Your cart is currently empty!
Author: Pastor Greg Allen
-
Where are our souls before conception?
A member of our church family writes:
“In the opening passage of Jeremiah’s prophecy, we read: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,’ and in Psalm 139:16 David said: ‘Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.’ It is clear from the Bible that from the womb, we are a person in God’s eyes. However, my question is about our souls.
“Since persons have eternal souls, where are our souls before conception?”* * * * * * * * * * *
This is a very good question; and a tough one too! What I’d like to do is, first of all, frame the biblical issues that deal with the whole matter of where our souls are before conception; and then, I’d like to bring that matter to bear on the passages you mentioned.
Basically, there have been three views as to the origin of the human soul. This first view would be one that we could call THE PRE-EXISTENCE VIEW. (Although I don’t believe you hold this view, your question somewhat uses the language of “pre-existence”; because it suggests that, because our souls will have an eternal future, they must also have had an eternal past.)
The pre-existence view would answer your question by saying that all human souls were created by God in the beginning of Creation; and that they are held ‘in storage’, so to speak, until they are joined to a human body. (Those who hold this view would naturally point to the passages you mentioned for support.) One form of this view would simply conceive of one pre-existent human soul per person whose physical body was yet to be formed. Once the human body is conceived in the womb, the soul is joined to the forming body. (This would sort of be like the sentimental idea of all the little babies up in heaven – just waiting to be born to nice mommies and daddies somewhere.)
Another form of the pre-existence view – a far more sobering and dreadful one – would be the idea that all human souls have existed eternally; but are confined to a human body as a form of punishment. In this form of the argument, human souls pass through a whole series of incarnations (many different human bodies) throughout history in the process of either paying off the debt of their sins, or incurring more debt as they go along. This view – basically the teaching of Reincarnation – has a long history in human philosophy. It’s found in ancient Greek and Hindu philosophies. It’s also found in modern philosophies such as Theosophy and New Age teachings.
Apparently, the early church theologian Origen held a view similar to the pre-existence view. He taught that creation was an ongoing event; and that the present state is only one “epic” in the existence of the human soul. This is a view, however, that proves to be incompatible with Christian faith and the Bible’s teaching concerning endless punishment, salvation, and eternal life; and it’s one that very few in the history of the church have held. The Bible gives no indication anywhere that our individual souls literally existed before we were conceived in the wombs of our mothers. It gives no indication anywhere of the human soul’s literal existence before the creation of Adam. Some forms of this view would also bring into question the whole need of redemption through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, since our sins could simply be atoned for over countless ages of repeated incarnations. It also calls into question the fall of man; because we’re left to wonder how it could be said in the Scriptures that all have sinned in Adam, if our pre-embodied spirits existed before Adam was born or where somehow held in distinction from the rest of humanity in its actual falleness in sin. And if it’s argued that human souls can sin in eternity past before existing in a physical body, what’s to stop the same soul from sinning again in heaven after leaving the body?* * * * * * * * * *
That, then, leaves us with two other biblically supportable views. The first would be what we could call THE CREATIONIST VIEW. As the name implies, this view holds that each individual human soul is uniquely created at the time of conception. One of the main proponents of this view was the great Princetonian theologian Charles Hodge. In his systematic theology, Hodge wrote, “The common doctrine of the Church, and especially of the Reformed theologians, has ever been that the soul of the child is not generated or derived from the parents, but that it is created by the immediate agency of God” (Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 70).
Hodge defended the creationist view in three ways. First, he argued that it’s the view that most conforms with the marked distinction that the Scriptures makes between the body and the soul. He noted that God first created Adam’s body; and then He, as a subsequent act, breathed the breath of life in him (Gen. 2:7). Hence, God is called “the God of the spirits of all flesh,” rather than saying that He is the God of all flesh (Numbers 16:22). Hodge observed that the Bible presents the spirit as something God forms “within” a man (Zechariah 12:1), and that He gives to those “who walk on” the earth (Isa. 42:5).
Hodge recognized the obvious fact that we all obtain our physical being from our parents. But he saw a clear antithesis between the fathers of our bodies and the Father of our spirits in Hebrews 12:9; “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the father of our spirits and live?” This, he argued, supports the idea that the human soul is a unique creation, distinct from the natural process by which God transmits the material of human body from one generation to another.
A second way Hodge defended the creationist view was through the nature of the human soul. Since – as all acknowledge – the human soul is spiritual and immaterial, it must then be indivisible. The human body is material, and is therefore subject to division; since all of us have a body that is made out of a portion of our fathers and a portion of our mothers. But Hodge argued that the soul, being immaterial, cannot be subject to such divisions; and our souls cannot be made up of a part of our father’s soul and a part of our mother’s soul. If the soul were capable of being divided up and portioned out, as is true of the material body of Adam to all the rest of his offspring, then what we would have would either be one great human soul of which we are all just mere individual modes of existence, or we would have only a portion of the essence of a soul and not a whole one. Hodge argued that the only view that is consistent with the nature of the soul as we understand it is to see each human soul as a unique individual creation at the time of conception.
Third, Hodge argued that the creationist view is the only one that is consistent with the biblical doctrine of the nature of Jesus Christ. All Christians agree that Jesus was fully human in His incarnate state; and that He has forever embraced full humanity to Himself. He was made from the substance of a human being named Mary, and therefore had a human body and a human soul. But as Hodge argued, if the human soul is not a unique creation at the time of conception, then the only way we could understand Jesus’ soul would be as a portion of the soul of His mother; and since Mary was a part of fallen humanity, she then would have passed on a fallen soul to the Savior. Yet, the Bible is clear that Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:14). Jesus’ sinlessness in His human nature could only be possible if His soul had been created uniquely – and not something that was passed on to Him from the essence of the soul of His mother (Luke 1:35). Hence, the very nature of our Savior’s human soul demands that we hold to the creationist view.* * * * * * * * * *
Charles Hodge was a giant of Reformed Evangelical Theology. But another giant was William G.T. Shedd, who was the professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in the late 1800s. He argued a position for the creation of the human soul that was the opposite of Hodge’s. He is recognized as one of the greatest proponents of the biblical option that we could call the TRADUCIANIST VIEW (although this position was also clearly argued by Augustine fifteen centuries earlier).
The name given to this view comes from the Latin word that means “lineage”; and so, traducianism is the belief that the human soul is transmitted from one generation to another along with the human body. Shedd defined the traducianist view as asserting “that the entire invisible substance of all the generations of mankind was originated ex nihilo [that is, out of nothing], by that single act of God mentioned in Gen. 1:27, by which he created ‘man male and female’” (Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, pp. 10-11). In other words, Shedd argued that God created all the aspects and the full essence of all the human family – both body and soul – at one time in the creation of Adam and Eve. And like Hodge, Shedd defended this position in three ways.
First, Shedd argued that the traducianist view, rather than the creationist view, was the one that is most favored by the Scriptures. He pointed to the Genesis 1:26-27 passage to show that both male and female together were called “man” (the Hebrew word for man being “adam”). God, Shedd argued, does not make man in parts but as a whole; since “Adam” = Adam and Eve; so much so, in fact, that they together are called “one flesh” (2:24). Eve was not made from the dust, as was Adam; but rather was made from Adam himself. And she was made in this way in the entirety of her person – soul and body – since we’re not then told that God then blew the breath of life into her as He had done to Adam. “This goes to show,” wrote Shedd, “that when a child of Adam is propagated, the propagation includes the whole person, and is both psychical [that is, concerning the soul] and physical [that is, concerning the body] . . . In and with them, was also created the entire human species: namely, the invisible substance, both psychical and physical, of all their posterity” (p. 21-22). Furthermore, Shedd argues, the Bible teaches us that, on the seventh day, God rested from all His creative work (Gen. 2:1-3); and the “all” would include even any work of creating a human soul (p. 25; see also Exodus 20:11, and Hebrews 4:4). We’re not told of any further creative acts after that – including the work of creating individual human souls.
One of Shedd’s strongest Scriptural arguments in favor of the traducianist view is from Hebrews 7:9-10. There we read that Levi (the head of the Jewish priestly tribe), who would not be born for another 400 years, was said to have paid tithes unto Melchizedek through Abraham; “for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (v. 10). The writer of Hebrews treats Levi as if he had real existence in Abraham. But if, as the creationist argues, Levi’s only real existence in Abraham was in his physical aspect alone, then the argument that the writer of Hebrews was presenting would be meaningless. “The ‘paying of tithes’ which led to the statement is a rational and moral act, and implies a rational and moral nature as the basis of it” (p. 25).
