test

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

In my Christian experience, I’ve noticed a trend, possibly one that predates my existence, that Christians assume all scripture is written not only for them, but to them. Therefore, they hold a position that allows them to claim every Biblical promise as their own. However, this has come at a cost. By claiming these promises, it means they have to address some Biblical verses or passages that are difficult to assimilate into their doctrine.

Verses like Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” and Acts 2:38 “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins…” are completely avoided in sermons and Sunday school lessons, at least in Baptist churches. In fact, when’s the last time you heard a doctrinal study about the parable of the Good Samaritan? Furthermore, when’s the last time you heard a doctrinal study about the mysteries of the Kingdom in Matthew 13?

Unfortunately, these tasks are rarely undertaken. I believe the reason for this is because an honest study of these passages would cause serious question to one’s own (Baptist) theology. Therefore, to be fair and honest with the Word of God, we should let the Bible say what it means, rather than us telling it what it means. To accomplish this it will require two things. Firstly, we must put aside any denominational influence on our thinking; and secondly, we must be open to change our position should the Word of God direct us to do so. Remember, at the judgment seat of Christ, we all will give an account of things done in our body whether it was good or bad (II Corinthians 5:10). On that day, one’s denomination won’t matter any more, but how one dealt with the Word of God will.

To fully understand the New Testament (and I mean that in its Biblical sense: after the death of Christ), one must fully understand the Old Testament. However, before we look at the Old Testament, we must fully understand the book of Genesis and the first 18 chapters of the book of Exodus. Remember, the Old Testament is the Law and the Law didn’t start until Exodus 20. (II Corinthians 3)

“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis chapter 1 introduces us to the Creation account as given by Moses. After God creates a perfect world, He creates man—the only creation formed in the image and likeness of God. Man was created in perfection, but his perpetual perfection was solely dependent upon him. God gave man one simple rule—don’t touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Should man follow this one rule, perfection would be a way of life. However, we don’t have to get any farther in the book of Genesis than chapter 3 to find out man couldn’t even obey that rule. Sin entered the world through rebellion and to borrow from John Milton, man now lived in a state of “Paradise Lost.” Sins degradation trickled down through the generations until the days of Noah when God destroyed the earth with a great flood because of man’s wickedness. After this judgment, God brings Noah and his family out into a new world and then makes a covenant with Noah to never destroy the earth with water again (Genesis 9). As a sign of this covenant, God set a rainbow in the sky as a continual reminder to the world of His promise. As the generations progressed, we are introduced to a man called Abram. In Genesis 12, we read, Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. God’s plan for Abram is to establish a land and a great nation through his name. Verse 5 tells us that this was the land of Canaan. God promises that this land is given unto Abram’s seed. In chapter 15 of Genesis, Abram is told that his seed would be as the stars of heaven. However, God needed to prove Abram’s seed. He tells Abram that his seed would become strangers in a land that was not theirs and they should serve them and be afflicted 400 years. Abram prepares some animals which he has cut in half and made an aisle with. He and God were to walk down that aisle while interlocking arms. This action would seal the covenant between them and picture that should one default on the covenant, one would be cut in half just like the animals. God knew Abram couldn’t keep the covenant, despite Abram’s continual faithfulness. Therefore, God caused a great sleep to fall upon Abram and God Himself walked down that aisle. God conditioned the covenant upon Himself, which made it unconditional to Abram. This is the first unconditional promised made regarding the seed of Abram.

Genesis 17 records the next great even in Abram’s life, the birth of his true son, Isaac. In this chapter, Abram’s name is changed to Abraham. God furthers his covenant with Abraham, And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Therefore, to be associated with this covenant, God gave a sign that on the eighth day of life, an infant male was to be circumcised. Abraham and his wife, Sarah, have a son named Isaac. God tells Abraham that he will continue his covenant through Isaac (Genesis 17:19-21). Then, in Genesis 21:3, Isaac is circumcised the eighth day. In Genesis 22, we have the offering of Isaac. God sees Abraham’s tremendous faith and provides a ram to be sacrificed instead of Isaac. Because of his faithfulness, God now promised that Abraham’s seed would not only be as the stars of heaven, but as the sand of the seashore. Isaac would later have two sons, Jacob and Esau. Through a bit of trickery, Jacob stole the birthright from Esau and convinced Isaac to pass the blessing (the covenant promise) to him. In Genesis 32, Jacob wrestled with the Lord and his name was changed to Israel. Israel had a son whose name was Joseph. Joseph had twelve brothers who became the twelve tribes of Israel. Fulfilling His promise, God, at the end of Joseph’s life, sent the nation of Israel into captivity under the Egyptians. We see one of the great truths of God displayed. God must bring someone to the point that they can only rely on Him before He can build them up and make them great. God sent Israel into 400 years of bondage before He could bring them into Canaan and make them a great nation. To accomplish this, God used a man by the name of Moses. Moses met with God at the burning bush and defined Himself as I AM. Moses went before Pharaoh to demand the release of his people. Pharaoh was reluctant. Nine plagues befell Egypt from God by the hand of Moses. Pharaoh continued to ignore it. Therefore, God sent one more plague: that when the death angel passed, all the first born sons in the land of Egypt would be killed. Therefore, to ensure that the followers of God would be saved, God instructed Moses to tell the people to put the blood of a sheep on the door posts of their houses; that when the death angel came, it would pass over them. As long as the blood was applied, they were saved. How great it is to know that this side of Calvary, I’m saved through the blood of Jesus Christ, which the Apostle Paul says, is “our Passover” (I Corinthians 5:7).

