice…”.

Is. 33:22, “For Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King; He will save us”. Jesus Christ is Jehovah. For the scriptural evidence of that please see the paper on this web-site, Jesus Christ Is Both Jehovah And The Manifestation of Jehovah. So, Jesus Christ is the King of Israel.

Is. 40:10, “Behold Adonai Jehovah (one of the titles of Jehovah, Who is Christ) will come with a strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him…..”.

There are many other scriptures which prove that Christ will rule during the millennium. But let us look now at the scriptures which speak of David during the millennium.

Jer. 30:9, “But they shall serve Jehovah their Elohim, and David their king whom I will raise up unto them”. This verse clearly states that David will be king and that Israel will serve him as well as Christ.

Ezek. 34:24, “And I Jehovah (Christ) will be their Elohim, and My servant David a prince among them…”. In my opinion the fact that Christ is speaking, rules out the possibility that His “servant David” refers to Christ. That is to say, Christ is Jehovah, He does not refer to Himself as “My servant” in the same verse.

That is not to say that Christ was not a Servant. We read in Matthew 12:18, “Behold My Servant, Whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased…”. But Christ is never referred to as “Servant” after His resurrection. Christ “made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil 2:7-8). Christ, while on earth, took on a bodily form of flesh and blood. But He was no longer a Servant after the resurrection.

Is. 53:11 is another verse which speaks of Christ as Servant, but it is Christ as the Lamb of God (see verse 7) Who took on our sins, not the risen Christ. “He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied; by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many; for He shall bear their iniquities”.

Zech. 3:8 also speaks of Christ, the Servant, “…for behold, I will bring forth My Servant the Branch”. Mark’s Gospel presents Christ as the Servant. Note that Mark’s Gospel has no genealogy because servants don’t have a genealogy. (Please see the paper on this web-site The Kingdom of Heaven for the scriptural evidence that Mark presents Christ as the Servant). What is important in our present study, is the fact that Christ was Servant only while in the fashion of a man. The risen Christ is never referred to as “Servant”. David, on the other hand, is very often referred to as “My servant, see Jer. 33:26, Ps. 144:10, Ps.78:70 and Ps. 89:3 to name just a few.

Ezek. 34:23 speaks, not of David as king, but as shepherd. “And I (Adonai Jehovah -see verse 11) will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them even My servant David; he shall feed them and he shall be their shepherd”. But we read in Jer. 23:4, “And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them….”. Jeremiah tells us that Israel will, for the millennium, have shepherds, plural, while in Ezek. 34 we read that they will have “one shepherd”. In my opinion, the shepherds of whom Jeremiah writes are, so to speak, vice shepherds, while the “one shepherd” of Ezekiel is David. A comparison of Ezek. 34:23 with Jer. 23:4 makes it abundantly clear that there will be one shepherd with many shepherds under him, i.e. “vice shepherds”. If that is true of shepherds, it can certainly be true of a king. I do not believe that the “one shepherd” is Christ, because Adonai Jehovah is speaking. Also, the risen Christ is never referred to as “My Servant”.

Ezek. 37:24, “And My servant David shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd….”. Again, the risen Christ is never referred to as a servant.

Hosea 3:5, “And afterward shall the children of Israel return and seek Jehovah (Christ) their Elohim, and David their king; and shall fear Jehovah and His goodness in the latter days”. In my opinion, this verse is speaking of David and Jehovah, not one in the same Person.

Micah 5:4, “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his Elohim; and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth”. The note in the Companion Bible explains that “feed” refers here to tend as a shepherd. Note that the person of whom this verse speaks shall stand in the strength of Jehovah. Let us keep in mind that Christ is Jehovah. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that Jehovah will stand in the strength of Jehovah. If on the other hand, we see David in this role, we can easily understand how David can stand in the strength of Jehovah, i.e. Christ.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that there has been, in the past, vice regents on the throne of Israel. And we have seen that in the millennium, there will be one shepherd over many “vice shepherds”. Therefore, the idea of David as Christ’s vice regent is not without precedence.

We have seen that there are a number of scriptures that tell us that David will indeed be king over Israel during the millennium. We have seen also that the most obvious reading of many of those verses refer to David, not Christ. Where the most obvious reading of a verse does not contradict other scriptures, I believe that it is the most obvious reading that the Holy Spirit intends us to understand.

The risen Christ is never referred to as a Servant. That fact alone points us to the conclusion that David will serve as Christ’s viceregent on the millennial throne.

If you would like to respond to this paper, please e-mail me at: [email protected]

HOME

WAS THE NEW COVENANT IN EFFECT DURING THE ACTS PERIOD?

Many Bible believing Christians believe that the New Covenant was in “partial effect” during the Acts period. I disagree with that belief and offer this paper in an effort to state my reasons for that disagreement.

I believe that at the center of this misconception is the belief that the New Covenant will save Israel when God puts His law into their hearts and minds. I believe that once we see that the New Covenant has nothing to do with salvation unto resurrection life, it will become more evident that the New Covenant was not in effect during the Acts period.

The most complete explanation of the New Covenant and the character of the times of the New Covenant is given in Jeremiah 31:31-37. “The time is coming’, declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them’, declares the Lord. ‘This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time’, declares the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying ‘Know the Lord’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord. ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more”.

WILL THE NEW COVENANT SAVE ISRAEL?

In order to understand the New Covenant we must understand who will be blessed by it and who will not. For that understanding we will turn to one New Testament passage and three Old Testament scriptures that deal with the millennial reign of Christ, which is when the New Covenant will be put into effect.

A word of clarification may be in order before we get to the passages that relate directly to the New Covenant. In my paper on the kingdom of Heaven I give the scriptural reasons for believing that during the 1,000 years of Christ’s rule on earth, only those in the land of Israel will enjoy the many blessings of that reign. The lamb lying down with the wolf, for example, is a prophecy that will be in effect only in the land of Israel. Outside the land, Christ will rule the nations, but with an iron scepter. They will not enjoy the peace and prosperity of the believers in the land. With that in mind we are ready to go to the subject at hand.

Matthew 13:37-43 explains 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.) Why are they thrown out? So that “the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father”.

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….”. The covenant referred to in the phrase “I will bring you into the bond of the covenant” is obviously the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.

When Israel is gathered for the millennial reign and “purged”, the New Covenant will be put into effect. Consider also Ezek. 11:12-21, “Therefore say: ‘this is what the Sovereign Lord says; I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again. They will return to it and remove all its vile images and detestable idols, I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. But as for those whose hearts are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord”.It is clear that this passage refers to the New Covenant, even though it is not mentioned as such. Note the key phrases “I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them”. Also, “I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws”.

The point is this: there will be some of Israel who will not be allowed entrance into the land for the millennial reign of Christ. Who are those people? They are the seed of “the evil one”. They will be thrown into the “fiery furnace” so that the “righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father”, (Matt. 13:42-42). They are described by Ezekiel as those who “rebel and revolt against Me” in Ezek. 20; and those who are “devoted to their vile images and their detestable idols” in Ezek.11. If they are cast out of the kingdom so the righteous will shine like the sun, may we not conclude that they were not righteous? In short, I believe that these are the unbelievers of Israel.

“But”, one might object, “the New Covenant will save all Israel”. But if that were true, why would some of these saved by the New Covenant, some of these who were made righteous by the New Covenant, not be allowed entrance into the land of Israel for the millennial blessings? Let us continue in our study.

WHO WILL COME UNDER THE “BOND” OF THE NEW COVENANT?

In order to understand whether Israel will be saved by the New Covenant, we must understand who will come under the bond of the New Covenant, that is, who will be blessed by it. Let us reconsider Ezek. 20 and compare it with Ezek. 36 in our efforts to answer that question. Verse 34 of Ezek. 20 tells us of the gathering of Israel for the millennium. “I will bring you from the nations and gather you from the countries where you have been scattered…”. (The millennium is not mentioned specifically in this passage, but a comparison of all the scriptures which speak of the gathering of Israel will show that the gathering of Israel will be for the millennial reign.)

Ezek. 36 also speaks of the gathering of Israel and of the New Covenant. 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. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; …..I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. …..and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws, You will live in the land I gave your forefathers, you will be my people and I will be your God”.

To whom are the promises of Ezek. 36 given? They are not given to unbelieving Israel, they are given to believing Israel. How do we know that? Because we read in Ezek. 36 that they will be brought back to their land. “I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land”. And, “You will live in the land I gave your forefathers”. Unbelievers are brought out from where they had been scattered, but they are not allowed entrance into the land.