Secondly, Shedd argued for the traducianist view from the theology of human sin. The Bible clearly teaches us that the sin of Adam was a sin that brought guilt, not only upon himself and his wife, but also upon all their posterity (Romans 5:12). But the participation of the offspring of Adam and Eve in their sin could not have been as individuals; it would have had to have been a participation in the form of an entire and complete race that was “in” Adam. “This supposes that the race-form is prior to the individual form; that man first exists as a race or species, and in this mode of existence commits a single and common sin” (p. 29). Human nature existed as a unity in Adam before it was individualized in the birth of his offspring; and it was this “nature” that sinned “in” Adam.
Not only is the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin to his posterity best explained by the traducian view, but – as Shedd argues – so is the inclination to sin that we inherit from Adam. There have been, as best we can know, six thousand years of generations from Adam’s soul to the souls of people living today. And if each individual soul is a special, individual creation – and the immaterial aspect of human beings is not passed along to each generation as is the material aspect – then it becomes difficult to account for the fact of our individual natures being as corrupted and as guilty in sin as was Adam’s without adopting a traducianist view.
Third, Shedd argued from human physiology. Man is seen as a union of soul and body. A body without a soul is not considered a whole man. And we know from experience that the development of the immaterial aspect of a man keeps pace with the development of the material aspect, because the two are in union. (It isn’t our destiny to be a glorified spirit alone, for example; but we are promised to be joined to a glorified body as well.) The traducianist view, according to Shedd, is the view best accounted for by the fact of this union. In addition, Shedd argues that there is no example in nature that we can point to in which one aspect of an organism is created subsequent to another aspect; and this fact is analogous to the traducian view. (Organisms may grow in bulk, and later aspects may appear as the organism develops; but these changes are inherent in the organism itself, and there isn’t something “created” later and then added on to the organism.)* * * * * * * * * *
So; which of these two views is the correct one? They both have their strengths. I have personally found the traducianist view to be the most compelling logically; but the creationist view to be the most compelling Scripturally. And what’s more, they also both have their apparent problems. If the creationist view is true, for example, then it seems that we have the problem of God creating a new sinful soul for each individual; but we know that God could not be personally charged with creating a sinful soul. And if the traducianist view is true, then it seems we have a problem of explaining how Jesus could be fully human – born as He was from fallen humanity – and still Himself be sinless.
Perhaps the most balanced view was the one presented by J. Oliver Buswell in his systematic theology. He wrote that all that the Bible says on the subject of the sinless humanity of Christ “can be consistently adhered to on either of these two theories;” and that “on biblical grounds we cannot firmly establish either the traducian or the creationist view of the origin of the human soul.” And he adds this important note; “As between these two views, it does seem to me that there is a certain obvious fact which has been neglected in the historical discussions, and that is the perfect uniformity and regularity of the arrival of a soul whenever a human life begins to be. In our ordinary thinking when we observe such perfect uniformity and regularity in other matters, we usually ascribe the results to the secondary forces which God has created and which He maintains by His divine providence. For this reason, and for this reason only, I am inclined toward the traducian view, but I do not feel that it can be firmly established on the grounds of any explicit scriptural teaching; and it does not seem to me that to go beyond the facts of experience and the teachings of Scripture in this matter is futile” (J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of The Christian Religion, vol. 2, p. 252).
We know this much for certain then: the human soul does not pre-exist the birth of a human being in eternity past, but is the creation of God that always faithfully makes its appearance in concert with the beginning of that human life. Just when God creates the soul, or what process He uses, is not something that is revealed to us with absolute certainty in the Scriptures. But we are on safe ground in giving God the full credit for sovereingly creating the whole each human individual, and for providentially superintending the process of secondary causes (parents) by which each individual man or woman – body and soul – is brought into being.
Now, this might not answer all our questions; but the debate between these two views does, at least, give us a biblical frame-work within which to think about the passages you brought up.* * * * * * * * * *
And that leads us (finally) to the passages you brought up. First, you mentioned Jeremiah 1:5; where God says to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” On the surface, this would appear to suggest that Jeremiah’s soul pre-existed his body – before he was formed in the womb. But we know this cannot be, because of the Scriptural arguments we’ve just considered.
I would suggest that understanding this passage in no way requires a literal pre-existence view of Jeremiah’s soul. His soul was, as we have seen, either created by God at the time of his birth, or was transmuted to him through his parents as a secondary means under God’s providential guidance. Instead, what this is speaking of is the fact that God sovereingly “chose” and “appointed” Jeremiah to this ministry before he was born – completely apart from any merit of Jeremiah’s; and (perhaps most important to Jeremiah himself), apart from any natural ability on his part.
So, why does it use the “language” of pre-existence? Though we don’t hold to a literal pre-existence of the soul, we must recognize that the Scripture plainly speaks of a kind of “pre-existence” of a man. This is something that the German biblical scholar Franz Delitzsch wrote about in his book, “A System of Biblical Psychology.” He suggested that this Scriptural “pre-existence” is an ideal one that includes not only man in general, but each individual as well; a “pre-existence” that includes the whole man in his entire make-up and history. It’s a “pre-existence” in the sovereign mind and purpose of God that is so sure and certain, that God can speak in the Scriptures of the man yet unborn not merely as a future prospect but “as a present object of divine contemplation in the mirror of wisdom”. This “pre-existence” is nothing less than the divine purpose of God for a man, from which his birth into the world of time is but “the historical realization of an eternal fundamental design” (p. 46).
This is not a literal pre-existence, but rather a pre-existence of purpose. When God sets His purpose on someone, he or she might well be said to “pre-exist” in the mind of God as surely as if he or she were already born; because God’s plan for them will be absolutely fulfilled in history. God spoke that way about King Cyrus, who allowed the exiled people of Judah to return to their land. Almost a hundred and fifty years before he was born, God spoke of Cyrus by name and said, “He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be built,’ and to the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’” (Isaiah 44:28). God even says that he had held Cyrus’ “right hand”; long before he was born to have a right hand to hold! (Isaiah 45:1).
So when God speaks of someone “pre-existing”, He is using a figure of speech. But it is a figure for a wonderful reality – that of God’s unfailing purpose for that man or woman. I believe the same principle is at work in the second passage you mentioned – which, by the way, illustrates this principle wonderfully. David praises God and says, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16). God “saw” David, being yet unformed; but this “seeing” was in the plan and purpose of a sovereign God. God even wrote all of David’s days, long before those days would be realized in David’s own experience; and those days were as sure as if they had already happened.* * * * * * * * * *
This ought to be a great comfort to us. The God who wonderfully created our bodies, and also our souls, has had us in His plan from before we were born. We can say that we “pre-existed” in His sovereign purpose; forever in His mind, and loved by Him as if we already were, and then eventually brought into being – both body and soul – by His mighty providence and in accordance with His perfect plan, in order to walk in that eternal love. We can say that Jesus actually took our literal sins upon Himself and died for us on the cross, even though we had not yet been born to have committed those sins And even today, as believers, “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
This was a great question. Thanks for asking.
In Christ’s love,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Bishops and Cretans
A visitor to our website asks:
“Was Apostle Paul inspired by God when he wrote in Titus 1:5-14 concerning bishops? If so, how come White Baptists don’t have bishops in their churches and Catholic bishops are not married? Also, if Paul can say “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons… Therefore rebuke them sharply,” can’t we say that others are always liars and evil beasts; and deceivers especially Cessasionists who are to be rebuked sharply?”
* * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Friend,
Thanks for visiting our website, and for sending your questions. You’ve asked several questions; but I’ll try to give an answer to each of them.
First, you ask if Paul was inspired when he wrote the words of his letter to Titus concerning “bishops”. In that passage, he writes (as it’s translated in the New King James Version), “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you – if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (vv. 1-9).
Paul was ordering Titus – the pastor of the church on the ancient island of Crete – to set things in order and to appoint qualified men to serve as elders in the church. And the reason he specified their qualifications was so that the men appointed to this role would be capable of defending the faith with good, sound doctrine; and to thus exhort and contradict those who opposed the truth of the gospel. “For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. One of them, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth” (vv. 10-14).”
So, as to your first question, I’d answer ‘yes’. Paul wrote these words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are authoritative instructions regarding the appointment of leaders in a church. In the introduction to this letter, Paul hints at the authority of his words as inspired by God (1:1-3). He there calls himself, “Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ”; and in calling himself an apostle, he is asserting his authority to speak as one sent by Jesus Christ to speak forth a message that Christ appointed him to speak. He said he was so appointed, “according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgement of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior …” (see also Acts 9:15-16; 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:11-12; Eph. 3:1-7). Even Peter acknowledged the divine inspiration of Paul’s letters; calling them “Scripture” (1 Peter 3:15-16).* * * * * * * * * *
Paul writes in these words about the qualifications of “bishops”; and that leads to your next question concerning why it is that many traditions in the church appoint “bishops”, while others do not.