God miraculously led the Israelites across the Red Sea and in Exodus chapter 19, God spelled out his plan for Israel. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. Notice, unlike the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, this promise of God is conditional. Therefore, we can conclude that any establishment of a kingdom is determined upon Israel’s choices to God’s revelation. In these verses, we can also understand what it takes to be a kingdom. There must a king (God), there must be a people to be ruled (Israel) and there must be a land to rule over (Canaan). However, notice that before we can entertain the idea of enjoying a kingdom, we must do a couple of things first (as verse 5 stated). Therefore, in order to have a standard of righteousness to live by, God gave the Jews, the Law; beginning with the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20 and thus beginning the Old Testament. He defines why He is giving the Law in Exodus 20:20, And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. Note the phrases “to prove you” and “that ye sin not.” These phrases are important in understanding the context of the Law. Many Christians believe that Old Testament saints were saved by keeping the Law. They justify this by saying the sacrifices made for the atonement for sin supplied salvation, but as long as one continued in them. Now, if this is true, then there are a few problems. One, the context of the Law is not salvation but personal obedience to God, interactions with fellow humans, etc. Two, it completely destroys the meaning of the Passover. Three, in Joshua chapter 4, God says there are two memorials to Israel, one is the Passover, and two is the crossing of the Jordan River into Canaan. If the Law represented salvation, why wouldn’t God want Israel to memorialize it?

Moses and the Israelites are on the threshold of Canaan but fail to seize the land. Therefore, they are left to wander in the wilderness for 38 more years. Then, at the closing of Deuteronomy, Moses stands up and gives one of the most important prophecies concerning Israel. Deuteronomy 30, And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and they heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.

Moses died and Joshua assumed command and led Israel into Canaan. God, as King, ruled through Judges over Israel. However, Israel began to demand a king like the rest of the nations around them. I Samuel 8:5 says, that Israel demanded such a king. Temporarily, the Theocratic Kingdom ends. Israel dethrones God and God gives them a king just like the rest of the nations, King Saul. This brief moment of darkness in Israel’s history is quickly illuminated by Saul’s successor, King David.

God extends an unconditional promise by the mouth of the prophet Nathan unto David and to his lineage. In II Samuel chapter 7, God promises to establish His kingdom through the seed of David. The throne of His kingdom is everlasting. God said, I will be his father, and he shall be my son. Furthermore, the kingdom and lineage of David shall be established forever. However, Israel didn’t continue down a path that was pleasing to God. After King Solomon, Israel was divided into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom was Israel and the southern kingdom was Judah. About 320 years after the split, the Empire of Babylon, led by King Nebuchadnezzar, takes Judah captive. The northern kingdom of Israel faired much worse. Only about 185 years after the split are they led into captivity by the Assyrian Empire. Upon this captivity, the prophet Hosea stood up and declared God’s disgust for Israel. God wrote Israel a bill of divorcement (Jeremiah 3) and likened Israel unto a whorish wife. God, as the husband, felt the pain an unfaithful wife brings. However, later in the book, God promised a future restoration of Israel. In Chapter 2 of Hosea, God said, Say ye unto your brethren…Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband. God wanted the children of Israel to plead with the head(s) of Israel (the Nation’s rulers) that they should, essentially, repent. God said He is going to condition this “restorational” covenant upon Himself in the same fashion He made it with Abraham (Hosea 2:18). Israel’s future was secure.  Let us stop and make note that Chapter 1 of Hosea speaks of a child who's name means "a people who are not my people shall be my people."  Those that reject the dispensational truths of scripture will say this is a prophetic view of the Gentiles becoming the people of God.  However, remember that God divorced Israel - therefore any children born after that divorce wouldn't be God's children.  But, when God restores Israel, then naturally a people (who were once not his people due to divorce) will become God's people (due to God remarrying Israel in the Kingdom.)

During the Babylonian captivity, God spoke through the prophets Daniel and Ezekiel. Daniel spoke of the 4 world empires, or kingdoms, of the earth from that point and into the future. After he wrote of these kingdoms, Daniel says, And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed and the kingdom shall not be left unto other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Daniel looks at the King of this kingdom and describes Him. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. (Daniel 7:9-10) And then Daniel says, And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:14) Even in the darkest hour of captivity, Daniel gave a word of comfort to his people, the Jews. In fact, Daniel went a step further and began to number the time. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end therefore shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Now, most modern day Christians get all excited about Daniel’s 70 weeks (e.g. Jack van Impe). Let’s remember a few things in this passage and we’ll see that Daniel’s 70 weeks have nothing to do with Christians. Notice how these verses begin. These 70 weeks are determined upon “thy people” (Jews) and upon “thy holy city” (Jerusalem). The timing given is predicated upon Jewish events: the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem to Messiah the Prince. You might contest that the Messiah is certainly a reference to the redeemer Christians worship. And, yes, that’s true. However, we must put ourselves in the time of the prophecy. The term Messiah is used to recognize the redeemer of Israel. Never once did a Gentile look forward to a coming Messiah. The term Messiah would mean nothing to them. Isaiah prophesies, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given…of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it… Unto whom? To whom was Isaiah prophesying to? Israel! Even the Apostle Paul states very clearly in Galatians 4 that Christ came to redeem them that were under the law. Were Gentiles ever under the Law? No. The Mosaic Law was Jewish.

God is beginning to get the kingdom plan in action. Isaiah says of this kingdom, They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day, there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign to the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek and his rest shall be glorious. As an Old Testament Jew, these prophecies would have been a comfort and reason to shout with excitement.

Let’s stop for a second and consider something. So far, we’ve recounted much of Israel’s general history. To this point it is important to note that God’s plan is to establish Israel as a kingdom unto Himself. Any types or pictures of Christ in the Old Testament were not understood nor could they be understood until the anti-type was revealed, which was Jesus Christ. So, the idea that we find pictures of salvation in the Old Testament and that the saints of those days looked to those pictures for their salvation is blatantly incorrect. No Jew was looking forward to a Christ and a cross for salvation. If they were, why did they keep making the sacrifices for sin? Why not just rest in the completed work of Christ? Jews were looking and longing for this promised kingdom—and it is through the belief in this revelation that a Jew received salvation. Remember Abraham. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Believed what? Believed in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord? No. He believed that God would do what He promised in the covenant He made with him.