We may conclude therefore, that the promises of Ezek. 36 are given to believing Israel. What are those promises that are given only to the believers of Israel? They will be brought back to their land (verse 24). They will be sprinkled with clean water and will be made clean (verse 25). They will be given a new heart and a new spirit (verse 26). They will be given a spirit from God so that they will be careful to follow His laws (verse 27). They will be God’s people (verse 28). They will be blessed with great prosperity (verse 30). It is clear that verses 26 and 27 explain the New Covenant (compare Jer. 31:33). Because the promise of the New Covenant is not given to the unbelievers of Israel, we know that those unbelievers will not be saved by the New Covenant.

Returning once again to Ezekiel 20, we read in verses 37-38, “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….”. (Note the contrast of “you” with “them” and “they”.) Israel will be purged of those “who revolt”, of “rebels”, of “sons of the evil one”, etc..

It is purged Israel that will be allowed entrance into the land to enjoy the blessings of the millennium, and it is purged Israel that will be brought into the bond of the New Covenant. Again, the New Covenant is for Israel, purged of unbelievers. Therefore, the New Covenant is not God’s promise to save unbelieving Israel, it is the blessing by which He will allow believing Israel to keep His law from the heart. So, the New Covenant has nothing to do with salvation.

Let us consider Jer. 31:34b, “for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”. Is this a promise of salvation? It can’t be, because as we have already learned, only the saved will partake in the New Covenant. What does this passage mean?

The Hebrew word translated “for” in the phrase, “for I will forgive their iniquity” is most often translated “because”. If we understand the word here to mean “because” all is clear, and there are no contradictions in the perfect Word of God. So, God will forgive them their inquities because they shall know Him. That is to say, only believers of Israel will be partakers of the new covenantBecause believers do indeed know Him, their iniquities will be forgiven.

Before we go on to the next section, I believe that a word of clarification of Ezek. 20:40 is in order, lest some be led astray. 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”. This is consistent with all the other scriptures that concern the gathering of Israel for the millennial blessings, i.e. only believers are allowed into the land and therefore, only believers will serve Him there.

SOME CONCLUSIONS

Let me try to bring this together. God will gather all Israel out of the lands to which they had been scattered. But some will not be allowed into the land of Israel. Those that will be allowed entrance into the land of Israel for the millennial reign will come under the bond of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is God putting His law into the hearts and minds of believing Israel for the millennial reign, it is not God saving unbelieving Israel. Therefore, we must conclude that the New Covenant has nothing to do with salvation. May I remind the reader that “they are not all Israel that are of Israel” (Romans 9:6), but we will read more of that in the section on Rom. 11:26.

ROMANS 11:26

As mentioned above, a large part of the reason that some think that the New Covenant was in effect (they say “partial effect”) is that they attribute to the New Covenant the act of salvation. That error comes, in part, from the misinterpretation of Romans 11:26 “And so all Israel will be saved”. The reasoning goes that when God puts the law into the hearts and minds of all Israel, that they will all be saved. Let us examine this passage.

Romans 11:26 reads, “And so all Israel will be saved as it is written, ‘The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.” This verse leads to the question; to whom does the phrase, “all Israel” refer?

Verse 23 is absolutely crucial in understanding this entire portion of Romans. “And if they (Israelites) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again”. Unbelieving Israelites were cut off from their nation because of their unbelief. “Cut off” can mean to be killed, but it also means to be cast away from one’s nation. Consider, for example, Numbers 19:13. “That person must be cut off from Israel”. In the next sentence we are told that his “uncleanness remains on him”. Obviously, he must remain alive if his uncleanness remains on him. There are numerous occurrence of this phrase in which it means to be cut off from Israel. See, for example, Lev. 17:14, Numbers 15:31 and Zech.14:2.

In Romans 11, Paul is saying that some Israelites were cut off from their own nation because of their unbelief, but if they do not persist in their unbelief, they may be returned to their nation. By being cut off they will not be able to participate in the blessings God has promised His chosen people; but if they do not continue in their unbelief they may be “grafted in again” to the nation and thereby partake in Her blessings. At the time of Paul’s writing of this letter believers were looking for the immediate return of Christ to set up His millennial reign. Being cut off from Israel would mean not being allowed to participate in all the millennial blessings prophesied in the Old Testament.

Verse 23 concerns Israelites. In verses 24 and 25 Paul reminds the Gentiles that they are grafted in to Israel, “contrary to nature”. His remarks in these two verses are addressed to and concern Gentile believers, so verses 24-25 are parenthetical in nature. Then in verse 26 where Paul writes, “And so all Israel will be saved….”, his focus is returning to Israel. The phrase “and so” tells us that the statement of this verse did not come out of thin air. It came as a natural progression of what was written in the context. If we, for the moment, leave out Paul’s parenthetical comments to the Gentiles in verses 24-25 we read, “And if they (Israel) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again…..And so all Israel will be saved…”. Paul is saying here that unbelievers are not included in Israel, they were cut off. They were cut off because of their unbelief; therefore, they are not part of the nation of Israel.

It is clear that because unbelieving Israel has been cut off from their nation and the national blessings promised Her, that it is believing Israel only that is included in the phrase “all Israel will be saved”. This is consistent with Matthew 13, and Ezekiel 11, 20 and 36. Also consider that “they are not all Israel that are of Israel”.

But the reader may be thinking, “but we already know that only believers are saved from death unto resurrection life, what is the meaning of this verse?” What is meant in this context by the word “saved”? That is to say, from what will believing Israel be saved? There are two things that will help answer this question. 1) The context and 2) an examination of the Old Testament prophesy from which Romans 11:26b was quoted.

First let us look at the context. It is clear that Paul was not writing primarily about salvation from death in Romans 11. Consider for example, “Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either” (Rom. 11:20b-21). If we believe that Paul is writing about salvation from death then we are led to the extremely erroneous conclusion that he was writing that some could lose their salvation. Nothing could be further from the truth as Rom. 8:37-39 proves. What he was saying is that if Israelites, because of their unbelief could be cut off from the nation and therefore not partake of the blessings for which they were looking, so could the Gentiles be cut off.

Next let us look at the original prophecy to see if we can learn what this salvation was, to which Paul was referring. The prophecy comes from Isaiah 59:20, “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins“. Note that the Redeemer does not come to all of Israel, He comes to those “who repent of their sins”. I think we can say that in New Testament language, that means believers in Christ. This fact helps to substantiate the point that “all Israel” in Rom. 11:26 refers to all believing Israel.

But there is more to learn from Is. 59. We learn that this quote refers to end time events. Note for example verse 19, “So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and His glory from the rising of the sun”.This is obviously a reference to the millennial reign in the end times. And for the answer to what these believers will be saved from please not verse 18, “According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, fury to His adversaries, recompense to His enemies…”. When will God repay His adversaries and His enemies? In the day of God’s wrath. But believers will be saved from that wrath by the rapture at Christ’s coming.

Therefore, I believe that when Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved” he is saying that all believing Israelites will be saved from the day of God’s wrath in the end times by the rapture.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE NEW COVENANT WILL SHOW THAT IT WAS NOT IN EFFECT DURING THE ACTS PERIOD

Now that we have determined that the New Covenant will not save unbelieving Israel, we are ready to examine just what the New Covenant is and whether it was in “partial effect” in the Acts period. What is the New Covenant? God will put the law into the hearts and minds of believing Israel. The following passages from the book of Acts will show that even though believing Israel was zealous of the law, God had not put the law in their hearts and minds.

In Acts 11:2-3 we read of a disagreement between Peter and the “circumcised believers” at Jerusalem over a point of law concerning eating with Gentiles. “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, and said, ‘You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them”. Verse 18 explains that they all came to an understanding of the matter. The fact remains, however, that they were not of one accord at first. I believe this shows that the spirit of the law was not in their hearts and minds. If it had been, there would have been no problem with this or any other point of law.

Acts 15:5-7 is another example of believers not agreeing on the law. “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses”. Again, they did not understand the spirit of the law, which once again shows that God had not written the law in their hearts and minds. The matter was resolved when all agreed “that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God”. But, once again, the disagreement at first, shows that the law was not written in the hearts and minds of believing Israel.

Acts18:24-26 is yet another example of a believer not understanding the law. We read in this passage of a Jew named Apollos. “He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately”. Here was a believing Jew who did not know as much about Jesus as did others. It is clear that God had not put the law in his mind, or he would have known all about Jesus. Furthermore, the fact that Apollos needed further teaching directly contradicts one of the elements of the New Covenant. We read in Jer. 31:34, “And they shall no more teach every man his neighbor…..for they shall all know Me…”.

Acts 20:29-30 gives an account, in part, of Paul’s farewell statement to the believers in Ephesus. “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number, men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them”. The fact that these men will come from “your own number” shows that they were believers and it is painfully obvious that these “wolves” of whom Paul warns, did not have the law in their hearts and minds. We may conclude then, that even believing Israel did not have the law written on their hearts and minds, therefore the New Covenant was not in effect in the Acts period.