The Greek word that the Bible translates “bishop” is “episcopos”. It is a word formed by joining two Greek words together: “epi”, which means “upon”; and “skopeó”, which means to “pay careful attention to, or look out for” something. An “episcopos”, then, is someone appointed to the role of safeguarding or overseeing something – and in respect to a church, it means someone who is the “overseer” of that church. (The word “bishop” comes from the Old English word “bisceop”; which itself came from the Latin “ebiscopus”.)
It may help to know that, in the Scriptures, three words are used to describe the same office in the church: “pastor”, “elder”, and “bishop”. These three words highlight different aspects of this one office – the word “pastor” or “shepherd” tends to emphasize personal care and nurture (1 Peter 5:2); the word “elder” or “presbyter” emphasizes the spiritual maturity and moral character that befits the one holding that office (note how, in verse 5, Paul mentions “elders”, and then goes on to describe moral qualifications in verse 6); and “bishops”, emphasizes the function of providing for the spiritual oversight of the church (note how Paul then says, “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God …”; that is, as one into whose hands God has entrusted the care of His church).
These three functions are often very clearly used in Scripture to describe the same office. In Acts 20; Paul calls the “elders” of the church of Ephesus together and tells them, “… Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock [i.e., “shepherd/pastor”], among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [i.e., “bishops]” (v. 28). Peter mentions all three when he writes, “The elders who are among you I exhort, I whom am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers …” (1 Peter 5:1-2). Even in the passage you asked me about, we find that Paul writes that Titus should appoint “elders” and gives their specific qualifications (v. 5); and then says, as the reason for this command, that “a bishop must be blameless …” (v. 7).
The New Testament, then, presents these three words as describing one office. But “elders” and “bishops” do not appear to be considered distinct offices in the church until the Second Century. Since that time, many traditions in Christianity (including Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Scandinavian Lutheran) retain a distinct office of “bishop”; but they do so on the basis of tradition – not on the basis of a clear distinction in the Scriptures. Hence, some churches have a distinct office called “bishop”; while churches that have their roots in the reformed tradition simply see “bishop”, “elder” as describing one office. Many churches include “pastor” as a word to describe this office as well (Eph. 4:11).* * * * * * * * * *
Paul mentions that “elders” are to be “the husband of one wife, having faithful children …”; and this leads to your third question: Why are Catholic bishops not married?
The practice of “celibacy” (that is, the state of being unmarried for the purpose of religious devotion and service) has its roots in the idea that, in order to be fully devoted to God’s service, someone should separate themselves from the physical and material demands that marriage and family would place upon them. Paul hinted at this as a desirable thing, if it could be done (1 Cor. 7:32-35). And, of course, John the Baptist, Paul, and even Jesus Himself have been looked upon as examples of celibacy. But Paul was careful not to insist upon this as a standard requirement (1 Cor. 7:28). Elsewhere in the Scripture, Paul warns against those who “forbid” marriage (1 Tim. 4:3). And, as you’ve pointed out from this passage, the Scriptures suggest that a “bishop” may marry (some even say, “should marry”). In the fourth century, however, celibacy began to be a standard that was required of clergy, and that was greatly advanced by the monastic movement; and so the Catholic tradition carries this practice on even today.
Personally, I believe that celibacy should never be made into a standard for service in ministry. The Scriptures clearly permit a church leader to be married. And in some cases, I believe it’s better for a pastor to be married and have children than not. Some say that Paul means that a man should be a “one-wife kind of man”, rather than absolutely require that he have a wife. But however someone understands Paul’s words, it’s obvious that “celibacy” is not a required biblically defined qualification of a bishop.* * * * * * * * * *
In your fourth question you ask, because of Paul’s seemingly harsh words, whether or not we’re permitted to call others “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”; and whether or not we are permitted to sharply rebuke a particular group so “that they may be sound in the faith”. The particular group you specify is “cessasionists”.
“Cessasionists”, as I suspect you are using the word, refers to those within the Christian faith who believe that the remarkable spiritual gifts that characterized the apostolic era of the church – such gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit as miracles, healings, tongues, and prophetic utterances – ceased when that era came to an end and the New Testament Scriptures were completed. Cessasionists stand on one end of this debate; and on the other end are those of the Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions. There are groups that fall between these two: closer to the cessasionists’ end would be those who believe that the Holy Spirit still may at times perform such miracles, but would insist that such manifestations are very rare, not at all normative, and should be evaluated with caution; and closer to the Pentecostal/Charismatic’s end of the argument would be those of the “Third Wave” movement who believe that many of those New Testament manifestations are being performed by the Holy Spirit today and are normative, but that they are not required as necessary proofs of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Now, I would consider this to be a debate that occurs within the perimeters the family of God. It is an “in-house” debate – not a debate between those who are in the family of God and those who are not. Representatives from views all along this continuum are sincere believers who love and trust Jesus Christ, and who make legitimate appeals to God’s word to support their argument. So I don’t believe that it would be appropriate to use Paul’s words in the Titus passage to “sharply rebuke” a fellow believer on this issue or for being a cessasionist; or to call them liars, evil beasts or lazy gluttons. That would certainly not be in keeping with the context of Paul’s words. (And by the way; those were not Paul’s words. He was quoting from one of the plays of the Cretan poet Epimenides, simply to show that this was the testimony of the Cretans concerning themselves. Paul didn’t make a practice of going around talking about people in that way.)
Paul was not speaking of the ‘cessasionist’ debate at all in Titus. Rather, he was plainly speaking about rebuking those who were “idle talkers and deceivers” (1:10); and in his letter, he goes on to describe them as subverting whole households with false teaching for dishonest gain (1:11), as embracing Jewish practices in a legalistic manner (v. 14), as living in a sinful manner that denied their profession of faith (1:15-16), and who concentrated on foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions and strivings about the law (3:9-11). We are always safest when we interpret a passage of Scripture in accordance with its context.
In Christ’s love,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
God's Curse
A recent visitor to our website asks a very simple but very important question:
“Are we still under God’s curse?”* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
That is a question to which I’d have to give a “yes and no” answer. If we live apart from God’s grace through Christ and are left in our sins, then the answer is “yes” – we are still under God’s dreadful curse. But if we have placed our trust in the forgiveness of sins that Jesus purchased for us on His cross, and now stand in God’s grace through Him, then the answer is an emphatic “no” – we are wonderfully and completely set free from God’s curse in Jesus.* * * * * * * * * *
Perhaps a good place to begin is to understand what this “curse” is all about. We’re first told about it in the story of Genesis. There, after God made the first man, and placed him in the Garden of Eden to tend it, He told Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told Adam, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17). That’s our first introduction to this “curse” – God’s warning that death would occure if he disobeyed God’s command.
As we’re told in the next chapter of Genesis, Adam’s wife surrendered to the temptations of the devil and ate of that fruit; and then she gave to her husband, and he also ate. And the next thing we discover is that God called for Adam and Eve, and they hid from Him (3:8-10) Immediately after eating, a separation and a sense of alienation occurred between themselves and the God who made them. As a result, they were driven from the garden, and prohibited from eating of “the tree of life” and thus living forever (Gen. 3:22). The “curse” is “death”. They eventually experienced physical death; but the most profound death they experienced was that immediate separation from God because of sin. That, really, is what that curse is all about – separation from the one who made us; a separation that is spiritual “death”.
And there were other tragic aspects of that curse that sprang forth from that separation. For one thing, Adam’s sin brought a curse upon the whole rest of creation over which he had been placed. God told him, “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:17-19).
And another aspect of this curse is that sin brought a curse upon the offspring of Adam. It was shortly after this sin occurred that Adam’s son Cain slew his own brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Indeed, the curse of Adam’s sin has brought a curse on the whole human race; “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” (Rom. 5:12).
I believe that one of the reasons God gave His Ten Commandments to mankind was to demonstrate the impact of this terrible curse. Moses told the people of Israel, “Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I commanded you today, to go after other gods which you have not known” (Deut. 11:26-28). God has set His law before us with the promise of blessing if we obey, and a curse if we disobey; but now, we only find that the law condemns us as being under a curse, because we so constantly disobey it and sin against it.