This establishes an important truth about salvation. Salvation is always predicated upon the belief in the current revelation of God. God manifested Himself differently to Abraham than He did to Moses and than He did to Israel through Jesus Christ. Man’s salvation rests in his acceptance of that revelation. Remember in Luke when Jesus tells His disciples that He’s going to die, the disciples have no idea what He’s talking about – but yet, it is the Gospel they believed?! Salvation is through faith, period. However, the object of that faith has certainly changed throughout scripture. (i.e. In Moses’ day, it was the Passover; in Jesus Christ’s day, it was acceptance of the Gospel of the Kingdom; in our day, it is acceptance of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.)

The book of Malachi closes and there is 400 years of silence from heaven. Israel, now back in the land and occupying Jerusalem and anticipating the promises of the kingdom, are ready for God to reveal the next phase in the kingdom program. After 400 years, out in the wilderness of Judea, John the Baptist stands up and preaches, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Why repent? Remember, the kingdom was always conditioned upon Israel keeping the laws and statutes of God (Exodus 19). John is telling the Jews to turn back to God because the kingdom is being announced. As a demonstration of acceptance of this message, John is baptizing, with water, the repentant Jews. This is also required for the kingdom. Remember that God promised to make them a kingdom of priests. This baptism was a Levitical washing to bring upon them the priesthood position. Without this baptism, a kingdom of priests would be impossible. Therefore, under the Gospel of the Kingdom, baptism in water was required in salvation.  (Note Luke 7:29-30 - what is it that justifies one or not before God?)

Let’s take another side road and look at baptism. Baptism is a transliterated word; meaning we didn’t translate it into English, we took the word and “Englishized” it. Baptism comes from 4 different words (baptisma, baptismos, baptistes, and baptizo). Baptisma is a noun and refers to the process of immersion. Keep in mind, water isn’t the only substance by which one can be immersed. So, when you read about baptism, do not automatically think of being put into water. Baptismos is a noun which refers to ceremonial washing of articles (i.e. the Levitical washings under the Law). Baptistes is the noun used to describe one who baptizes, but in the Bible, it is only used of John the Baptist. Baptizo is a verb that refers to dipping, either in dying clothing or drawing water by the act of dipping a vessel into another vessel.

Jesus Christ shows up to be baptized by John then was John abled to identify Him as the Messiah and baptize Him to establish Him as the High Priest to Israel. However, before Jesus could even start His ministry, He had to take care of someone else who had a different kingdom program. Jesus met Satan and overcame his temptation and could then enter His ministry. The very first thing Jesus preached was Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Notice that Jesus was advancing the kingdom message and notice He didn’t say to “Believe on me, the guy that’s going to die for your sins.”

Therefore, what do we need to understand about this kingdom message, this Gospel of the Kingdom? Firstly, we must understand the realm of time to a Jew. A Jew considers two ages: the age he’s living in now and the age to come. (Matthew 12:32) In this age to come, it is a time of blessing and peace--the Messiah is reining, physically on the earth. It is the time the Old Testament points to and the time every Jew longed for. Secondly, we must understand that this Gospel of the Kingdom is the proclamation of the kingdom to national Israel. Remember Jesus told His followers in Matthew 23:2 that the Pharisees (the representatives and keepers of Israel – note the parable in Matthew 21 of the vineyard (Israel – Isaiah 5) and the husbandman) sit in Moses seat and He commands His followers to obey the Pharisees. Thirdly, the kingdom message is to be accompanied by signs, miracles, and wonders (Mark 16:15-18). Finally, the Gospel of the Kingdom is to be given to one group of people—Israel. Matthew 10:5-8 says, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. This Gospel message was meant for one group of people. When Jesus said He is come to seek and to save that which was lost, He is referring to Israel. Even in Mark 4, Jesus explains why He teaches in parables and He says that this is to conceal salvation to the Gentiles.  Jesus wanted to hide salvation from the Gentiles?!  Why is this? God, through redeemed Israel, was going to evangelize the world. John 4:22 says that salvation is of the Jew. In the kingdom program, God cannot deal with the rest of the world until Israel has accepted the message. Notice the signs that accompany this gospel. Who are the signs for according to I Corinthians 1:22? The signs are for the Jew! Jesus is advancing the kingdom message. Jews are repenting and “getting into the kingdom” but the rulers of Israel remain unrepentant. The rulers of Israel ask Jesus for a sign that He is the Messiah. Jesus tells them that He’s given all the signs He can give except one—the great sign of the resurrection. (Matthew 12:40)

Jesus, knowing that national Israel will not repent, announces He must go to the cross.   (Again, if people were looking forward to the corss for salvation, why does Jesus have to announce it?)  When the disciples hear this, they are in utter disbelief and had no idea what He was talking about. (This proves if the kingdom gospel and the gospel we are charged with proclaiming are the same, that the disciples had no idea what gospel they were spreading). Before Jesus is put to death, He is brought before Pilate. Pilate asks Him in John 18, Art thou a king then? Jesus responds that the reason He was born and the reason He is going to die is for that purpose—to be a king. Which is why Paul says in Galatians 4, But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. The Son of God came to redeem them that were under the law (Jews) that we (Gentiles) might receive the adoption of sons. Someone who is adopted is someone who is received by the adopter to be their own; who was not their own. In human experience, adoption happens to those who are not of immediate blood relation. However, with God, the blood of Christ makes us blood relation – which demonstrates the overwhelming power of His blood. The method of adoption is pure grace to the individual. God, in pure grace, adopted us as sons and “signed the paperwork” with Christ’s blood.