Where will the New Covenant be put into effect? In the land of Israel. Ezek.11:17b-20, “….and I will give you back the land of Israel again. I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them: I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws..”. God did not, during the Acts period, gather Israel to the land He had promised them. Far from it, they were more scattered at the end of the Acts period then they were at the beginning. (See Acts 11:19.) Obviously, this part of the New Covenant was not in effect in the Acts period.

When will the New Covenant be put into effect? Ezek.11:17-20, ..This is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again. ….I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws”. Because we are told in scripture exactly when the New Covenant will come into effect, i.e. when Israel is gathered to the land God had promised Her, we may not, in my opinion, change this point without a great deal of scriptural evidence, and there is none.

I must admit, that other than the misconception that all Israel will be saved by the New Covenant, and a few isolated verses which are discussed below, I don’t know of any other argument for believing that the New Covenant was in partial effect in the Acts period. Furthermore, the “what”, “when” and “where” of the New Covenant shows that it was not in partial effect in the Acts period. In fact, I believe that as we consider a few verses in Hebrews, it will become even more clear that the New Covenant was not in partial effect in the Acts period.

THE NEW COVENANT AS PRESENTED IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 8:10-12 is a quote from Jer. 31 where we read for the first time of the New Covenant. This passage in Hebrews does not tell us when the New Covenant will be put into effect, but we have a few clues in other verses from the letter to the Hebrews. Consider, for example, Heb. 8:13, “By calling this covenant ‘new’, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear”. The writer is telling us that the Old Covenant will soon disappear. Obviously, if it will disappear soon, it had not disappeared at the time of the writing of Hebrews, i.e. during the Acts period. Therefore, during the Acts period the Old Covenant had not yet disappeared so the New Covenant had not yet been put into effect.

Note also Hebrews 9:10, “They (gifts and sacrifices of verse 9) are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings- external regulations applying until the time of the new order.” Here the writer is speaking of the Old Covenant saying that is applies “until the time of the new order”. I believe that the term “new order” must apply to the time of the New Covenant, i.e. the millennium. It is clear that the writer does not see that time as having arrived for he writes that the earthly regulations apply “until the time of the new order”.

Let us also consider Heb. 8:6, “…..He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises”. The question is: was the new covenant in effect at the time that it was established?

In order to answer that question we must understand that the shedding of blood was a requirement for the establishing of a covenant How do we know that? We read in Heb. 9:18-20, “Whereupon neither the first testament (covenant) was dedicated without blood. for when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry”.

As we examine the Abrahamic covenant we will see that it too required the shedding of blood. We read in Gen. 15:7 of God’s promise to Abram that his seed would inherit the promised land. And then in verse 8 we read, “and he said, ‘Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?'”. The answer to his question is found in verse 9, “And He said unto him, ‘Take Me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old…..’ and he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst….”. Then in Gen. 15:18 we read, “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘Unto thy seed have I given this land…..”.

So we have learned that God made a covenant with Abram that his seed would inherit the promised land and that that covenant required a blood sacrifice, which was offered.

But it is clear that that covenant has not yet been put into effect. That is to say, the required blood was spilled and the covenant was “established” by it, And yet the covenant is not yet put into effect. The point is that the establishment of a covenant does not automatically mean that the covenant was put into effect at the time of its establishment.

So too the New Covenant. It required a blood sacrifice. In this case it was the blood of Jesus Christ. And that blood “established” the covenant. But we are told that it will be put into effect in the millennial reign of Christ. Therefore, it will not be in effect until then.

PASSAGES THAT SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT THE NEW COVENANT WAS IN EFFECT DURING THE ACTS PERIOD

MATTHEW 26:28-29

Matt. 26:28, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” That the New Covenant was in partial effect in the Acts period is one of those misconceptions that stem, as so many do, from not laying the proper groundwork from the Old Testament. That is to say, when we understand the New Covenant from the Old Testament then we are not led astray by those passages in the New Testament that refer to it. If, on the other hand, we read of the New Covenant in New Testament passages first, and then attach what we think we have learned to Old Testament passages, we come away with misconceptions.

We have seen from the Old Testament scriptures that speak of the New Covenant that the New Covenant had nothing to do with salvation of unbelieving Israel. We need to keep that in mind as we read New Testament scriptures that refer to the New Covenant. As we have seen in the sections above, the New Covenant is for those of Israel who are believers, i.e. already saved, and therefore can not be for the purpose of saving unbelievers of Israel. Therefore, I believe that the forgiveness of sins mentioned in Matthew is the forgiveness of sins of believers. In the section above (“Who Will Come Under The Bond”) the meaning of the Hebrew translated “for” was discussed. We saw that it means “because”. That is to say, God forgave believing Israel their sins because they were believers. This is consistent with the teaching of the entire Bible concerning the forgiveness of sins, i.e. it is for believers.

I CORINTHIANS 11:25

I Cor. 11:25, “In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying ‘This cup is of the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me”. It is very true that a covenant requires blood, and that it was Christ’s blood that was the blood of the New Covenant. However, this does not prove that the New Covenant was put into effect at the same time as the shedding of His blood. As we have seen in the section above, “The New Covenant As Presented In The Epistle To The Hebrews”, the Abrahamic covenant was not put into effect at the time it was established by the spilling of blood. So too, the New Covenant was not established at the time of the shed blood of Christ on the cross. It will be established, according to scripture, in the millennial reign of Christ.

II CORINTHIANS 3:6

“He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant-not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”. The only way that we may understand the true meaning of this passage is to put it in context and discover what was Paul’s point in this passage. In verses 7-11 Paul draws the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New. Note verse 12 where we read the important word “therefore”. “Therefore” tells us that we are reaching the point of the previous verses. “Therefore, since we have such a hope we are very bold. We are not like Moses who would put a veil over his face…”. Now we are ready to ask ourselves this question: “Is Paul’s point in this passage that the New Covenant was in partial effect”? I don’t believe it was. I believe that his point was that the New Covenant was superior to the Old Covenant. In saying that he was a minister of the new covenant he was saying that he was a minister of the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. Does that mean that the New Covenant was in effect?

The very fact that Paul was the “minister of the new covenant” is proof that it was not in effect. Why? Because we are told in Jeremiah 31 that the New Covenant will be put into effect by God. God would not need Paul, or anyone else to be its minister. May I remind the reader exactly what the New Covenant is. It is an unconditional promise of God to believing Israel that He will put His law in their hearts and minds.

The very fact that Paul was the “minister of the new covenant” also proves that the New Covenant was not in effect because Paul’s Acts period epistles were written to believers, and most of those epistles included teachings for believing Israelites. But, as mentioned above, part of the New Covenant is that there will be no teaching once the New Covenant is put into effect because they will all know Him.

Only if one puts aside the following facts can one assume from this passage that the New Covenant was in effect during the Acts period. 1) The New Covenant was God acting unilaterally and did not need a “minister”. 2) As we read in Hebrews 8:13 and 9:10, the Old Covenant had not yet been put aside, therefore the New Covenant could not have been in effect during the Acts period. 3) We are clearly told when the New Covenant would be put into effect, i.e. at the gathering of Israel for the millennial reign of Christ on earth. Israel was not being gathered during the Acts period. 4) One of the conditions of New Covenant times was that each man would know God. That was certainly not true in the Acts period. 5) Another condition was that God would always be the God of His people Israel. That was certainly not the case at the end of the Acts period when Israel was set aside. 6) Even though believing Israel was zealous of the law in the Acts period, I do not believe that we can say that they had the law in their hearts and minds. If that were the case, they would not have had the disagreements etc. as mentioned above. 7) Paul’s point in II Cor. 3 is not that the New Covenant was in effect, only that the New Covenant was superior to the Old Covenant. As minister of the New Covenant he was preaching the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law.

The New Covenant had nothing to do with salvation, and we can not say that believing Israel had the law in their hearts and minds. It is not, in my opinion, sound Bible study to try to prove that the New Covenant was in effect from a passage that does not concern that particular question. This is especially true when the scriptures prove that it was not in effect.

CONCLUSION

There are two main points that have been discussed in this paper that, in my opinion, prove that the New Covenant was not in “partial effect” in the Acts period. 1) The New Covenant is not God’s promise to save all Israel from death. It is God’s promise to believing Israel that He will put into their hearts and minds the willingness to keep His law with true sincerity. It is also His promise to cleanse them, and to never again forsake them as His chosen people. 2) We are told quite specifically when the New Covenant will be put into effect, i.e. at the gathering of Israel for the millennial reign of Christ. As honest students of God’s written word we can not change that prophecy without a great deal of scriptural evidence. Because there is no such evidence, we must conclude that the New Covenant will indeed be put into effect at the time of the gathering of Israel for the millennial reign of Christ.

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. I would love to hear your thoughts. Please E-mail me at: [email protected]

WILL ALL BELIEVERS WORLD WIDE BE CAUGHT UP IN THE CLOUDS?