The apostle Paul said the same thing in Galatians 3:10. He wrote, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, [here quoting Deuteronomy 27:26] ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for [quoting from Habakkuk 2:4] ‘the just shall live by faith.’ Yet the law is not of faith, but [quoting Leviticus 18:5] ‘the man who does them shall live by them.’” We have no hope of being acceptable in God’s sight through the law. It only condemns us and confirms us as under the curse of sin.
So, there’s the “yes” part of the answer to your question. It’s true that, if we were left to ourselves – even if we were to try to please God through obedience to His law, we justly remain under the curse of God for sin – the guilt of sin that we have inherited from Adam, our own inability to obey God’s commandments because of the sinful nature of Adam that we also inherited, and the “death” that results from all of it. “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). What a horrible curse this is!* * * * * * * * * *
But God didn’t leave us in this situation without hope. He did something to set us free from this dreadful curse. Paul, in that same Galatians passage I just quoted, goes on to say, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, [here quoting Deuteronomy 21:23], “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” This Old Testament law declares to us that Jesus – who hung on the cross for us – became “cursed” for us and on our behalf. He actually became “a curse for us”; taking upon Himself the punishment for our sins, and experiencing in our place God’s rightful wrath for our disobedience.
I like to call this “the Great Curse Reverse”. God, though Christ, has reversed the effects of Adam’s sin upon humanity through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. The judgment of death for sin is put in reverse, for example; because as Paul writes, “For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17). He goes on to say, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offenses might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (vv. 18-21).
God’s great ‘curse reverse’ through Christ will also reverse the effects of the curse upon creation itself. Paul writes, “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Rom. 8:19-21).
In fact, just as the Bible begins with the story of how the creation of heaven and earth was corrupted because of the curse, the Bible then ends in the Book of Revelation with the story of a new heaven and a new earth. In the closing pages of the Bible, it says, “And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him” (Rev. 22:3)? The story begins with the way to the tree of life being blocked as a sign of the curse (Gen. 3:22); and it ends with the way of the tree of life being opened as a sign that the curse is removed (Rev. 22:2).* * * * * * * * * *
So, there’s the emphatic “no” part of the answer to your question. Just as it’s true that we’re under God’s curse apart from Christ, it’s also wonderfully and gloriously true that we’re NOT under the curse if we are “in” Christ through faith. Jesus took the curse of God for our sins upon Himself on the cross, and became a curse for us; and therefore everyone who places their trust in Him is set free from the curse of Adam’s sin.
I feel I need to conclude by saying this: There isn’t anything more important in our lives than being clear on our own situation before God; and making sure that we are in Christ and thus delivered from the curse of sin. John wrote, “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). That puts the matter as plainly as it can be put. I hope, dear friend, that you have clearly placed your trust in the cross of Jesus yourself; because that’s where your question, “Are we still under God’s curse”, receives it’s true answer.
Thank you very much for your good question, and God bless you.
In Christ’s love,
Pastor Greg Allen
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Playing Cards
Lynn, a visitor to our website, writes:
“Some people make comments about ‘playing cards’ as something that’s ‘not Christian’. What does the Bible say about this?”* * * * * * * * * *
Dear Lynn,
Thanks for writing. First of all, we’d have to say that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a deck of cards. They’re simply pieces of paper with images on them; and are not evil in and of themselves. The morality of playing cards has to do with the way they are used rather than with the cards themselves.
What’s more, we’d also have to say that there are lots of ways that cards can be used that are not, in and of themselves evil at all. There are lots of card games that are simply innocent pass-times; and there are lots of slight-of-hand tricks done with cards that are innocent amusements. (I used to enjoy building card-castles when I was a kid – although I was never much good at it. And almost all kids have ruined perfectly good decks of their parents cards by clothes-pinning them to the spokes of their bikes.) The rightness or wrongness of cards is determined in areas that are secondary to the cards themselves – specifically, what they’re used for.
For example, a deck of cards may be used in a sinful way when they are used for gambling or games of chance. And even then, the Bible doesn’t address gambling directly. We have to determine the morality of gambling – and subsequently, the use of cards themselves for gambling – by looking at what the Bible says about other applicable principles.* * * * * * * * * *
“Games of chance” is really a misnomer; because “chance” as a word is used (in such cases) to mean that which happens in an absolutely spontaneous way and apart from any cause. But the Bible tells us – even with reference to so-called “games of chance” – “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” (Prov. 16:33). There really is no such thing in God’s universe as something that happens apart from a cause – and hence, there is no such thing as “chance” (in that sense). “Games of chance”, however, operate as if this were not the case – as if God were not in control of His universe. It wouldn’t be wrong, I believe, to play such games for pure entertainment – with the understanding that that’s all they are. But when we gamble against “chance” in order to make money, or when we bet our own resources against “chance”, then we’re really placing our trust and our resources in something other than God’s providential care, and are actually putting God to the test. This is a very wrong thing to do.
Gambling – including gambling through the use of cards – is also wrong because it is wasteful; and because it foolishly places the resources God has given us at the risk of loss. (And besides; such card games are, very often, not games of “chance” at all. Those skilled in the use of cards know how to manipulate them in such a way as to victimize other players.)
Those who seek to “get rich quick” through the card table sin by coveting; and the vast majority of those who have tried it only succeeded in making their families suffer, and rendered themselves incapable of meeting their financial obligations in the way God intended. Jesus leads us away from such “get-rich-quick” (that is to say, “get-poor-quicker”) schemes when He says, “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).
What’s more, gambling and card games for money are built on the goal of defrauding someone else of what rightfully belongs to them. It encourages your opponent to put what belongs to them at risk for your sake; and this is wrong to do, because Jesus has taught us that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27). And what’s more, if such games are played in such a way as to deliberately deceive, we are actually stealing what belongs to someone else. The Bible says, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need” (Eph. 4:28).* * * * * * * * * *
As I’ve suggested, those arguments for the immorality of cards are based on “motives” and “goals” – not on the card games themselves. But sometimes, card games can be played with no intention to gamble, and no intention to gain, and no intention to deceive – and even still be wrong.
Suppose someone lived a life of chronic and addictive gambling; but then became convicted and deeply sorry for their sin, and repented of it having their faith in Jesus Christ. Suppose they then join a church, and begin to grow in the faith. Suppose such a person – a relatively new believer – goes to the home of another believer in the church for dinner. And suppose that, after dinner, their host (innocently) pulls out a deck of cards and asks if their guests would like to play a little game for fun. And suppose that, as a result, the new believer is outraged! “How can you play cards?!! Don’t you know that the deck of cards is the devil’s own prayer-book?!! How can you call yourself a Christian and even OWN a deck of cards?!!”
Now, a mature believer would recognize that a deck of cards, in and of itself, is amoral; and that this new believer has simply not yet matured in understanding. But if that deck of cards causes the younger believer to stumble and struggle – and even play in contradiction to the impulse of their weak conscience, then it would be unloving and insensitive to then proceed to play. It would, in fact, be a sin to do so. A different moral principle would be involved in such a case – that of refraining, because of the motive of love, from doing anything that would cause our brother to stumble.
Paul dealt with this matter in the Scriptures. In that case, he was dealing with the matter of eating certain foods that might be offensive to a new believer – a believer for whom such foods involved paganism, and are still considered offensive to him; but the principle is basically the same as it would be for cards. He wrote, “I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him is is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food [and here, you could also insert “cards”], you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food [or “cards] the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil …” (Rom. 14:14-16). If it comes down to the choice of loving our brother or exercising our freedom to play an innocent game of cards, we’re to forgo our freedom and show loving care for the spiritual nurture of our brother instead.* * * * * * * * * *
In summary, “cards” falls into a particular category that the Bible calls “doubtful things” (Rom. 14:1). The deck of cards is not immoral in and of itself; other considerations – such as motives and goals, and the whole question of love for others – has to be looked to in order to determine when cards are right or wrong to play.
Thank you for your good question; and I do hope this helps.
In Christ’s love,
Greg Allen
Pastor
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Too Young for Communion?
I have heard many pastors say that one should not take communion unless one truly believes in the meaning behind the ritual. How does this apply to children? I believe that very young children cannot comprehend the depth of Christ’s sacrifice; while they can believe in God and Jesus, they are not mature enough to understand what His sacrifice means to us. 1 Corinthians 11:26 says, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” In Deuteronomy 1:39, it says: “(Y)our little ones and your children … today have no knowledge of good and evil.”