After the resurrection, Jesus teaches His disciples for 40 days of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (Acts 1). Then the question is asked that is the key verse to the book of Acts when the disciples ask Him, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (emphasis mine) We get to Acts 2, the day of Pentecost. Peter stands up and preaches to a Jewish audience (Ye men of Israel) and tells them that they killed their Messiah. The citizens of Israel ask What shall we do? (Acts 2:36-37). Peter tells them to repent (same message as John the Baptist) and to be baptized (same method as John the Baptist). Nowhere in his message is one peep about the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. The message is still a call for national Israel to repent and to therefore, usher in the kingdom. Notice also that on the day of Pentecost, miraculous signs accompany this kingdom message. In Acts 3, Peter heals a lame man (another sign) and then goes into the temple and proclaims that God will send Jesus Christ back right now to begin the restitution of all things if they repent. (Acts 3:19-21) We know they didn’t repent and there is one final message of the offering of the kingdom to the Jews of the homeland and it is found in Acts 7 given by Stephen. Stephen lays into the ruling counsel and preaches a sermon of repentance. However, the ruling counsel drags Stephen outside of the city and begin to stone him. It is at this point that Stephen looks up into heaven and sees the Son of Man standing. Why is this important? What happens in Revelation 19 when the heavens are opened? Jesus comes back. Everywhere else in the Bible, Jesus is sitting down in heaven – Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; I Peter 3:22 and the countless references contained in Revelation. Jesus was standing, ready to come back and set up His kingdom. Notice Stephen calls Him the Son of Man—Jesus’ Messianic title. All of these actions fulfill the prophetic parable at the beginning of Matthew 22. God promised to burn up the city upon the rejection of His message. In 70 A.D., Jerusalem was burned to the ground by the Roman armies under General Titus.

Upon their rejection in Acts 7, God begins to set Israel aside and bring in a new gospel and a new program. The new gospel is the Gospel of the Grace of God and the new program is the Church—a mystery hidden in the ages, but revealed by the Apostle Paul. (Ephesians 5:30-32) Paul writes in his epistles that God has now offering salvation to whosoever will. There is no difference anymore between Jew and Gentile because all saved are seen as the Body of Christ—the “new creature” spoken of in II Corinthians 5:17. Paul tells us that the gospel by which we are saved is the good news of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Christ’s death paid for sins (in type, Passover). Christ’s burial put away sins (in type Sarah’s sepulcher and the Feast of the Unleavened bread). Christ’s resurrection proved power over sin (in type The Feast of the First Fruits). Paul sums it up best in Ephesians 2:11-22: Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Therefore, by this, we should be able to define what the Gospel of the Grace of God is. Number one, as Paul points out in the book of Romans, we must understand we are unrighteous before God. This isn’t admitting to being a sinner. Admitting you are a sinner isn’t enough. You must admit you are unrighteous before God. (Romans 3; II Corinthians 6:14 cf.) Secondly, believe on the name of Jesus—for his death to be efficacious, you must know Jesus, not only that He was the Son of God, but that He died for you. Thirdly, you must accept Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection as sufficient work for your salvation. (I Corinthians 15:1-10) This isn’t asking Jesus into your heart or making Him your personal savior – these concepts are taught no where but behind pulpits. That’s it. Salvation is just that simple.

Hopefully we’ve seen the true ministry of Jesus Christ and understand that what the 4 gospels present is a chance for Israel to accept the kingdom message and to understand that to properly read scripture, we must always know who the audience is. Remember, all scripture is written for us, but not all scripture is written to us.

Rightly Divided, pt. 1

Have you ever wondered why we have so many different beliefs within so-called Christianity?  Why do Catholics believe in Papal Secession?  Why does the Church of Christ teach baptismal regeneration?  Why do Pentecostals rely on evidence from of salvation from speaking in tongues, miraculous healings, etc.?  And, have you ever wondered why all three of these entities have Bible verses to back up their position?  Why is that?  Why do Baptist shy away from Acts 2 and Mark 16:16? 

Is there really an answer to all of this; or are we left to hold to our denominational traditions and just hope we're right come judgment day?  If that's the case, there isn't much comfort in that.  It also means that I've elevated a denomination above Scripture.  So, what can be done?  Well, II Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  The normative interpretation of this verse is that if we study our Bibles, God will approve of us, we won't be stumped when asked questions (not to be ashamed) and rightly dividing means we will be able to tell right from wrong.  Now, this sounds cute, but is this what the verse says?  For the most part, yes-but what about the rightly dividing part?  What is the word of truth?  Well, John 17:17 says, "...thy word is truth."  Is God's word ever wrong?  So, if God's word is never wrong, how then could rightly dividing mean being able to tell right from wrong?  Exactly - it couldn't.  So, is Paul telling Timothy that there is a right division of God's word?  Well, that's what it says.  So, what is this division?

The first division that probably comes to mind is Old Testament/New Testament.  Unfortunately, these terms are misleading if you go by the page titles in your Bible.  Remember, this division is man-made.  In II Corinthians 3, Paul says the Old Testament is synonymous with the Law that Moses gave.  When did that Law begin?  Genesis 1:1?  No-it wasn't until Exodus 20.  Now, did the New Testament begin at Matthew 1:1?  No - in fact, it hasn't begun yet.  The New Testament or New Covenant is completely Jewish (Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36).  It is the Covenant that God will make with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah.  Even towards the end of Matthew, Jesus commands his disciples to "follow the Law" but just not as the Pharisees do, but in truth.  Now, if anything was going to change post-Calvary, why would Jesus make that command only to void it weeks later?  In fact, the only thing that had changed come Acts 1 was the fact that Jesus had died and now is risen.  Doctrinally, we still stand in the Old Testament.  So, you can see that the division of Old Testament/New Testament is really a misnomer. 