As the title indicates, this paper will not be about when believers will be caught up in the clouds, but who will be caught up.

This paper will address the following subjects:

THE GATHERING OF ISRAEL

WHEN WILL GOD’S WRATH BE POURED OUT?

WILL GOD’S WRATH BE WORLD WIDE?

MATTHEW 24:31

THE GATHERING OF ISRAEL

Let us begin by setting the sequence of events in so far as they relate to the question at hand. I believe most would agree that when Christ appears in the clouds, believers will be caught up. The millennial reign will begin after that, i.e. when Christ returns to earth. So we have first the rapture, and then Christ will return to earth for the millennial reign.

There are several passages that tell us that Israel will be gathered. Common sense tells us that this gathering will not be during the tribulation or during the day of God’s wrath, i.e. the day of the Lord. The scriptural evidence that the gathering of Israel will be at the beginning of the millennium is found in Zeph. 3:19-20, where we read, “Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame. At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the Lord”. It will be in the millennium that God will make Israel “a praise among all people of the earth” and it is at the same time that He will gather Israel to the Land.

Having seen from scripture when Israel will be gathered, let us consider who of Israel will be gathered. Let us consider Ezek. 20:34-38. In verse 34 we read, “and I will bring you out from the people and will gather you out of the countries where in ye are scattered….”. Verse 38 tells us of a judgment which will determine who of Israel will be allowed entrance into the land of Israel for the millennial reign, :”…I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against Me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel……”.

We have seen that at the beginning of the millennium all Israel will be gathered from the countries to which they had been scattered. We have also seen that those who are gathered will be judged. Note that some will be purged out. That suggests that both believers and unbelievers will be gathered. That is to say, if only unbelievers will be gathered, there is no one from whom they will be purged. We must conclude therefore, that believers will be included in the gathering of Israel for the millennial reign.

The point is that if all believers from all over the world will be caught up in the clouds before the millennial reign, there would be no one left to gather from the countries. That being the case, we must conclude that not all believers of the world will be caught up in the clouds.

I believe that Is. 66:20 makes the point even more clearly. “And they (the Gentiles) shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to My holy mountain Jerusalem…..”. The scene as depicted in Is. 66 is certainly not a picture of being caught up in the clouds. It is the picture of Israel being brought to Jerusalem. Who of Israel will be brought to “My holy mountain Jerusalem”? As we learned from Ezek. 20, only believers will be allowed entrance into Israel. We must conclude therefore that at least some of these about whom Isaiah speaks are believers.

Once again, if all believers were raptured, there would be no believers left to be gathered and brought to Jerusalem.

I suggest therefore, that not every believer in the world will be caught up in the clouds. The question remains then, who will be raptured? That question will be answered as we consider the reason for the rapture.

WHEN WILL GOD’S WRATH BE POURED OUT?

It is clear from I Thess. 1:10 that the rapture will rescue believers from God’s wrath, “And to wait for His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, Which delivered us from the wrath to come“.

Rev. 6:17 tells us of God’s future wrath. “For the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” Verses 12-13 tell us the signs of this wrath to come. “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…..”. As we compare the signs of the wrath of God to come with the signs of the day of the Lord, we shall see that they are the same signs, proving, of course, that the day of the Lord is the day of God’s wrath. We read in 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. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake….”.

We have learned by comparing scripture with scripture that God’s wrath will be poured out in the day of the Lord.

WILL GOD’S WRATH BE WORLD WIDE?

Having determined that God’s wrath, from which believers will be rescued by the rapture, will be poured out in the day of the Lord, we must ask the question: will the events of the day of the Lord be world wide? That is to say, will those events effect every person in the world?

The phrase “the day of the Lord” occurs 19 times in the Old Testament. The context will show that 13 of these passages are prophecies given directly to Israel or are concerning Israel and 6 occur in passages which name specific countries neighboring Israel. Let us search these passage for the verity of that statement.

Is. 2:12, “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up: and he shall be brought low”. The context beginning with verse clearly concerns Israel. We read in verses 6, “….Thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob…”.

Ezek. 13:5, “Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord”. The preceding verse reads, “O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxed in the deserts, Ye have not gone up into the gaps….”.

Joel 1:15, “Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come”. Again, the preceding verse tells us to whom this prophecy is addressed, “Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God.……”, i.e. Israel’s God.

Joel 2:1-2, “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand; a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains…..”. This verse makes it clear by the phrase “in Zion” that Israel is intended.

Joel 2:11, “And the Lord shall utter His voice before His army: for His camp is very great: for He is strong that executeth His word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?” This verse comes in the same context as does verses 1 and 2 quoted above and therefore also concerns Israel.

Joel 2:31, “The sun shall be turned unto darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come”. Here too, the context is the same in the entire chapter and therefore the prophecy concerns Israel.

Amos 5:18, “Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light”. Also Amos 5:20, “Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light: even very dark, and no brightness in it” Verse one tells us to whom this prophecy is directed, “Here ye this word which I take up against you even a lamentation, O house of Israel”.

Zeph. 1:7-8, “Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God: for the day of the Lord is at hand…….And it shall come to pass in the day of the Lord’s sacrifice, that I will punish the princes and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel”. Verse 2 reads “I will utterly consume all things from off the land……”.

Zeph. 1:14, “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry bitterly”. Verse 12 tells us that this passage remains centered on Israel, “and it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with candles…….”.

Zech. 14:1, “Behold the day of the Lord cometh, and the spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee……” . This passage is about the nations coming against Jerusalem. Verse 2, “for I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken…..”. And verse 3 reads, “Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations……”. How are we to understand the phrase “gather all nations”? Does it refer to every nation on the earth? I believe the answer to that question is that it refers to the nations that are neighbors of Israel. I believe that for two reasons: 1) It makes no sense to say that every nation in the entire world will come together to fight against Israel. 2) Every Old Testament passage that speaks of the day of the Lord, is quite specific about exactly which country the prophecy concerns. In my opinion, we must consider that when determining what nations will come against Jerusalem. I believe they are the nations that are Israel’s neighbors as that is in keeping with common sense and, more importantly it is in keeping with the context of the phrase in every other occurrence.

Mal. 4:5, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”. Verse 4 reads, “Remember ye the law of Moses…..”. In my opinion, this tells us that it is Israel to whom this prophecy is directed as no other country had the law of Moses to remember.

As mentioned above, some of the occurrence of the phrase “day of the Lord” are in the context of specific countries. As we consider those passages it will be evident that those countries are those that surround Israel.

Is. 13:6, “Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand, it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty”. We read in verse 1, “The burden of Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see”. Babylon is a city in the modern day Iraq.

Is. 13:9 is in the same context and, of course also refers to Isaiah’s vision of the burden of Babylon, “Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate….”.

Jer. 46:10, “For this is the day of the Lord God of hosts, a day of vengeance, that He may avenge Him of His adversaries: and the sword shall devour and it shall be satiated and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord God of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates“. Again, verses 1-2 tell us which country this vision concerns. “The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Gentiles, Against Egypt.…….”

Ezek. 30:3, “For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near. Verse 4, “and the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt”. Verse 5 speaks of “Ethiopia, and Libya and Lydia….and Chub”. The notes in the Companion Bible tell us that Libya and Lydia are in Africa. The point is that these nations are all named, and in my opinion, we must not, without any scriptural evidence, include countries that are not named in the destruction of the day of the Lord.

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. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake….”. Verse 4 tells us the countries to whom this prophecy is directed, “yea, and what have ye to do with Me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine?”

Obadiah 15, “For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head”. verse one reads, “The vision of Obadiah, Thus saith the Lord God concerning Edom.….”.

The paper on this web-site The Tribulation Is Not World Wide proves from scripture that the tribulation is confined to the area of Israel and surrounding nations. I have given all the Old Testament references to the day of the Lord. It is clear that they all have to do with Israel and neighboring nations. In other words, there is no scriptural evidence to suggest that the day of the Lord will be world wide.

As we have seen above, the day of the Lord is when God’s vengeance will be poured out. Because that vengeance will come upon a limited geographic area that, in my opinion, suggests that only those who need rescuing from the day of the Lord will be caught up in the clouds. That is to say, it is only those in a limited geographic area that will need to be rescued, and only those in that geographic area will be caught up.

Let us summarize what we have seen from scripture thus far.

1) The rapture will be before the millennium.

2) Zeph. 3 tell us that Israel will be gathered at the beginning of the millennium, i.e. after the rapture.

3) Ezek. 20 tells us that both believers and unbelievers of Israel will be gathered from the nations to which they had been scattered. That shows us that there will be some believers who were not caught up in the clouds.

4) I Thess. 1 tells us that believers will be rescued from the wrath to come.

5) The wrath to come will be poured out in the day of the Lord upon a limited geographic area..