How could a child who has not reached the age of accountability, and cannot discern good and evil, make the proclamation of Christ’s death and it’s meaning?* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
Thank you for this good question. I’ve had to struggle with this myself – not only as a pastor but as a father concerned for my own children. I’ve had to wrestle with the question of when children should be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Many sincere Christians differ on this matter; but I’ll do my best to give you my opinion.* * * * * * * * * *
First, let’s begin by thinking about what the marvelous ceremony of the Lord’s Supper (or “Communion” or “the Eucharist”) means. I would suggest that what a church understands it to mean will have a direct impact on how that church believes it should be practiced – and who it believes should participate in it.
In the Catholic tradition, Jesus’ words are taken literally: “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Catholics teach that, while the appearance of the bread and wine remain the same, they are changed in substance into the actual body and actual blood of Jesus in the ritual of the Mass. (Lutheran theology similarly takes those words to be literal. It teaches, however, that Jesus is actually present in, with, and under the bread and wine; but not that the bread and wine actually change into the body and blood of Jesus.)
The Catholic Mass, therefore, is viewed as a resacrifice of the actual body and blood of Jesus; and the bread and wine are to be adored as such. As a sacrament, it is viewed as nourishment for the soul – one that actually unites the partaker with Christ; and each Mass is viewed as a resacrificing of the body and blood of Jesus for the atonement of sins. Theologically, the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist is viewed to work “ex opere operato” (which means, “by the work performed”). In other words, it’s effectiveness in imparting God’s grace is more dependent on the correct performance of the act than on the faith of the one participating in it.
Reformed (or Protestant) churches reject the idea that the bread and juice are the same in substance as the actual body and blood of the Savior. They do not take Jesus’ words to mean that the bread and wine literally become His body and blood; and so they do not view the Lord’s Supper as a resacrificing of Christ’s body and blood, but rather as a commemoration of the body and blood of Jesus once sacrificed on the cross. Reformed churches thus understand the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic act that expresses sincere faith in the one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
There is an element of faith in Catholic practice of course. The sacrament of “Confirmation” proceeds the first communion of a Catholic boy or girl – and it usually occurs by or about the age of 12. In the Reformed tradition, however, the genuine faith of the participant is the essential factor in participation in the Lord’s Supper – apart from a “Confirmation”.* * * * * * * * * *
These differences in practice are because of differences in what the Lord’s Supper is understood to mean. So then, what does the Bible say it means?
The meaning that the Bible gives to the Lord’s Supper can be summarized in three things; and I think that understanding its biblical meaning helps us to understand who may participate in it. First – and I would say most important of all – it is an act of remembrance. “… Do this in remembrance of Me”, Jesus said (Luke 22:19). Paul wrote, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). As a memorial act that commemorates the sacrifice of Jesus for us on the cross, one very important element in defining who may participate in it is the ability of that person to intelligently connect the act of eating and drinking to a trust in Jesus’ body being broken and blood being shed on the cross for our sins. It’s an act of faith in which we say a personal “yes” to the sacrifice of Jesus. This would require a sense of sober reflection, personal repentance, and serious appreciation for what Jesus did. Even a very small child can say “yes” to the sacrifice of Jesus; but I think careful examination and loving instruction are required to determine that this has indeed happened.
Second, the Lord’s Supper is a celebration of our communion together as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul wrote, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Paul was writing to warn Christians against the dangers of participating in idolatry through joining in with idolatrous feasts; but in stressing this point, he used the Lord’s Supper as an illustration of how such a feast joins us with those who worship through it. In a back-door way, then, Paul is showing us that the Lord’s Supper is meant to be viewed as an illustration of our own communion with one another as believers. This, again, would require that the participant understand that they are part of “one body” through faith in Christ (Eph. 4:4); and a child certainly could do this intelligently, but not without instruction.
A third thing that the Lord’s Supper biblically illustrates is our anticipation of heaven, and of the time when we will finally be in the presence of our Savior. When Jesus ate His last meal with the disciples, He took the cup, gave thanks, and told them, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:12). In Mark, He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark. 14:25). Paul said that, by eating and drinking, we proclaim Jesus’ death “till He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). In this sense, the Lord’s Supper is a prefiguring of that great meal – the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9) – that Jesus will at last enjoy with His redeemed ones in heaven. A small child could certainly understand that – but again, not without instruction.* * * * * * * * * *
You’ll notice that I keep repeating the word “instruction”. The significance of these things must be taught. I believe that this would apply to all professing Christians of any age – and that would include small children, if they are able to understand.
I would say then that a small child may participate in the Lord’s Supper – but that he or she should gently and lovingly be instructed by his or her parents or guardian to “wait” until they have clearly placed an intelligent faith in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and can understand the connection of the Lord’s Supper to that event. The ability to do so, of course, may vary from child to child. I think that “faith” rather than “age” is the key issue. Your pastor or a church leader can help you determine if your child is ready for this.
When my children were small, my wife and I sought to teach them what the Lord’s Supper means, and to help them approach that time with an intelligent faith in Jesus. When we thought they were finally ready to partake of it seriously and with genuine faith, we told them so; and then, we invited them to participate with thanks to the Savior. It was a very important day for them – and us – when they could finally do so. I believe that, because of this, it will always remain a genuinely significant celebration to them and will never be viewed by them as a pointless ritual.
Blessings in Christ,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Sins of the fathers?
A visitor to our website writes:
“During a recent Bible study group session, we were reading 2 Chronicles 25:4; where it forbids that “the children be put to death for their fathers”. All of us recalled reading Exodus 34:7; where it says that God visits the iniquities of the fathers on the children. We’re questioning the contradiction between these two books and verses; and would be very interested in your explaining this to us.”* * * * * * * * * *
Thank you for your question. Actually, I don’t believe that there’s a contradiction between them at all. I think it will help to show this if we look at these two passages separately.
The first part of your question has to do with the story of Amaziah, the king of Judah. His father was King Joash – a good king so long as his mentor, the priest Jehoiada, lived to influence him in the right direction. When Jehoiada died, however, Joash allowed himself to be influenced by his companions toward the worship of false gods. God even raised up a prophet – Zechariah the son of Jehoiada – to call him to repentance; but Joash had the prophet stoned to death. The Bible tells us that “Joash the king did not remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father [and I take that to mean something like an ‘adopted’ father] had done to him, but killed his son; and as he died, he said, ‘The LORD look on it, and repay!’” (2 Chron. 24:22).
God did indeed repay Joash for this evil act. He permitted the Syrians to come against Joash with a very small army; yet, this small army killed many of the leaders of Judah, and carried a large number of prisoners to Damascus. They even critically wounded Joash himself. And then, as Joash was recovering in bed from his injuries, a few of his servants conspired against the king and murdered him in bed because of what he had done to the son of Jehoiada.
It was into this horrible situation that Joash’ son Amaziah became king. The Bible tells us that Amaziah was a good king who sought to do what was right in the sight of the Lord (although it admits that he wasn’t always loyal in this). And this brings us to the first verse you asked about. 2 Chronicles 25:3-4 says; “Now it happened, as soon as the kingdom was established for him, that he executed his servants who had murdered his father the king. However, he did not execute their children, but did as it is written in the Law of the Book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall die for his own sin.’” (That command, by the way, is found in Deuteronomy 24:16. It comes in a portion of Deuteronomy in which God gives the people of Israel principles of justice under which they are to operate.)
So; that’s the background for the first part of your question. Amaziah, in obedience to the Lord’s command in Deuteronomy, limited the extent of his act of retribution to the servants who had killed his father – and did not kill the sons of the servants (as perhaps a less godly king might have done in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of future conspiracies against himself). But that leads us to the other verse you mention, and to the apparent contradiction it presents.