What about the idea that there isn't a division at all?  Many like to take the entire Bible and mix it all together and consume it that fashion.  Therefore, they believe that water baptism replaced circumcision and so on.  Now, they justify this position with Hebrews where it says that Jesus Christ is the same "yesterday, today and forever", and with Malachi 3:6 where God says, "I change not."   What doesn't God change about?  Obviously His holiness; His goodness; His justice; His graciousness, etc.  No matter when anyone has lived, those attributes of God have not changed.  Secondly, has God ever not been God?  No, He's always been God, so again, no change.  Now let's introduce man-- a free, moral agent if you will.  If man has the capacity to make his own decisions, then could God's plan be advanced or hindered by man?  Did Adam put a kink in God's plan (as far as Adam knew)?  Yes.  Did that change God?  No, He was still God.  This is a poor example, but if God were a square, the borders and angles that are required to be a square can never change (or it's no longer a square).  However, does drawing diagonals in the square change it from being a square?  Does putting other shapes into the square change it from being a square?  No--it is still a square, regardless.  So, does input from man's actions and responses to God's change God from being God?  No.  Therefore, those verses do not defeat the notion of proper divisions in scripture.

What about dispensational divisions?  This is where John Darby and Scofield, etc. come in to play.  Note the chart below (from Wikipedia):

Dispensation is a biblical word.  Most people believe a dispensation is a period of time.  However, dispensation has a root word, dispense.  To dispense is to distribute or get rid of.  For example, Darth Vader, in Return of the Jedi, arrives at the Death Star and is talking with the Commander.  Note the use of the word:  "Lord Vader, we are honored by your presence!"  "(Vader) You may dispense with the pleasantries commander, I'm here to put you back on schedule."  So, in this instance, Darth Vader is using the word to mean "get rid of."  There is also a popular candy called, PEZ.  PEZ is housed in the PEZ dispenser.  Why?  Because the dispenser gives out or distributes the candy.  Neither of these have anything to do with a period of time.  Now, let's look at the entire word, dispensation.  Dispensation means a certain order, system, or arrangement; administration or management.  So, biblically speaking, a dispensation could be something that is distributing, getting rid of, or managing.   And, in actuality, all of these things are happening within a dispensation.  God is dispensing His will (distributing); God is getting rid of some former "version" of His will (i.e. His will was to have animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law, but they are done away with by the death of Christ.); God is then managing by reason of His will.  This may or may not be the view of your traditional dispensationalist, but I don't see any other way of defining it.

A basic breakdown in the variants on dispensationalism is taken from http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html.  Any comments by me will be made in [].

1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s) Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition.9  

One important feature of classical dispensationalism was its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related to heaven and the other to the earth. The “heavenly humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead. Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had not died but who were preserved by God from death, the heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.” 10  

Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church in classical dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption.11  In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.   

Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer  

2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985) Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity.

Revised dispensationalists usually reject the idea that there are two new covenants—one for Israel and one for the church. They also see the church and Israel as existing together during the millennium and eternal state.

Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.  

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present) What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.12   Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” 13  [there are major problems with this position]

“One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.”14  

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom. Progressive dispensationalists like Blaising and Bock see an already/not yet aspect to the Davidic reign of Christ, seeing the Davidic reign as being inaugurated during the present church age. The full fulfillment of this reign awaits Israel in the millennium.

Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy

(WORKS CITED) 1. See Floyd Elmore, "Darby, John Nelson," Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch, ed., (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996) 83-84. 2. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989) 516. 3.See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993) 10. 4. These essentials of Dispensationalism are taken from John S. Feinberg's, "Systems of Discontinuity," Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988) 67-85. At this point we acknowledge the well-known sine qua non of Dispensationalism as put forth by Charles C. Ryrie. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism is based on the three following characteristics: (1) a distinction between Israel and the church; (2) literal hermeneutics; and (3) A view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world. See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) 38-40. 5. Feinberg, 83.6. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin: Ariel, 1994) 118. 7.Feinberg, 85. 8. Blaising and Bock, 21. 9. Blaising and Bock, 22. 10. Blaising and Bock, 24. 11. Blaising and Bock, 27. 12.Blaising and Bock, 49. 13. Charles C. Ryrie, "Update on Dispensationalism," Issues in Dispensationalism, John R. Master and Wesley R. Willis, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994) 20. 14. Blaising and Bock, 49. 

So, now what?  All of these different positions, which one is correct?  Or, perhaps, are there other positions?  I guess it looks dim for us at this point.  In part 2, we'll examine a position not mentioned above.  The positions above, generally, suffer from the same problem - they do not follow a pattern of understand the Bible, as it is written.  In part 2, we'll see where the Bible gives light into the right division of scripture.

The Abrahamic Covenant

I wish to explore the terms and conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant.  We will be focusing on Genesis 12 through Genesis 17.  Now, there are parts of the history (i.e. Abraham going to Egypt, Lot going to the plain of Jordan, etc.) that we will be skipping because they are not necessarily tied to the Covenant.  I'm not avoiding context since these passages of scripture do not contain God expressing a term of the Covenant.  I will also be referring to Abraham as Abraham (with full understanding his name was change from Abram to Abraham during this time.)

Genesis 12 begins with the Lord telling Abraham that he needs to leave home and go to a land that God has prepared for him.   Then, in verse 2, God tells Abraham that He will make of Abraham a great nation and He will make his name great and that he will be blessing.  Since the context of the verse is dealing with Abraham's becoming a great nation, I conclude that his greatness and blessing will be of global significance.  And, indeed verse 3 says just that.  Through Abraham, all families of the earth would be blessed.  Abraham packs up his wife and his brother, Lot, and they travel to Canaan.  Upon arriving in Canaan, God told Abraham that this land was to be his and his seed's forever.