6) Only those in that limited geographic area will need to be rescued from God’s wrath and only they will be caught up in the clouds.

MATTHEW 24:31

“And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other”. The “sound of the trumpet” tells us that this is in reference to the rapture for we read in I Thess. 4:16-17, “For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds….”.

Matt. 24:31 seems to say that every believer in the world will be caught up in the clouds. That is to say the phrases, “gather His elect from the four winds” and “from one end of heaven to the other” seem to tell us that the rapture will be for all believers world wide. On the other hand, as we have learned in the sections above, not every believer will be raptured. We know that there are no contradictions in the Word of God. I suggest, therefore, that we look more closely at the two Greek prepositions translated “from” in Matt. 24:31.

In the phrase “from the four winds” the Greek word translated “from” is “ek”. The Companion Bible definition of “ek” is “out from”. So the elect will be gathered “out from” the four winds. Before we draw any conclusions from that let us also consider the Greek word translated “from” in the phrase “from one end of heaven to the other”. That Greek word is “apo” and the Companion Bible says of “apo”, “it is used of a motion away from a place…..”.

Because we know that some believers will not be raptured, I believe that the two prepositions discussed above tell us that those who are raptured will be gathered to Christ from the four winds and will be gathered to Christ from one end of heaven to the other to where Christ will be.

Let me try to make that a bit clearer. Let us imagine Jesus Christ appearing in the clouds. We know from I Thess. 4 that at the time of His appearing believers will be caught up with Him in the clouds. But Matthew 24:31 doesn’t tell us of believers being caught up, it tells us that once they have been caught up they will be gathered to Christ. In other words, step one is explained in I Thess. 4, i.e. they will be caught up; and the second step is explained in Matt. 24, i.e. once caught up, they will be gathered to Christ.

I realize of course, that this is not how most think of Matt. 24:31. But, as mentioned above, there are no contradictions in the Word of God. Because other scriptures do make it clear that some believers will not be raptured, I believe that we must consider more carefully the two prepositions used in this verse.

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

HOME

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is taken by most Christians to be a literal account of what happens at death. But there are several difficulties with the story if taken in that way.

In verse 25, for example, we read that “Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your life time you received good things while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here while you are in agony’”. There are two difficulties here; 1) we are not told that the rich man was unbelieving or unfaithful or cruel, only that he was rich. And yet, verse 25 implies that he is suffering agony only because he was rich. And similarly, we are not told that Lazarus was faithful or a believer or good in any sense, only that he had nothing during his lifetime. This is not consistent with the message of salvation as given to us in the Word of God.

2) The Bible teaches that the body goes back to dust and the spirit goes back to God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7), There is nothing in that scenario that even hints of “Abraham’s bosom”, it is inconsistent with the teaching of God’s Word in connection with death. (Please see the paper on this web-site What Happens At Death? for the scriptural answer to that question. It is also worth noting that this is the only time in the entire Word of God where Abraham’s bosom is even mentioned.

3) The Bible also teaches that there is only silence in death. Ps. 6:5 says, “No one remembers You when he is dead, who praises You from the grave?” Ps. 31:17 says, “…let the wicked be put to shame and lie silent in the grave”. Ps. 88:10-11, “Do you show your wonders to the dead, do those who are dead rise up and praise you? Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in destruction?” Ps. 115:17, “It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to silence”. If these verses are true, and we know they are, how is there conversation between the rich man and Abraham?

In order to correctly understand how God means for us to understand this passage we absolutely must consider the context. As the reader goes all the way back to Luke chapter fifteen, he/she will see that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is the last of five parables that, as we shall see, are connected.

THE FIVE PARABLES OF LUKE CHAPTERS 15-16

The five parables of Luke chapters 15-16 are connected in two ways. 1) They are told at the same time, and 2) they are told with the Pharisees in mind. I believe that as we discuss these parables the second point will become evident.

We read in Luke 15:1-2, “Then drew near unto Him all the publicans and sinners for to hear Him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, ‘This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.'” The note in the Companion Bible on the word translated “murmured” reads, “The word implies subdued threatening”. The next verse (verse 3) begins the parable of the lost sheep.

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP (LUKE 15:3-6)

“And He spake this parable unto them, saying, ‘What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, ‘Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.'” The point of the parable is stated in the next verse, “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance‘”.

This parable is, in some ways, like the parable of the lost sheep recorded in Matt. 18:12-14, but it differs in some aspects. It is in those aspects that we find a slightly different point in the parable.

But first, I think it would be helpful in considering the point of the parable to consider the circumstances of why it was told, as I believe it will help our understanding of this, as well as all five parables, more completely. As we saw in verses 1-2 the Pharisees were “murmuring” against Christ because He had been receiving publicans and sinners. Evidently, we may conclude from their reaction that the Pharisees considered the publicans and sinners to be unworthy of hearing the truth. Therefore, I believe we may conclude that the one lost sheep represents the publicans and sinners.

Did the 99 sheep represent anyone? I believe they did because the contrast is made between them and the one that was found. That is to say, the contrast is made between the one lost sheep, who represented the publicans and sinners and those who were not lost, but were indeed “just and had no need of repentance”. But who were the ” just persons”, which had “no need of repentance”? Were there any who did not need to repent? In fact, the Pharisees saw themselves as those who did not need to repent. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector recorded in Luke 18:9-13 tells us specifically of the Pharisees’ opinion of their own self-righteousness, “He spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others”. But, of course Christ knew that they did need to repent, so why did He imply in the parable that they did not need to repent?

I believe that Christ was using the figure of speech, irony, to make His point more emphatically, which is the purpose of a figure of speech. Irony, according to Webster’s dictionary is “a sort of …ridicule, the intended implication of which is the opposite of the literal sense of the words”. We use irony when we say, for example “I love this bitter, cold weather”, when we really mean that we hate this bitter, cold weather.

It is good to keep in mind that irony as a figure of speech emphasizes the negativity of the statement being expressed in the positive.

Let us consider other scriptures wherein we see the use of irony. Consider for example, I Kings 18 where we read of Elijah who went about to prove that Baal was not God, i.e. that Jehovah was the only true God. We read in verses 25-26, “and Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, ‘Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.’ And they took the bullock….and they dressed it and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying ‘O Baal, hear us. ‘ But there was no voice, nor any that answered…..”. Then in verse 27 Elijah made a statement that can only be irony, “Elijah mocked them, and said, ‘Cry aloud; for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.'”

Elijah knew very well that Baal was none of those things, that Baal was no god at all. This is irony. In fact, it is more than irony, it is sarcastic irony. The Webster’s Dictionary definition of sarcasm in part is, “The use of bitter, caustic, or stinging remarks expressing contempt, often by ironical statement”.

Consider also Judges 10:14 where God uses sarcastic irony when the Lord says, “Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen, let them save you when you are in trouble”. God obviously knew that there were no other gods beside Him to save them. He said the very opposite of what was literally intended, i.e sarcastic irony.

The reader may be thinking that surely our Lord would not use sarcastic irony. But let us consider Luke 13:31-33, Let us consider verse 34 first, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee….”. It was well known that Jerusalem, the seat of the rulers of Israel, was responsible for the death of many prophets. With that in mind, let us consider verses 31-33, “The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto Him, ‘Get Thee out, and depart hence; for Herod will kill Thee’. And He said unto them, ‘go ye, and tell that fox, ………for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.'” This was a sarcastic and ironical way of saying that as long as He stayed out of Jerusalem, He was safe.

So too, when Christ implied that the 99 sheep needed no repentance He was saying the opposite of what was literally intended with the use of sarcastic irony, because everyone is in need or repentance. He spoke in that manner to make the point even more clear, that the Pharisees (who the 99 sheep represented) did need to repent.

I am suggesting therefore, that there are two points in this parable, one given and the other implied. The one given is the rejoicing over one sinner being saved. In that respect it is much the same point as the parable of Matt. 18:12-14. The one implied by the use of sarcastic irony is that the Pharisees, who did not consider themselves in need of “being found” due to their own sense of righteousness, did indeed need to repent.

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST COIN (LUKE 15:8-9)

“Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? and when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, ‘Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost'”. The point of the parable is given in the next verse. “Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth”.

Obviously, the point of this parable is the same as the points of the previous parable. The lost coin represents the Publicans and sinners. The rejoicing over the found coin, emphasizes the fact that God and His angels, unlike the Pharisees, consider each Publican and each sinner important enough to rejoice over their “being found”. In this case we may conclude that the friends the woman called represent the “angels of God” as that does emphasize the point that God, unlike the Pharisees, considers each lost person found, a matter of rejoicing.

So once again there is a stated point of the joy over having found the lost, and the implied criticism of the Pharisees and their uncaring attitude towards the “found”.