In Exodus 34:7, it describes a very remarkable story. God, in response to Moses’ request, reveals His glory to him. In doing so, God presents Himself as a merciful, gracious and longsuffering God – a God who abounds in goodness and truth – “keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”
It’s that last statement – the one concerning God “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children” – that seems to be in conflict with the story of Amaziah. (This same principle, by the way, is mentioned in such passages as Exodus 20:5; Leviticus 26:39; Numbers 14:18 and 33; Isaiah 14:21 and Jeremiah 32:18). So how do we reconcile these two things? How do we understand, on the one hand, that God – as He Himself says – visits the iniquities of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generation; and yet prohibits, in His law, a son from being put to death for the sins of his father?* * * * * * * * * *
In sorting this out, I think that it’s very important to notice that it’s clearly God – and not man – who visits the iniquities of the fathers on the children. If “iniquity” is to be “visited” on anybody else than the one who committed the sin, it’s God alone who is to arrange the visit! Someone may be tempted to “pay back” someone else that they can’t get to any longer (perhaps because that “someone else” had already died) by smacking their kids instead. But it’s important to remember Hebrews 12:19 – “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written [in Deuteronomy 32:35], ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” It also says in Leviticus 19:18 (a very famous verse), “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”
Vengeance, in the Bible, is always presented as belonging to God and not individuals. The problem with our avenging ourselves is that we can never do it as perfectly or as righteously as God does. We can’t see into other people’s hearts; nor can we know their real motives perfectly. And so, we’ll always tend to avenge ourselves on the basis of faulty information, or out of our own impure motives. Or we’ll tend to “over-avenge” ourselves, or avenge ourselves against the wrong parties, or take vengeance in an inappropriate way. This is why God tells us not to do it; but instead, to leave it to Him to do. He says that vengeance is His prerogative alone – and that’s good, because only He can do it perfectly. And so, it’s God’s proper place alone to “visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children”; and it’s never the place of man to do so. In fact, it would be utterly unjust for us to do it.
Another thing that I think is important to notice regarding this apparent contradiction is that the “iniquity” of the guilty fathers being “visited” on the children does not necessarily mean that the children are put to death for the sins of the fathers. It sometimes does (as in the case of King David’s child through Bathsheba – 2 Sam. 12:14); but not always. There are many ways that a father’s iniquities can be visited on the children.
For example, a father who sins brings unwanted and undesirable consequences on all those around him – including his own household and his own children. We all know many children who suffer because of the sinful choices of their fathers – and, in some cases, those consequences last for a very long time. In ancient times, there were few concerns as important to a man as that of his responsibility to the generations that would follow him. And so, in this case, I think it would be as if God were saying, “Listen, o man – you who intend to sin; I’m giving you a warning! You are not an island. Your actions affect other people close to you. Your sins hurt innocent bystanders – particularly your own children. Don’t think that you can sin without serious consequences that hurt those who are most precious to you.” An example of such consequences from the Old Testament might be the way David’s sin of adultery and murder resulted not only in the death of his innocent child (2 Sam. 12:14), but also the incestuous act of his son Amnon (2 Sam. 13:14), and the rebelliousness of his son Absolom (2 Sam. 12:10-12 and 16:20-23).
Have you ever heard the saying, “I’m gonna’ smack you so hard, your parents are gonna’ say ‘Ouch’”? I think this is the same sort of thing in the reverse direction: God may be warning a man in this passage that, when God punishes a man for his rebellious and heard-hearted sinfulness, He “smacks” him so hard that his kids feel the pain. I’ve been a pastor long enough to testify that children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren, do indeed do feel the pain of God’s punishment for the wicked rebelliousness of the fathers! It’s a sobering thought; … and I think it’s meant to be.
Another way that the father’s iniquities can be visited on the children is in the influence they live to personally have on those children. I think it’s interesting that God says that the iniquities of the fathers are visited “to the third and fourth generation”. If you think about it, it’s possible for a man to live long enough to have a direct influence on his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Rarely would a man live long enough to have immediate influence on a child to “the fifth generation”. And remember that a “father” is to be the spiritual head of the family. And so, if this is the case, the “visitation” comes in the way that the sinning father is capable of bringing an immediate and negative influence on those generations that are alive at the same time he lives. In other words, his sins are visited upon the children and the children’s children because they learn to adopt his practices and behaviors – and also end up suffering the same consequences.
I’m sure you’ve seen this sort of thing in actual experience; where some family patriarch can lead his whole clan into the same sort of behavior and characteristics he exhibits – for good or ill. One example of this (although with in reference to a godly man) might be from the Old Testament: how Isaac proved at times to be a deceiver in the same way that his grandfather Abraham had been (Gen. 12:10-20 and 26:6-11). Another example might be the way that the prophet Samuel’s learned bad parenting habits from his foster father Eli; and as a result, Samuel’s sons were rebellious as Eli’s were (1 Sam. 2:12-17 and 8:1-3). If this is true even of the godly; then think how much more true it is of the ungodly! It’s a terrible judgment from God for a wicked man’s offspring to become as wicked – or even more wicked – than he was! (By the way; if you’re studying the stories of the kings of Israel and Judah, you certainly see that played out an awful lot!)* * * * * * * * * *
So then; I really don’t think there’s a conflict between these two passages. They’re actually dealing with two different things. One is dealing with the matter of the limits of human justice (that the children are not to be put to death for the sins of their fathers); and the other is dealing the matter of the results of sin with respect to divine judgment (that the sins of the fathers have unwanted and undesirable consequences that impact their immediate offspring negatively). I hope my suggested answer helps clarify this for you and your Bible study group.
Let me add one more thing in closing. The fact that the consequences of our sins harm other people – especially people we care about the most – is a terrible reality that we cannot escape (as many of us know all too well). We can repent of our sins; but sometimes, repentance comes too late to stop the unwanted consequences and the harm our sins have caused to others. It’s important to be realistic and to stress that fact. But it’s also important to stress that, as great as our sins might be, God’s grace is always far greater than our sins. As the Bible says; “… Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” (Rom. 5:20). The single innocent Person who most felt the consequence of our sins is the Son of God – and He felt it willingly and in love, when He took our sins upon Himself on the cross and died in our place.
And the good news is that, because Jesus died, we can never ‘sin’ ourselves beyond the grace of God to forgive us completely, to wash us clean, and to make us to stand in perfect righteousness before Him. God may not remove all the temporal consequences of our sins from us or from our children; but Jesus has most certainly paid the eternal consequences of our sins on the cross. And so, as the apostle John wrote, “If we confess ours sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
Praise God for this! We may blow it horribly in life; but we cannot blow it so much that God cannot still grant us eternal life in Christ.
Thanks for your question.
Pastor Greg Allen
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Difference between Pharisees and Sadducees?
A church member writes: “In Luke. 18:13 I read about the Pharisee praying his prayer, thanking God that he is not like the other men. Then the tax collector prayed his prayer of humility. Somehow I always thought that the other man was a Sadducee; and I was surprised when I read it again and found it was the tax collector and not the Sadducee. Where did I get the idea that the Sadducee was ‘sad you see’, and that therefore that was how you distinguish one from the other? What is the difference between the Pharisee and the Sadducee? Is there any other place that uses the Pharisee and the Sadducee in a situation that would have made me think that the Sadducee was a humble man?”
* * * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
I think a good way to deal with the confusion on this would be to clarify who these three biblical characters are: the tax collector, the Pharisee, and the Sadducee.
First, let’s consider the tax collector or tax gatherer. The tax collector in the New Testament was a Jewish man who had, basically, become a traitor to his own people. (Some Bible translations refer to a tax collector as a “publican”; as the King James Version.) Sometimes, a tax collector was a wealthy man who contracted with the Roman government for the responsibility to collect taxes from a specific district – often with the backing of the Roman military. Such a man was often called a “chief tax collector”, because others worked under him. An example of such a man was Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). On some occasions, a chief tax collector was a non-Jewish person; but in the case of Zacchaeus, he was a Jewish man. Others, also called tax collectors, were employed by the chief tax collector to do the actual collecting of the tax money from their own towns-people. A good example of that sort of tax collector would probably be Levi – or, as he is also known, Matthew (Mark 2:13-17).
Now, let’s consider who the Pharisee were. The Pharisees was a religious and political party that had its origin in the second century before Christ. During a time when it seemed as if the whole world was embracing Greek culture, the Jewish group known as the Hasidim arose to combat this influence and to preserve Jewish ways. Eventually, one branch of the Hasidim broke off and formed their own community. Others however, who remained a part of regular Jewish life, formed the group that later became known as the Pharisees (“separate ones”). They so esteemed the “letter” of the law of Moses (more so than the “spirit” of the law), and so esteemed the oral traditions that were said to have sprung from the law, that they developed strict applications of the law for everyday life. The most famous Pharisee in all the Bible – although few people realize that that’s what he once had been – is the Apostle Paul (Phil. 3:5).
The reason Jesus compared a Pharisee with a tax collector in the story you mentioned is because there couldn’t have been two greater opposites than a Pharisee and a tax collector. A Pharisee was an esteemed and respected student and defender of the law; and was considered to be a careful seeker of righteousness through the law. A tax collector, however, was considered a reject of the law – the most despised person in the community; a greedy sinner who had become a traitor to his own people, and who collected money from his fellow Jews to give to Roman Gentile oppressors. Jesus used these two persons in His story to show that it’s the humble, repentant sinner who confesses his or her sin that God justifies – rather than the proud, strictly religious, self-righteous man or woman who boasts in good works.