Let's summarize the Covenant thus far

1.  God promises that Abraham and his seed would be a source of blessing to the world

2.  God promises Abraham and his seed would be a great nation

3.  God promises Abraham a land for his seed forever.

Now, Abraham is a little concerned because up to this point, Abraham had no children.  So, we see God promising seed to Abraham in Genesis 15.  God adds a further promise that Abraham's seed will be numbered as the stars of heaven.  Now, this is where it gets very interesting.  God is about to make this Covenant "legal."  He instructs Abraham to cut animals in half and make an aisle.  In those days, when two people wished to make a contract about something, they would cut animals in half and walk down the aisle while interlocking arms.  It was a blood contract and the implication was that if you didn't keep your end of the deal, you would end up just like the slain animals.  So, God walks down the aisle with Abraham, right?  Wrong.  The grace of God comes in and causes a great sleep to come upon Abraham and God Himself walked down the aisle.  God conditioned this covenant upon Himself.  Therefore, to Abraham, it is now an unconditional covenant.

Abraham has a child with Hagar, his maidservant.  The son's name is Ishmael.  God isn't pleased because he promised the blessing to pass through Abraham's natural seed.  The natural seed would be from Abraham and his wife, Sara.  Abraham, in a moment of unbelief, takes things into his own hands.  But, remember, this covenant is unconditional.  God again displays grace and gives Abraham and Sara a child, Isaac - by which the covenant blessing would pass. 

We get to Genesis 17:7 and God tells Abraham that not only is this covenant for Abraham, but it will be an everlasting covenant to his seed.  The sign of this covenant was circumcision.  (Remember, the Jew requires a sign I Corinthians 1:22).

So, the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional and everlasting and says that the seed of Abraham would be the source of blessing to the world; a great nation; and possessors of their land, forever.

This covenant is the "grand daddy" of all covenants in the Bible.  All proceeding covenants must flow through this one.  If this covenant is unconditional and everlasting, then no new covenant made between God and Israel can nullify the covenant made with Abraham but only amplify it.  (Galatians 3:17)

Sons of God: Genesis 6

There are many "untouchable" verses in the Bible - verses that seem to be ignored or difficult to explain or the source of controversy for many years.  This blog isn't about to shy away from these types of verses, in fact, they sound like our kind of verses.  Probably one of the most famous of these verses occurs in Genesis 6.  Just who are the sons of God mentioned here?  Now, once again, we will be looking at the view through the eyes of Dr. C. I. Scofield and making our own observations.

Genesis 6:1-4 reads thusly, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Now, it the question comes down to who are the sons of God? and who are the daughters of men?  Now, I'll be quoting from Scofield's Study Bible (1917 ed.).

Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 6).  It is asserted that the title is in the O. T. exclusively used of angels.  But this is an error (Isa. 43:6).  Angels are spoken of in a sexless way.  No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Matthew 22:30).  The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Genesis 4:26).  For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa. 1:2-7, 25-25; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31).  and so on.

The first "error" that Scofield wishes to point out is that the title "sons of God" is exclusively used of angels in the Old Testament.  His justification for this is Isaiah 43:6 which says, "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth".  Ok - where's the title "sons of God"?  I guess he is referring to "my sons" here, but a generic mention of sons and daughters as they relate to God is not the same as defining a specific title such as "sons of God."  So, I'm failing to see the justification to disprove this "error."  Secondly, the term "sons of God" is a special term even in the New Testament.  It refers to those who are saved.  Those who are saved are a special creation of God.  Angels likewise are a special creation of God because they are the first and only of their kind (meaning they didn't "evolve" into something other than angels, in their natural state), specially created by God, and potentially perfect.  You say, that doesn't mean they're "sons of God."  What about Adam?--he was the first and only of their kind (again, in that there isn't multiple human kinds) and was potentially perfect.  Well, read in Luke and it says so-and-so was the son of so-and-so was the son of so-and-so was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38) 

The second justification is that angles are spoken of in a sexless way.  Now, the angel that rolled away the stone of Jesus' tomb is described as masculine (Matthew 28:2-4).  The two angels that came to Sodom in Genesis 19 were "man enough" that the people of the city wanted to commit sin with them.  The 3 angels that appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 desired to rest and be fed.  Judges 13:21 - Manoah describes the angel as a "he."  The fact of the matter is, every time an angel shows up and it is necessary to speak of it with a gender, it is ALWAYS male.  What makes something male or female?  Is it facial features?  Is it length of hair?  No, it is what their role in reproduction is.  It is illogical to have a "sexless" angel that is a male. 

The third argument is that angels don't marry.  Now, to be fair, the verse says that in the resurrection (a time yet future) they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in heaven.  This verse makes no mention of what angels of the devil would do or have done in the past.  So, to solely use this verse as justification for a position in Genesis 6 is problematic.  Also, we all know you don't need the bond of marriage to procreate.  "But, it says that they took wives of all that they chose."  Do you honestly read these verses and come away with the idea that these were God-ordained marriages?  Can a tyrant take unto himself whom he chooses and declare their status, regardless of the law?  Yes!

The fourth argument is that this is the breakdown of the "godly line of Seth" and the "ungodly line of Cain."  When has there ever been a godly line of anyone in the Bible?  Even Jesus' line has an adulterer and murderer in it!  Secondly, if the union of godly and ungodly lines produced giants then, why do not the same unions produce giants today?  Furthermore, it says that giants were in the land and also after that (the flood).  If Cain's daughters were killed in the flood, then what "ungodly" line existed after the flood to produce giants?