THE PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON (LUKE 15:11-32)

“And He said,’A certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, ‘give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.’ And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in the land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say into him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants”. And arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in they sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son’. But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry; for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to be merry. Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, ‘Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.’ And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his father, ‘Lo these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends; but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.’ And he said unto him ‘Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found”.

Because there is no explanation given, I believe we may conclude that the points of this parable are the same as the two preceding ones, i.e. 1) there is great rejoicing over each lost person that is found and 2) it is meant as a ridicule of the Pharisees. Let us consider those two points as they are given in this parable.

The first point is obvious. The younger son represents the publicans and sinners who repent and return to plead their Father’s forgiveness. But note just how low this son had sunk. “Swine” were, of course forbidden by the law of Moses and were held in great contempt. The older son obviously represents the Pharisees, who considered themselves above the publican and sinner in every way. But it is the younger son, who had fallen into disgrace that was welcomed, and the older son representing the Pharisees are seen as resenting the younger being welcomed home. The older son declares his own righteousness, just as the Pharisees had their righteousness. Here again, it is clear that the Pharisees did not have their own righteousness and their being represented as such was sarcastic irony that made the point quite clearly.

Again, the two points of this parable is the joy at receiving one who repents and the criticism of the Pharisees in their attitudes in regard to their own self righteousness.

THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD (LUKE 16:1-9)

“And He said also unto His disciples, ‘There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. and he called him, and said unto him, ‘How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’ So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him and said unto the first, ‘How much owest thou unto my lord?’ And he said, ‘An hundred measures of oil.’ And he said unto him, ‘Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.’ Then said he to another, ‘And how much owest thou?’ And he said, ‘An hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said unto him, ‘Take thy bill, and write fourscore.’ And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, ‘Make you yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations.'”

We must consider a few things about this parable if we are to understand it correctly. Christ refers to the steward as “unjust” in verse 8. But in verse 9 He tells His disciples to do exactly what the “unjust steward” had done, “Make for yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness that, when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations.'” How is it possible that Christ would tell His disciples to do as the unjust servant had done? Obviously, it is not possible. This is another case of sarcastic irony. But what was the point, why did Christ tell this particular parable?

The point of the parable is recorded in verses 10-13, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s. who shall give you that which is your own?” Verse 14 is especially helpful, “And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things; and they derided Him“.

Note also that the parable contrasts the “children of this world” with “the children of light” and proclaims the former were more wise than the latter. No one can think that the children of this world are more wise in any way than the children of the light. Again, this is pure sarcastic irony.

Let us pull all this together. We have seen in the three preceding parables that Christ was very critical of the Pharisees in that they saw themselves as being so much better than other men. In the parable of the unjust steward, Christ attacked their monetary dealings. Our Lord was obviously not telling His disciples to do as the unjust steward had done, He was making the point by using sarcastic irony that the Pharisees were covetous and were unjust in their financial dealings . So too, Christ was not saying that the children of this world are more wise than the children of light. The entire parable is a sarcastic criticism (employing the use of irony) of the Pharisees.

Once again there is a stated point, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much”. But the implied point is the sarcastic irony accusing the Pharisees of being unjust in their monetary dealings.

THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (LUKE 16:19-31)

We come now to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. I trust the reader will consider the points of the previous four parables of the context and be led by them.

“There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. and beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.’ Then he said, ‘I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ Abraham saith unto him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ and he said, ‘Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.’ And he said unto him, ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'”

What is the point of this parable? It is found in the next verse, “Then said He unto the disciples, ‘It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea than that he should offend one of these little ones.'” Of what offences is Christ speaking? We must answer that from the context and especially from the point of the parable.

As we have seen in all the parables discussed above from Luke chapters 15-16, each one is at least in part a criticism of the Pharisees in the form of sarcastic irony. Note Luke 16:14 which comes between the parable of the unjust steward and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, that the Pharisees are still very much in the picture, “and the Pharisees also who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided Him”. The note in the Companion Bible on the word translated “derided” is, “were turning up their noses at”.

How is this parable a criticism of the Pharisees? To answer this question let us look again at some of the particulars of the parable. Note for example that Lazarus’ body was “carried by the angels”. But there is nothing in God’s Word of anyone’s body being carried by angels. Note also that the body was carried to “Abraham’s bosom”. There is absolutely nothing in God’s Word, apart from this verse, about “Abraham’s bosom”. Note that there is conversation in hades. But we read in several passages that told us that there is silence in the grave. Ps. 6:5, “No one remembers You when he is dead, who praises You from the grave?” Ps. 31:17 says, “…let the wicked be put to shame and lie silent in death”. For the rich man to be speaking in hades absolutely contradicts God’s Word.

Note also that the reason given the rich man for his present circumstance as contrasted with Lazarus’ is that “thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Salvation is not given to the poor because they are poor, or withheld from the rich because they are rich. Again, this is not the teaching of God’s Word.

We have learned that many of the statements made in this parable contradict what the Word of God says about death and about salvation. It is obvious therefore, that the entire parable is similar to the other parables of the immediate context in that it is a satirical irony aimed at the Pharisees. In this case, it is aimed at the teachings of the Pharisees. The Pharisees taught all the untruths given in this parable. As we consider that fact, I believe that the point is more clear as given in 17:1, that the offences are the offences to the truth of God’s Word.

Now that we understand that this parable is satirical irony (an expression of the opposite of what is literally meant in a critical manner) let us consider the particulars of the parable more carefully.

The rich man was “clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously”. Bearing in mind that the Pharisees saw themselves as better than the common man, I believe we may conclude that the rich man represents the Pharisees. Lazarus obviously represents how the Pharisees saw the poor of Israel. Note that Lazarus had sores that the dogs came to lick. We have seen in several parables that the Pharisees saw the common man of Israel in a very poor and abased light, especially in comparison to themselves.

Of course, once the two died, this is not how the Pharisees saw their respective roles. But Christ was using their false teachings about death to emphasize just how wrong they were in those teachings.

The gulf between Abraham’s bosom and hades could represent the great gulf that the Pharisees saw between themselves and the common people of Israel.

The five brother’s of the rich man also represented the Pharisees in that “If they hear not Moses, and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”. This seems to be a rather obvious reference to Christ’s resurrection which most ot the Pharisees refused to believe.

The point of this parable is not to teach what happens at death. It is to point out the false teachings of the Pharisees and that they would not recognize the falseness of them even if one were to rise from the dead.

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

HOME

CAN JESUS CHRIST BE BOTH MAN AND GOD?

Some would say that the answer to that question 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?

How Are We To Understand The Title “Son Of God”?

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?

As we study just a few Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, we will see that their testimony is that the Messiah was not a mere man, but God. I assume that all Bible believing Christians believe that Christ is the Messiah, therefore; if the Messiah is God, and Christ is the Messiah, Christ is 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 was 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.)

Isaiah 9:6 is another Old Testament Messianic prophecy which tells us that the Messiah will be God. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”. It is obvious that this prophecy is about the Messiah, the title “Prince of Peace” tells us that. Also the fact that the “government shall be on His shoulders” tells us that this is a Messianic prophecy. That being the case, we may not simply neglect the title “Mighty God” as if it didn’t apply to the same Messiah. Therefore, we learn from this passage also, that the Messiah was to be God, i.e. “Emmanuel, God with us”.

There are Bible believing Christians that point out, correctly, that the Hebrew word translated “mighty” in the phrase “mighty God” in Is. 9:6 is often used of men as well as of God. The inference is that “mighty El” does not refer to deity. Let us look at the phrase “mighty God” as it occurs in other Old Testament passages to see what we can learn of this phrase.

The phrase in Hebrew is “gebbohr El“. It occurs in Deut. 10:17, “For Jehovah your Elohim is God of gods, and Lord of Lords, a great El, mighty and terrible”. Please note that the title “mighty El” does not denigrate God, it exalts Him as God of gods and Lord of lords.

Another verse where we find the phrase “mighty El” is Jer. 32:18, “….the great the mighty El, the Jehovah of hosts is His Name”. Please note that “El” is one of the titles of Jehovah. That is to say, El is Jehovah.

Consider also Neh. 9:32, “Now therefore our Elohim, the great the mighty and the terrible El Who keepest covenants and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before Thee that cometh upon us…”.

In order to really understand the title “El” let us look at some of the Scriptures in which we find the title used.

It is used of Jehovah in II Sam. 22:32, “…Who is El, save Jehovah?” It is also used of Jehovah in I Sam. 2:3, “…Jehovah is an El of knowledge”. Consider also Psalms 118:29, “El is Jehovah which has shewed us light”. See also Ps. 140:6, “I said unto Jehovah, Thou art my El“. Other passages which tell us that “El” is one of the titles of Jehovah are Deut. 3:24, Ps. 50:1, Ps. 85:8, Ps. 94:1, Ps. 95:3, and Is. 42:5.