This leads us to who the Sadducees were. As you might have picked up by now, a Sadducee is not at all the same thing as a tax collector. The Sadducees were, like the Pharisees, a political and religious party in Jewish culture. Some scholars believe that they had their roots in a high priest named Zadok who lived in the days of David and Solomon (2 Sam. 15:24; 1 Kings 1:34-35); although this isn’t certain. By Jesus’ day, they were the ruling party in Jewish cultural life. They were generally wealthy men; and they generally tried to get along with the Roman government.
The Sadducees were distinct from the Pharisees in several ways. The Sadducees, for example, rejected the oral traditions that the Pharisees held to. The Sadducees believed that only the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were authoritative. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, and in angels and spirits; while the Sadducees rejected such beliefs (Acts 23:6-10). (This, by the way, is probably why you’ve heard that little saying about the Pharisees and the Sadducees: The Pharisees believed that they were righteous because of their good works – and thus were “Phar” [fair] “you see?” And because the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels or spirits or in the resurrection, they were “Sadd … you see?” This was just a cute way of explaining the differences between them; but had no actual connection to their names. We preachers can come up with the strangest things sometimes, can’t we?)
A perhaps-overly generalized way to think about the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the times of Jesus was to see the Pharisees as Scripturally liberal (because they added oral traditions to its commands), but conservative in politics (because they opposed the Romans); and the Sadducees as Scripturally conservative (because they rejected oral tradition), but liberal in politics (because they sought to fit in with the Romans). Both groups fought against each other for influence over the population; and both groups were in conflict with Jesus (Matthew 22:15-33; and especially verse 34 and following).
You asked if there was any story in the Bible that would suggest the idea that a Sadducee was a humble man. I’m afraid I know of none. They are generally presented, along with the Pharisees, as proud and in debate with the Savior. They are both symbolic of religious pride and arrogance in the New Testament. And I’m afraid I would have to admit that, even though I have much in common with a sinful tax collector, I also have a little bit of the Pharisee/Sadducee complex in me at times. May God have mercy on me.
In Christ’s love,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Baptized for the dead?
A church member writes:
I have a question about 1 Corinthians 15:29. In the New International Version, this verse reads, “Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are to raised at all, why are people baptized for them?” I have been confused in the past by Mormon teaching on this verse; and I still get twisted around by it. It sounds as if this verse is saying that, if people are going to be raised from the dead, then it’s okay to be baptized for the dead. What does this verse really mean?* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
You’re not alone in being confused by this verse. I consulted several different commentaries to see what they had to say about it; and there’s a surprising number of different opinions. (One frustrated commentator said that he knew of over thirty different interpretations, and all of them – according to him – wrong!) Hopefully, I won’t muddle things up too much more by giving mine to you.* * * * * * * * * * *
First, let’s understand what Mormons teach from this verse. It’s their belief that the spirits of deceased relatives or friends who rejected Mormonism in life can still become Mormons after death. But because they are spirits and have no body, it’s impossible for them to be baptized into Mormonism. Baptism into Mormonism is essential, in their teaching, to a spirit progressing in the heavenly realms; and so, since they have no body, a living Mormon must be baptized on behalf of someone who died.
In a book by one of the presidents of their church, “Doctrines of Salvation”, it says that “water is an element of this world, and how could spirits be baptized in it, or receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost? The only way it can be done is vicariously, someone who is living acting as a substitute for the dead” (From Doctrines of Salvation, 2:141; cited in Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons [Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995], p. 346). This is why Mormons research their genealogies so carefully. It’s because they seek to be baptized for as many of their dead relatives as they can, and do for them what they could not (or would not) do for themselves while still living.
It’s important, however, to be clear on what the Bible teaches about the possibility of salvation after death. The belief that we could be baptized for someone who had died in a way that would bring about their salvation is an idea that is contrary to what it says elsewhere in the Scriptures. The Bible says, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:27-28). Each man and woman who has died apart from Christ dies to face judgment – not another chance for salvation. According to the Bible, there is no other opportunity for someone’s salvation apart from a conscious, intelligent faith in Christ while they are still living. Jesus alludes to the permanency of our spiritual state after death in His parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:24-26). That’s why the Bible makes it clear to those who live and can read its words: “‘In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you.’ Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2; see also Isa. 49:8). The New Testament gives no evidence that anyone could ever be saved on some “other day”, or in any other way than by a living faith in Jesus Christ. So whatever Paul meant by his words in 1 Cor. 15:29, he was not giving approval to the idea that we could be baptized on behalf of others who have died, and thus bring about their salvation. That would be inconsistent with the teaching of the rest of Scripture.* * * * * * * * * *
So then, what did Paul mean? When I read this verse in the original language, I find some interesting facts:
First, I find that, when it speaks of those who are “baptized for the dead”, the verb “baptized” is a participle in the present tense – which indicates an ongoing action. Literally, it reads, “… What will those do who ARE BEING BAPTIZED for the dead?” – that is, as a present, progressive action. In the surrounding context, Paul speaks in the first and second person (I and we); but here in the third person (they). This is important to note, because some folks believe that Paul is using a rhetorical device – pointing to an erroneous practice in the church to help support his argument, even though he didn’t approve of it. Those who hold this view point out that Paul was arguing that the resurrection is a fact; and they say that he was observing that some professing Christians had been baptized for their dead relatives and friends (an erroneous practice). It would be as if he were asking , “If the dead were not raised, then why would those folks bother to engage in such an admittedly erroneous practice? ” But personally, I don’t believe Paul would have bothered used such an erroneous practice to support such a strategic argument; and I doubt very much that, if he did, he would have spoke of it as still going on without pointing out clearly that it was error. (See Romans 3:8 for at lease one example of how he handled erroneous statements in expressing a key argument.)
Second, I notice that his phrase “the dead” is stated in the plural, not in the singular. In other words, whatever he means by “the dead”, he is referring to more than one person. I point this out because some people believe that Paul is referring to Jesus when he speaks of the dead. Their argument would be that he was saying, “If the dead are not raised, then what will those do who have been baptized for Him [i.e., Jesus] who is dead?” But since the meaning is literally “the dead ones” – that is, plural – he couldn’t be speaking of Jesus. He was speaking of more than one person as “the dead”.
Third, I find that, in saying that some were being baptized “for” the dead, he uses a preposition that indeed, grammatically, can be translated “in the place of the dead” (as if in order to save them). Those who argue that Paul is speaking of the practice of being baptized on behalf of those who had died point to this possible translation of the preposition as support for their argument. But the fact is that this same preposition can also be translated “over the dead” – as if believers were being baptized over the graves of those who had died. The word can also be translated “because of the dead” – as if to looking back at all those who gave their lives for the faith. The variety of ways this preposition can be translated means that we must look to the context to understand which interpretation is the right one.* * * * * * * * * * *
So now, let’s look at the context. I believe that doing so will help you understand my interpretation of this verse.
Paul, in chapter 15, is arguing that the resurrection is a fact. He was doing so, because some were saying that there is no resurrection from the dead (v. 12). Paul argued, in verses 1-11, that Jesus truly did rise from the dead and was seen by many eye-witnesses – including Paul himself. Then, he makes the argument that, if Jesus had not risen from the dead, then Christianity itself is a lie and we’re all wasting our time believing it. “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith also is empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up – if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead to not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” (vv. 13-17). The whole point of all that Paul is saying, then, is that if there is no resurrection, then the whole enterprise of Christianity is a dreadful lie and a waste of everyone’s time.
What Paul says next is, I believe, very important to understanding the verse you’re asking about. He says, “Then also those who have fallen asleep [Paul’s phrase for those who have died in Christ] have perished. If in this life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable” (vv. 18-19). He is saying that, if there is no resurrection, then those who died in Christ have perished – without any hope of being raised again. They died and they are gone forever. (In verses 20-28, I think he just couldn’t stand it anymore – he HAD to burst forth and proclaim with great joy that Jesus DID rise; and that He IS the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep!)
Verses 20-28 is a break in Paul’s argument. And so, when we get to verse 29, I believe he has taken up again were he left off in verse 19 – about how, if we have hope in this life only, we are most pitiable. Look very carefully at what he says in verses 29-32 about the danger he and the others who spread the gospel constantly faced. After having stressed the hopeless prospect we’re left with if we believe that those who have died in Christ stay dead, he then says, “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead are not raised at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!’”