Scofield's arguments are not very well thought out.  I believe the Bible is presenting these sons of God as angels.  Let's note a few things.  Allow me to post the verses again:

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Every time the term "sons of God" is used in the O. T. it is in reference to angels (Job 1, Job 2, Job 38).  For God to mean something different than angels, He would have to change the meaning without telling us He changed the meaning.  Note verse 3 says that His spirit will not always strive with man, "for that he also is flesh."  Wait, man isn't the only flesh?  Remember, every time an angel shows up, it's a man.  Therefore, yes, man also is flesh.  Now, we know that demons roam free on the earth.  These demons are nothing more than fallen angels.  When Satan was removed from his position in heaven, he took a portion of the angels with him.  Where did these angels go?  We know that not all came with him to earth.  Jude 6 says that some angels are reserved in "everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."  So, what these angels did was so bad that God locked them up immediately.  They do not have free roam on the earth.  And, note Jude 7 (also after that) speaks of Sodom and Gomorrha.  So, they kept not their first estate and left their own habitation.  Ephesians 2:22 says that we are built together for a habitation of God through the spirit.  Our bodies are the abode or the habitation of God.  (Note I Corinthians 6:19-20).  Our first estate is earth.  The angels first estate was heaven.  So, the angels didn't leave their first estate, rather they didn't keep it.  There's a big difference.  If they leave, it is voluntary.  By not keeping it, they forfeited it.  So, does Jude just double up here and use estate and habitation to mean the same thing?  No.  Remember the reference to us - our physical bodies are the habitation of God.  The angels kept not their first estate and left their own physical bodies, inhabited human males, and comingled with the daughters of men.  Also note I Peter 3:18-20.  "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prisons; Which sometime were disobedient when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,..."

What spirits?  The body is for the grave.  Hebrews 1:4 says that angels are spirits.  Men are souls.  "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."  (Ezekiel 18:4 - the context of this passage is physical life/death.  Don't use this passage to say that O. T. believers could lose their salvation.  Physical life is the context!).  These spirits can't be the lost.  They are spiritually dead, but their souls would populate this prison (hell).  But, Peter says "spirits."  Doesn't this dove-tail nicely with Jude 6?!  The same angels "reserved in chains" are the "spirits in prisons." Also note Peter's reference to the days of Noah.  Common theme?  Yes, because "sons of God" in Genesis 6 (the days of Noah) are angels!!

I'll end with this idea.  Remember the giants in the Bible are associated with iron?  Deut. 3:11 - Og had a bedstead of iron.  I Samuel 17:7 says that Goliath's spear was the weight of 600 shekels of iron.  These giants were the product of humans (clay) intermixing with demonic flesh (iron, the "dominant gene").  It is interesting that the feet of Daniel's image (Daniel 2:33) is a mixture of iron and clay.  Am I suggesting that we may see giants again?  Well, Jesus said as it was in the days of Noah and as it was in the days of Lot ("...also after that...") so shall it be with the coming of the Son of Man.

Looking Forward To The Cross For Salvation?

Ever hear people say something like this: "Just like we look back to the cross for our salvation, people in the Old Testament looked forward to the cross for their salvation."  Do you ever get a verse to back up this claim?  Almost always, you don't.  Why is that?  I think our doctrine sometimes gets cloudy in the murk of traditional clichés and robotic statements.  For example, many that believe that water baptism is for the church, the Body of Christ, often will say that after salvations, you must follow the Lord in believer's baptism (a phrase never found in the Bible, by the way).  What is this insinuating?  Well, it would mean that the Lord is the pattern - that the Lord was lost, got saved, and then was baptized as a public profession of His faith.  This is prime example of just regurgitating what we've heard but never stopping to think about what we are saying.

Did people look forward to the cross in the so-called Old Testament?  I think the Scriptures would help us understand this issue.

People often will quote Galatians where it says that the gospel was preached unto Abraham.  Therefore, just like when they read the word "baptism" and automatically think of water, they read the word "gospel" and automatically think of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  In fact, Galatians says what the gospel was that Abraham heard.  Galatians 3:8 says that the gospel was preached unto Abraham saying, "In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed."  Gospel means "good news" - that's all it means.  Therefore, the gospel or good news that Abraham heard and believed was that through him (Israel), the entire world would be blessed.  The Bible says that Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.  Nowhere is it said that Abraham trusted the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for his salvation.

Let's skip ahead to Luke.  Yes, Luke still stands doctrinally under the Old Testament (the Law of Moses).  In Luke 18, Jesus reveals that He is going to have to go the cross and die.  What is the disciple's response?  They didn't believe it!  In fact, Peter rebukes the Lord and tells Him that He is not going to go to the cross.  Now, how could they have been preaching the same gospel if they didn't even believe it?!  Furthermore, after the resurrection, they still didn't believe it.  They wanted proof!  Remember Thomas?!  Even Paul said in I Corinthians that the death of Christ was kept hidden, even from Satan.

Now, some will argue, "but what about the references to the death of Christ (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53) and the resurrection (Psalm 16)?"  Well, first the references to the death of Christ are only that.  We see Isaiah speaking directly about Jews and how this death will relate to them.  Verse 10 tells us the reason - that God was going to accept this as the sin offering for HIS PEOPLE.  Secondly, Peter in Acts 2 explains Psalm 16.  He says the reason for the resurrection has nothing to do with anybody salvation but has everything to do with somebody sitting on a throne in a kingdom.  We do not get any word of the efficacy of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ until Paul reveals it for us and calls it "my Gospel" (Romans 16:25).  This gospel is named, The Gospel of the Grace of God.

There is just not one shred of evidence to support the idea that people were looking forward to the cross for their salvation.  In fact, if they were, by keep making the animal sacrifices for sin?  Why not just rest in the finished work of Christ?

A Brief Look At The Gap Theory

In the 19th Century, Darwin publishes his book Origin of the Species. Biologists, Geologists, Anthropologists claim that, to reconcile God and Science, there needs to be a “gap” of time to allow for evolution. Contemporary of Darwin was a man named Thomas Chalmers. Chalmers was a Scottish Theologian and attended the University of Edinburgh with Darwin. Chalmers set out to try to harmonize so-called Science and the Bible. He felt he succeeded by developing the Gap Theory.