In several verses the context makes it clear that “El” is used of the One true God. See for example Is. 45:22, “I am El and there is none else“. Numbers 23:22, “El brought them out of Egypt”. See also Gen. 35:1, Job 9:2, Ps. 68:35, Ps. 90:2 and Daniel 11:36.

“El” is used of idols or false gods as in Is. 45:20, “pray unto a god that cannot save”. Also Is. 44:10, “el is a molten image”. See also Ex. 34:14, Ps. 81:9, Judges 9:46, Josh. 22:22 and Mic. 7:18.

It is used of angels in Ps. 29:1 and 89:6.

It is used of God in contrast to man as in Is. 31:3, “The Egyptians are men and not El…”. Ezek. 28:2, “….thou art a man and not El”. Also Ezek 28:9, “..thou shalt be a man and no El”. Also Hosea 11:9, “For I am El and no man”.

“El” is also translated “might” and “power” in. for example Gen. 31:29 and Deut. 28:32. This gives us it’s basic meaning. It also helps us to understand one of the many characteristics of Jehovah as revealed by this particular title. That is to say, it reveals Jehovah as a God of strength and might.

But what is crucial to our present study is that “El: is never used of man”. That is to say, no man has ever been referred to as “el” in the Bible, except for the Man Jesus Christ, Who is the manifestation of God. “Thou shalt call His Name Emmanu-el” (Is. 7:14).

The Hebrew word “el” is incorporated in some of the names found in the Old Testament, for example Dani-el and Samu-el.. But those names mean “judge of God” and “heard of God” respecitively. The names that incorporate “el” do not refer to Daniel and Samuel as God, they are but servants of God.

Coming back to Is. 9:6, we must conclude that the phrase “mighty God”, far from implying less than deity of the Messiah, it describes the Messiah as God at His most mighty and powerful.

Again, the Messiah is God, Christ is the Messiah, therefore, Christ is God.

There is some controvercy about the meaning and translation of Psalm 110:1. In the KJV it reads, “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 postiion 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 mere man. 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 unot 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 fullfilled 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” that that 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 is subject to God.

Going now to the sixth quote of Pslam 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 a righteous sacrifice. As in Act 2, the Psalm is quoted to show that Christ is the Son of Man. But as in 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 1 or does it refer to Christ as Man as in Acts 2 and Heb. 10? I must say that I just don’t know. Either way, it would be truth. But the important issue is that Christ is not one or the other, Christ is both fully Man and fully God.

One further comment on Ps. 110. It is said by some that “Adoni” (translated “my God”) is never used of God, which proves to some that Christ is not God. However, the paper on this web-site A Study Of The Hebrew Word “Adoni” will prove from scripture that “Adoni” is indeed used of God.

How Are We To Understand The Title “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. But let us continue with a study of the title “Son of God” when used of Christ.

As we study the Scriptures quoted below, we will see that it is absolutely imperative that we consider the context in which the phrase occurs. That is to say, as we will see, when used in reference to Christ, the title “Son of God” must refer to the deity of Christ, or these passages make no sense, or we have men worshipping a mere man, Christ.

Before we look at some of the Scriptures which tell us the true meaning of the title “Son of God” when used of Christ, we must first determine that He 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 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.

Some may be led to the false conclusion that Christ’s line was traced back from Joseph in Luke 3, therefore giving the false impression that Joseph was His father. Let us look however, at Luke 3:23, “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli”. There are two things worthy of note in this verse. One, Joseph was the “supposed” father of Christ, but as we learned in Luke 1:35, he was not, God was His Father. The second thing of note is the fact that in Matthew 1:16, we read, “And Jacob begat Joseph…”. Here we read that Jacob was Joseph’s father. In fact it is expressed in no uncertain terms that Jacob begat Joseph. But in Luke 3:23 we read that Heli, not Jacob was Joseph’s father. This seeming contradiction is made clear when we realize that Heli was Joseph’s father in law and so he was only legally Joseph’s father.

Why is this important in regard to the genealogy of Christ? Because Heli was not Joseph’s father, he was Mary’s father. So in Luke the genealogy we read is actually Mary’s, not Joseph’s. Mary was Christ’s mother, God was His Father.

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”.

Now that we understand that Christ is God’s Son, let us see how those to whom Christ came as Messiah, i.e Israel, understood the title “Son of God”.

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 worshipped Him, saying, ‘Of a truth Thou art the Son of God'”. When Christ walked on water He conveyed the truth that God has authority over all the elements of the earth. When His disciples saw Him do that, they worsipped Him as God, Who has all authority over the elements. And what they said in that worship was He was the Son of God. His disciples understood that the title, “Son of God”, refered to His deity.

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 worshipped Christ once he discovered that He was the Son of God. Only God is worthy of worship. The man was worshipping God and he recognized Him as such when he realized that he had been speaking with the Son of God.

In Luke 22:70-71 we have 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 believer, 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. Even though Christ did not say that He was the Son of God, there is more than ample Scriptural evidence to prove that He was.

In John 5:18 we read “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”. And in John 19 we read of His appearance before Pilate. 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, 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 to be the Son of God made Him equal to God. Only God can be equal to God. Christ was/is God.

Matthew 27:54, “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, ‘Truly This was the Son of God“. Even the centurions realized that this was no ordinary man, i.e. merely a man who believed. Realizing the magnitude of His death they agreed that this was the Son of God. This statement makes absolutely no sense unless we see that “Son of God” refers, in the case of Christ, to Him as deity.

In Acts 8:27-38 we read of the Ethiopian eunuch reading from Isaiah 53. Phillip “preached unto him Jesus” (verse 35). Finally, the eunuch said, “See here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?” (verse 36). “And Philip said, ‘If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest’. And he answered and said ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God“. Here is a man who wanted to be baptized, to identify himself with Christ. His confession to prove his sincerity was that he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. It is clear that in this context he was not confessing that Christ was a mere man who was a believer. He was confessing that Christ was God. How did he express that conviction? By declaring that Christ was the Son of God. Therefore, he understood, as should we, that the title “Son of God’ means that He was and is deity.

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.

The importance of the truth that Christ is God is spoken of in at least two passages. John 20:31, “But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name”. Please note what was necessary to believe in order to have life. We must believe that He is the Christ and that He is the Son of God. It is inconceivable to think that “Son of God” in this context refers to a mere man who is a believer.

Consider also I John 4:15, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God”.

Other Scriptures Which Prove That Christ is God

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 God, Who is, of course, eternal, i.e. He had no beginning and no end. John, through the Holy Spirit, tells us that the Word was with the eternal God. Logic and the imperfect tense dictates that the Word Who was with God is also eternal.

1:14, “..and the Word became flesh”.

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.

5:18, The Jews tried to kill Him “because He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God“. If Christ was making Himself equal to God, does that not prove that He was equal to God? To say that He was not equal to God would make Him a liar. Therefore, we must conclude that He was indeed making Himself equal to God. And how could He have been equal to God unless He was God?

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..

John 8:58-59, “Jesus said unto the, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM“. Then they took up stones to cast at Him…”. The Jews understood that Christ was saying that He is the I AM of the burning bush, that is why they wanted to stone Him. There is no question that I AM is God. Christ said that He is the I AM. We cannot escape the truth that Christ is saying in this verse alone, that He is God.

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“.

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……”.Bullinger’s note on the phrase “express image” is helpful. He writes, “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.

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.”

Titles of Jehovah Ascribed To Christ

In the paper on this web-site Jesus Christ Is 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, as I believe they do, 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 including some in which He Himself claims His deity.

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

John tells us that in order to have life we must believe that Christ is the Son of God. The context of that title, when used of Christ proves that Christ is God.

In short, Scripture is clear that He 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.

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

WILL ISRAEL BE GOD’S PEOPLE FOR THE TRIBULATION?

There are several reasons for my belief that Israel will be God’s chosen people for the tribulation period. One of those reasons is centered on the fact that God dwells with Israel from over the ark, which was and will be again, placed in the Temple in Jerusalem. I believe, therefore, that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem will be the first sign that God is preparing to take back His people to Himself.  Let me offer the scriptural reasons for that belief.

GOD DWELLS WITH ISRAEL FROM HIS TEMPLE

In Exodus 25:21-22 we read, “Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony which I will give you.  There above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all My commands for the Israelites”.  And in Deut. 12:11 we read, “Then to the place the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for His Name …there you are to bring everything I command you”.  It is clear that God told Israel that He would dwell and meet with them from wherever the ark of the Testimony was.

God promises in II Chron. 7:14-16 “….if My people who are called by My Name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and I will forgive their sins and heal their land.  Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place, My eyes and My heart will always be there“.  Of course, there was the other side of this promise, which was the promise of verses 19 and 20. “But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commandments I have given you, then I will uproot Israel from the land I have given them and I will reject this temple which I have consecrated for My Name“.