Given the context, then, I believe Paul is speaking in verse 29 of those who were believers before us who have died in Christ; and he’s asking, “Why then, if the dead are not raised, should we keep on preaching the gospel and keep on baptizing those who believe – why should we keep on filling the ranks of those who wish to follow on in this whole useless enterprise called the Church if there is no resurrection? What will they do – what prospect will they have – who are even now being baptized in the footsteps of those who have died before them – if the dead to not rise at all? Why then should they keep on being baptized in the place of those who are perished – who are dead and gone, and will never again to rise? Why even bother doing that if the dead are not raised? Why keep running off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings, after we can clearly see that all the others have died and stay dead?” That, I believe, is what Paul is basically saying in verse 29.
The best illustration of this that I could find was the one offered by the great preacher Harry Ironside. He compared the matter to a regiment of soldiers – say seventy-five in number. If, in battle, seventy-five fall, then another seventy-five must be recruited. Those seventy-five new soldiers step into the place of the old to carry on the battle; but if they are fighting a losing battle, and if there’s no possibility of winning, then it’s a waste of time to keep recruiting new soldiers to replace the others. Dr. Ironside said, “Think of Christian people as a mighty army. Down through the centuries … the Church has been in conflict with the powers of sin and death and hell, and throughout the ages one generation of Christians has fallen and another has taken its place, and the public way of manifesting the fact that they have thus enlisted in the army of the Lord is through baptism. But what a foolish thing if Christ be not risen and the dead rise not! What are they gaining by being baptized in place of the dead? Would it not have been better to have wound up the history of Christianity in the first centuries and said, ‘The whole movement is a failure, there is no risen Christ, there is no possibility for salvation here in this life?’” (Addresses on The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Loizeaux Brothers Bible Truth Depot, 1943], pp. 449-500).
So far, that’s the most theologically sensible, most grammatically supportable, and most contextually satisfying explanation I have yet found of what Paul means by those words: “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” There is absolutely no need to introduce into those words any idea of a practice of living Christians being baptized for the salvation of those who have died. It wouldn’t even make sense to do so, given the whole context of what Paul is saying. He’s talking about living people who now believe, who are baptized, and who now fill the ranks of those departed saints who have gone on to glory.
Praise God that, because Jesus lives, His kingdom of the redeemed continues to grow!
Love in Christ,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Revelations Questions
A visitor to our website writes:
Dear Pastor,
I have a couple of questions for you; first, concerning the book of Revelation. I am always told that the first three and a half years of Tribulation will be peaceful. I know that in Daniel the Bible says that the Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel in the middle of the 7 years, does this necessarily mean that it will be peaceful in the first half. I can’t really find any scriptures that tell me that.
My second question concerns the book of Daniel. It says that the Antichrist will not desire women. Some people take this to mean he will be an open homosexual. Could it not just be that he won’t desire women in the same way that Jesus didn’t thus making himself LOOK even more Christlike?* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
Thanks for your questions. I’m always a bit cautious about speaking with any certainty about unfulfilled prophetic events in Scripture; and I also recognize that there are a lot of different opinions about these things. I interpret the prophetic statements in Revelation and Daniel about the Tribulation to concern future (yet-unfulfilled) events; and I view them through a Dispensational interpretive grid. So with those points in mind, I’ll do my best to answer your questions.
First, let’s talk about the nature of the Seventieth Week as it’s described in Daniel. In Daniel 9:24-27, we’re told that the angel Gabriel speaks to Daniel and gives him understanding concerning God’s future plans for the Jewish people. Gabriel says, “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abomination shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined is poured out on the desolate.”
Literally, Daniel speaks of “Seventy sevens”; and I understand this to be speaking of seventy “weeks” of years; that is, a total of 490 years. I have taken the the beginning date of this period to be about 445 BC (when the command to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem was issued to Nehemiah; Neh. 2:1-6). The angel tells Daniel of “seven weeks” or 49 years (v. 25; during which time the reconstruction of Jerusalem occurred – “the going forth of the command to build Jerusalem”); and of another “sixty-two weeks” or 434 years (v. 25; the period between the completion of the rebuilding program to the cutting off of the Messiah in v. 26). 49 years plus 434 years totals to 483 years; and if 445 BC is considered the beginning point, then the “69 weeks” was completed at the approximate time that Jesus was crucified. (Admittedly, there have been lots of debates between scholars over how these figures actually work out; but much helpful material has been provided by Sir Robert Anderson in his book “The Coming Prince”, and Alva J. McClain in his book “Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks” – both of which can be purchased through most Christian book stores.) ò
God has promised that a lot of things would be accomplished in the seventy weeks. (See verse 24 for the mention of six specific things.) After 483 years, one week of years still remains; which I believe have yet to occur. I have often thought of the 70 weeks of Daniel as – to borrow from the broadcast world – God’s prophetic “air time”. Once the Messiah was “cut off” by His death on the cross, the prophetic program temporarily went “off the air”. It was followed by the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. and all the centuries since then. But the red “on the air” light will go on again with the commencement of that seventieth week. Since Israel is in her land again, my belief is that the “on the air” sign could go on again very soon.
Your question was about the nature of that seventieth week. It appears to be divided in half; and your question was whether or not the first half of that week would be “peaceful”. Specifically, the angel tells Daniel that “the prince who is to come” (that is, the antichrist) “shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abomination shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate” (v. 27). “In the middle of the week” seems to parallel the statement in Daniel 12:11; “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.” It also parallels Daniel 7:25; “He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.” (A time = 1; times = 2; half a time = .5; thus making three and a half years, or one half of the 70th week.)
It’s my understanding that this also parallels the description of the antichrist in Romans 13:1-10: “Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?’ And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority for forty-two months” (vv. 1-5). That 42 month period in which the antichrist is given authority will, I believe, mark the middle of the 70th week. It will be a time of “relative peace”; but only because the whole unbelieving world will be deceived into following him.
The first half of the week might be indicated in Daniel 7:27a (“Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week …”). But the verse goes on to say, “But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abomination shall be one who makes desolate …” Likewise, as the Revelation passage goes on to say, “Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If anyone has an ear, let him hear. He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints” (vv. 5-10; see also 2 Thess. 2:1-12 and Matthew 24:15-22).
The only place in Scripture I can think of that would suggest this to be a time of “peace” would be 1 Thess. 5:1-3. There, Paul wrote, “But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.” The “peace and safety” that people will believe themselves to be under will only be an illusion. Sudden destruction is about to come.
One more thought in all this. I believe the two important things God would want us to draw from this is (1) to know and be on the alert against the delusion that will sweep over the whole world and draw everyone under the antichrist’s sway, and (2) to know that the times of tribulation remain in God’s hand and are limited precisely as He has decreed. It wouldn’t be wise to get caught up in the minutia of these matters of prophecy if we miss those two important points.* * * * * * * * * *
As to your second question, what exactly does it mean that the antichrist will not regard “the desire of women” (Daniel 11:37)? As you have suggested, some have interpreted this to mean that the antichrist will be motivated by homosexual desires.
The Hebrew scholar C.F. Keil saw a parallel between this passage and 1 Sam. 1:26; in which David expressed his love for his friend Jonathan as “surpassing the love of women”. David meant that his love for his friend Jonathan exceeded even that of a man’s love for a woman. It was, by comparison, a remarkably deep love. Keil suggests then that the “love of women” mentioned in Daniel is a reference to an example from the realm of human piety; “that affection of human love and attachment for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility.” If this is the case then, the antichrist is here being portrayed as someone in whom not even the most basic and common feelings of tenderness or compassion is found.
But another interesting interpretation – and one that makes most sense to me – is one that takes into account that this phrase is sandwiched between the statement “He shall regard neither the God of his fathers” and “nor regard any god”. This would suggest that the phrase “the desire of women” should be understood in the context of a reference to deity.
A similar phrase to this one is found in the Scripture as a reference to the Messiah. Haggai 2:7 calls the Messiah “the Desire of All Nations”. “Desire” here is ‘subjective’ – meaning “that thing which is desired” rather than “that desire for a thing”. All Jewish women longed to have children, with the secret hope that they would be the mother of the promised Messiah (which is why it was said to Mary “blessed are you among women” in Luke 1:28 and 42). “The desire of women” – that thing which they desired – was the Messiah. Taking this into account, along with the references to deity that surround it, it seems to make sense that the phrase in Daniel 11:37 is saying that the antichrist has no regard for the God of his fathers, or for the Messiah (the desire of women) or for any god at all. This, it seems to me, is a much more reasonable interpretation than to suggest, from this verse, that the antichrist will be a homosexual.
Again, thank you for your very good questions.
Blessings in Christ,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.)