The basis for this theory was the reading of Genesis. He stated that the phrase “was without form and void” is a mistranslation in the KJV. He argued that it would read, “became without form and void.” So note, he had to change the book to teach his theory. The theory becomes popular because now we can prove that God and so-called Science harmonize. There are even some prominent theological authors that ascribe to this theory: George Pember; Clarence Larkin; Merrill Unger; Arthur Pink; and C. I. Schofield who put this theory in his study notes in the book of Genesis. Since his study bible is widely used, we’ll address some of the arguments of the theory from his work.

 

The Gap Theory basically says this:

 

Sometime in the dateless past, God created the original earth (Gen. 1:1). Lucifer was given dominion over the original earth (No verse). This original earth contained a Pre-Adamite Race without souls (No Verse). Lucifer sinned (Isaiah 14:12-13). God floods the original earth in judgment (II Peter 3). Now, billions of years gap the original earth and the present earth. This is where fossils show up; dinosaurs live and die here until God recreates the present earth (Gen. 1:3).

Let’s examine this position, again, taking arguments from Schofield’s notes.

Genesis 1:1; 16 (Schofield’s argument)

1. God “created”…

2. God “made”

a. Sun was created for the original earth

b. Sun made visible after the chaotic earth is flooded

3. However, there is no biblical distinction between created and made. Notes these references and compare them.

a. Genesis 1:26-27

b. Exodus 20:11

c. Colossians 1:15

d. John 1:3

Isaiah 14:12 (Schofield’s Argument)

1. Reference to the fall of Lucifer and the chaotic earth’s judgment

a. No judgment upon earth in this verse

b. Nations are mentioned, but whoops, no nations until after Adam’

2. Ezekiel 28:13-14 – Lucifer’s Position in the Garden

a. In the garden of Eden, Satan was still the “Anointed Cherub”, which is the guardian of the throne of God

b. Therefore, Lucifer couldn’t have fallen before the garden was created, and couldn’t have fallen before Adam because nations didn’t exist until Adam

c. The only logical time Lucifer could have fallen from his position is sometime after the creation of man and woman.

I Cor. 15:21 – the idea of Sin itself refutes the Gap Theory

1. Death is a result of sin (Romans 6:23)

2. Death began with Adam, because of Adam’s sin

a. Gap Theorists will say that Satan sin caused Physical Death and Adam’s Sin caused Spiritual Death

1). However, Jesus is called the Second Adam

2). Romans 5 says Jesus tasted death for us

3). If Adam’s sin caused “spiritual” death, why did Jesus have to die a “physical” death?

Jeremiah 4:23 – This verse is used to show the “without form and void” argument

1. “without form and void”

a. Argument is that the same phraseology is used here as it is used in Genesis

b. Notice that it is a mistranslation in Genesis 1, but when it fits their argument, it is not a mistranslation

c. However, the prophet is looking forward to the Babylonian captivity and not looking back at creation.

Isaiah 45:18 – Another poor attempt and word juggling

1. The argument is that “vain” = void

a. However, vain means without purpose

b. While void means empty

c. The prophet is looking forward to the Tribulation and the Millennium and the context of the whole passage is Israel’s salvation, not creation

Genesis Chapter 1 – How is it written?

1. All but verses 1 and 27 begin with the word “and”

2. Verse 1 obviously starts things off, there is no “and” at the beginning of something

3. Verse 27 is just summarizing verse 26

4. “And” is a conjunction, meaning it connects a previous thought with the latter thought to achieve a continuous time movement. (No Gap)

II Peter 3:4-7 – The “first” Flood

1. How can we be willingly ignorant of a flood we are never told about?

2. “Lucifer’s Flood” is never mentioned in the Bible (which it wouldn’t be since the author of this theory had to change the Bible to teach his theory)

3. The only flood ever mentioned is Noah’s flood, as previously referenced in I Peter

4. Jesus must have forgotten about the Luciferian flood because he only mentions Noah’s flood

II Peter 3:6 – The earth never “perished” in Noah’s Flood as it did in Lucifer’s Flood

a. Genesis 6:10 says the earth was “destroyed” in Noah’s flood

II Peter 3:5 - Earth standing in the water and out of the water to a Gap Theorist

1. Picture this: The earth is bobbing up and down in a sea called the Deep (Genesis 1:2)

b. Lucifer’s sin caused the earth to fall into this “deep” and be drowned or flooded (again, no verse)

2. However, remember that Earth isn’t always a direct reference to this planet

a. Gen. 1:10

1). God calls the dry land, earth

2). Earth standing in the water and out of the water

a). Sounds like the earth today

b). Do Continents stop at the shoreline?

c). Continents extend under the ocean to ridges or plate boundaries (i.e. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge)

The Gap Theory concludes that the present earth is actually the 2nd earth and that the 1st earth perished during the Luciferian flood.

1. Revelation 21:1

a. A new heaven and a new earth are to replace the 1st heaven and the 1st earth

b. But, according to the theory, these were replaced by the present heaven and earth

c. Scripture won’t contradict itself into an irreconcilable error

d. When a theory is made that calls for a change in one verse, it can then contradict other portions of scripture

Genesis 1:28 – what about the word “replenish”?

1. Replenish means to fill again because of the prefix “re”

2. Definition = to fill, in 1611

3. Another example of a definition change

a. “Let” used to mean to prohibit in some cases, now it means to permit.

4. Context of the passage ALWAYS determines the usage of the word

Hopefully you can see that the Gap Theory does not harmonize the Bible with Science because the Gap Theory can’t even harmonize the Bible. What else is interesting is that God’s word contains many references to natural, Scientific principles.

To see just some of these principles, visit http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#7XI5t69sIFh0