Indeed, Israel did forsake their God and worship idols and God did reject them.  In II Chron. 36:19 we read of how the Babylonians, “set fire to God’s temple and set fire to Jerusalem”.

For 70 years Israel was lo-ammi (not My people). But when the 70 years were over, God, in His grace took them back again.  Is it any wonder that Israel was so anxious to rebuild the temple?  They understood that it was because they had sinned that God had given them over to captivity, and that God did not dwell with them as long as His dwelling place with them, i.e. the temple, lay in destruction.  So the temple was rebuilt and once again God dwelt with His chosen people.

I suggest therefore, that the building of the temple in Jerusalem will be the sign that God has indeed taken Israel back as His own.

The question now is, do we have any scriptural evidence that the temple will be built by the time of the tribulation? The answer is, yes, we do. The KJV of Dan. 9:27 reads, “”….and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate….”. The note in the Companion Bible on the phrase, “for the overspreading of” reads, “on the wing or battlement of”. The NIV translates 9:27, “And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him”.

The fact that the temple will have been rebuilt by the time of the tribulation is further proved in II Thess. 2:4, “Who (the antichrist -see verse 3) 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”.

Yet another passage which tells us that the temple will be rebuilt by the time of the tribulation is found in Daniel 8:13-14, “Then I heard one saint speaking and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, ‘How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”. Obviously, if the sanctuary is to be “trodden under foot” again, it must be rebuilt before hand.

We know from the scriptural passages quoted above that the temple will indeed have been rebuilt at the time of the tribulation. Therefore, because God dwells with Israel from His temple, and the temple will have been rebuilt by the time of the tribulation, we may conclude that God will once again be dwelling with His people, Israel. That is to say, Israel will have been taken back as God’s people before the tribulation.

THE TRIBULATION IS CENTERED ON ISRAEL

We read in Jer. 30:7, “Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble“. How do we know that this verse is in reference to the tribulation? We know because we read in Matt. 24:21, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be”. Jeremiah tells us that there will be none like this period of Jacob’s trouble, and Matthew tells us that there never was or will be a time like the “great tribulation”. By comparing scripture with scripture we may conclude that Jeremiah speaks of the great tribulation which he refers to as “Jacob’s trouble”.

Matt. 24:21 is a quote from Dan. 12:1, “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy People: and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy People shall be delivered every one that shall be found written in the book”. The phrase “a time of trouble such as never was” tells us that this verse is about the tribulation. . And from the phrase, “thy People” (i.e. Daniel’s People, Israel), we learn that the tribulation will be very Israel centered

THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIBULATION

We read in Rev. 3:10, “Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth“. The Greek word translated “world” is “oikoumenee” and means “inhabited earth”. Dr. E.W. Bullinger describes it as “the Roman empire”. The word translated “earth” is “ge” and means earth as opposed to heaven, or land, i.e. a nation. It’s usage must be determined from the context. Because the “temptation” will come upon a portion of the earth, i.e. the area that was once covered by the Roman empire, obviously, those tried will not be those of the whole earth. Therefore, the last phrase of Rev. 3:10 refers to the tribulation “which shall come upon the inhabited earth (the area once referred to as the “Roman empire”) to test them that dwell in the land. The land referred to here is, of course, Israel.

I believe that the purpose of the tribulation is very clearly stated. It is to test Israel to determine who will be true to God and who will worship the antichrist. When Israel was lo-ammi in the Babylonian captivity they were punished, but not tested. If we are to learn from the scriptures that tell of that period, I believe we will learn that God does not test Israel when they are not His.

THE PARENTHETICAL PERIOD OF THE DISPENSATION OF THE MYSTERY

Continuing with reasons for my belief that Israel will be God’s people at the time of the tribulation, let us consider the question in regard to Israel while our Lord was on earth. It is clear that Israel was God’s people at that time. But the 70th week did not begin in that generation because Israel was put aside as God’s people at Acts 28, when Israel’s leaders rejected their risen Messiah. We speak of a parenthetical period of the dispensation of the mystery, in which Israel is lo-ammi and the church, which is His body is being built. When that parenthetical period ends, the situation concerning Israel’s status in relationship with Her God will be the same as it was at the beginning of that period. That is to say, because Israel was God’s people before the parenthetical period, I believe they will be His people after the end of the parenthetical period.

ESCAPE FROM THE TRIBULATION

Jer. 30:7, “Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it“.

Jer. 31:2, “Thus saith the Lord, ‘The People which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest”. The “grace in the wilderness” is a reference to Rev. 12:13-14, “And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent”. The place in the wilderness to which Israel should flee had been spoken of by Jeremiah. That safe place had been prepared for Israel when Israel was God’s people. That being the case, I believe that at the time it will be used, i.e. the tribulation, Israel will be God’s people.

THE BOOK OF REVELATION

The book of Revelation speaks more about the tribulation than any other book in the Bible. It is also the most Israel centered book in the New Testament. Proof of that statement abounds. For example, 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….”. When we read Exodus 19:6 we will see that it is to Israel that the Revelation is addressed. 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”.

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. This is not to say, of course, that when we read in Rev. 1:5, “to Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins through His blood…” that only Israel was so blessed. Of course not! It does tell us however, that John’s revelation was written specifically to Israel.

The Jewish character of Revelation is another clue that points to the fact that it was written to and about Israel. Consider, for example, 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.

In my opinion, it is quite illogical to conclude that the most Israel centered book in the New Testament is written to and about a nation that will not be God’s people for the period of which that the book centers. Let me put that another way for clarity. Revelation is the most Israel centered book in the New Testament. Revelation is the book that has the most to say about the tribulation. It is only logical to conclude that the tribulation is about a nation that will have been taken back by God, otherwise we have a great deal written about a nation that is not God’s.

THE NEW COVENANT

There are those who believe that the New Covenant is the indication of God taking Israel back as His own. The New Covenant, as described in Jer. 31:33 is that the Lord says that He will, “put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts: and I will be their God, and they shall be My people“. Let us consider the last phrase of this quote, “I will be their God and they shall be My people”.

We must bear in mind that the dispensation of the mystery was not part of prophecy. Because the beginning of the present dispensation was not prophesied, obviously, the end was not prophesied. So when God says in Jeremiah 31 that He will be their God and they will be His people, He is not referring to taking them back after the dispensation of the mystery, He is talking about a relationship that will not change once the New Covenant is put into effect.

IS IT REQUIRED OF ISRAEL TO REPENT BEFORE GOD WOULD TAKE HER BACK?

Many quote Lev. 26 and insist that Israel could not be taken back as God’s people until Israel repents. Let us look at that passage. We read in Lev. 26:23, “But if ye will not hearken unto Me, and will not do all these commandments…….I will do this unto you….”. After explaining all that will befall Israel if they do not obey God’s commandments (the Mosaic Law) we read in verse 40 what Israel must do to regain favor in God’s sight. “If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against Me, and that also they have walked contrary unto Me”.

Does this mean that Israel cannot be taken back unto God until Israel has repented? If it does, then Israel cannot be taken back until the second coming of Christ because it is not until then that Israel repents. How do we know that? From Rev. 1:7 which reads, “Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him….”. But there are several scriptures quoted in the sections above which tell us that Israel will be taken back for the tribulation. We know that there are no contradictions in the Word of God. We must therefore, look more deeply into this question.

For what will Israel repent at the second coming of Christ? Let us consider once again Rev. 1:7, “Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him….”. The phrase “they also which pierced Him” takes us to Zech.. 12:10, “….and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn”. The mourning of Israel will be for the sin of having crucified Christ. But that sin had already been forgiven. How do we know that? Because Christ asked the Father’s forgiveness for them as He hung on the cross when He prayed, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”. We know that that prayer was answered because all during the Acts period, the message of the risen Christ was sent first to Israel.

So Israel does not need to repent in order to be taken back because Her sin of crucifying Christ had already been forgiven Her.

But Israel was not put aside because She crucified Christ, She was put aside because of Her continuing rejection of the risen Christ during the Acts period. Does that mean that according to Lev. 26 She must repent of that sin before She is taken back by God? I think not. We must re-consider the terms of the old covenant as recorded in Lev. 26. “But if ye will not hearken unto Me, and will not do all these commandments….”. Note that the terms of the covenant center on Israel’s faithfulness to obeying the commandments. As terrible a crime as it was, the rejection of Christ was not part of the terms of the old covenant. God does not make up new rules to fit the circumstances. He told Israel what would happen if they disobeyed His commandments. Those commandments did not include their acceptance or rejection of Christ, therefore it is not part of the old covenant.

:There is therefore, no scriptural evidence to conclude that Israel will not be God’s people when the end times begin. And there is a great deal of evidence to conclude that they will be God’s people for the tribulation.

This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond to the opinions expressed in this paper you may e-mail me at: [email protected]

HOME