It is Priests Who Are Appointed Once to Die Before the Judgment (Hebrews 9:27)

As it is appointed for men to die once, but after this comes the judgment.

-Hebrews 9:27

We will look at the context of this verse in several ways.

• The passage
• The chapter
• The Book
• Paul's teachings
• The Law

This verse is often pulled from its context and used to teach that every human being is placed before God and judged for heaven or "hell" immediately. In light of Paul only knowing of two types of bodies (terrestrial and celestial, of the earth, of the spirit in resurrection), we find no room for any immediate state. We also see in the same chapter (1 Cor 15) Paul's only use "Hades" in his epistles and he is referring to believers, in context.

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?” You fool! What you sow is not made alive unless it dies. When you sow, you do not sow the body that shall be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. Then God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body. All flesh is not the same flesh. There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies. The glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. One star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:35-44

When this corruptible will have put on incorruption [in resurrection], and this mortal will have put on immortality, then the saying that is written shall come to pass: “Death is swallowed up in victory."

“O death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?

-1 Corinthians 15:54-55

We have covered the topics of Hades and resurrection elsewhere, but it is important to the understanding of Hebrews 9. Since we cannot cram the common interpretation of Hebrews 9:27 into Paul's teachings on death and resurrection, we should look to the greater context for understanding.

But even without referencing Paul's teachings about resurrection, we can dismiss the common interpretation of our verse from the context of Hebrews chapter 9 and the full passage alone.

It was therefore necessary that the replicas of heavenly things be cleansed with these sacrifices, but that the heavenly things themselves be cleansed with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter holy places made with hands, which are patterned after the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor did He enter to offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. For then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the world was created, but now He has appeared once at the end of the ages to put away sin by sacrificing Himself. As it is appointed for men to die once, but after this comes the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to save those who eagerly wait for Him.

-Hebrews 9:23-28 

The Superiority of Christ is the Context

The greater context speaks to the reality of Christ's perfect and complete sacrifice as being superior to the work of Israel's High Priest and the sacrificial system of the Law. That system was merely a picture of the final work. It also was work that had to be repeated as it could never actually redeem anyone from his sins. We will continue to point us to the superiority and the finality and perfection of the work of Christ as does the Book of Hebrews. We can never stress it to often or too greatly!

For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hebrews 10:3


But every priest stands daily ministering and repetitively offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

-Hebrews 10:11

The Book of Hebrews, written during the Acts Age to Jews, is a presentation of Christ as superior to everything in the Law and in the sacrificial system. Christ is superior to the sacrifices in the tabernacle and temple for his sacrifice does not need to be repeated. Christ' priesthood is superior in that it never ends. The Roman Catholic church offers thousands of masses everyday in which they teach they are offering an ongoing sacrifice, a work that is neither sufficient nor complete. There is no room for compromise with such a system. 

In the Law, the High Priest enters the Holy Place with blood that was not his own. But neither his blood nor the blood of animals could take away sin. Christ sacrificed himself for sin once and for all. Christ never has to die again. He is Israel's ultimate High Priest (but not according to the Levitical priesthood as we shall see). The High Priest under the Law will die and must be replaced in that system with the next High Priest. 

When Christ died, the judgment came, the offering made, and proof of acceptance was satisfied by his resurrection. The High Priest under the Law dies, yet sin is never washed away (it is merely covered). All men are appointed to die. The use of "judgment" in Hebrews 9:27 as interpreted by almost all schools of theology, completely ignores the rest of the context. Christ's work is thus diminished. 

This is how the New Living Translation renders the verse:

It is in the plan that all men die once. After that, they will stand before God and be judged.

We have spoken favorably of certain NLT translations of verses, but here we see the danger of "dynamic equivalency." A doctrine of men is forced onto a verse that says nothing of the sort. Young's Literal Translation renders the verse, "and as it is laid up to men once to die, and after this -- judgment." Nothing here about a man standing before God to be judged after his death. That is tradition, not truth.

Basic Evangelical understanding of redemption knows we are judged in Christ and redeemed the moment we believe. There is a future judgment of service, but tradition never puts that on this verse (and rightly so). So, what is this "judgment?" 

The NLT continues into verse 28 and things no longer make sense if verse 27 was a judgment for any random person upon death with no knowledge of the outcome.

And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, so also Christ was offered once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.

-Hebrews 9:27-28 (NLT)

We have again here, as we do throughout the Acts age, a pointing to the return of Christ. This is the central point of verse 28. So what would "Dolly Parton [or whomever] died and then God sent her to heaven/hell" (whichever position you take on her faith) have to do with the second coming or the work of the High Priest? What "salvation" is the Lord bringing and to whom? The already redeemed? The already judged? Paul is speaking to Jews about the Kingdom in Israel that is to come (as promised by the Lord in Acts 1 at his coming and reflected in Paul's Acts epistles, such as First and Second Thessalonians). 

In the traditional understanding, a man dies, is judged right then, and then floats off in a mysterious form to either heaven or "hell." Who is "eagerly waiting for him?"  What salvation is he bringing and to whom? 

If you don't like the NLT, here it is in the KJV and the problem remains:

Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (KJV)

I reference Dolly Parton because Hebrews 9:27 was employed by the leader of a very large Evangelical ministry to argue that God judged her directly upon death. But Dolly doesn't fit the context nor does any random human. Is the Evangelical leader thinking then that when he dies he'll be judged, go to heaven, then look for the return of Christ for his salvation?

The Greater Context of a Mortal Priesthood

We must also remember, the greater context of chapters 7, 8, and 9 is the superiority of the Priesthood and Offering of Christ, and the types and shadows in the law. Not addressing this issue directly, but in discussing the limited priesthood of the Levites compared to the eternal priesthood of Christ pictured in the priesthood of Melchizedek, Paul wrote:

And in one case dying men [Levitical priesthood] receive tithes, but in the other case [Melchizedek picturing Christ] it is one who is borne witness to that he is living.

-Hebrews 7:8

 

"Dying men" is rendered "mortal men" in other translations and "men that die" in the KJV. These are the ones that die in Hebrews 9:27. They are juxtaposed throughout Hebrews against the superior priesthood of Christ, a priesthood that never ends for Israel. Christ died once for all, was buried, did not decay, rose again to never die again. This is a superior priesthood in every way, certainly superior to "dying men." In any case, all mortal men die whether priest or not, whether believer or not. Christ is superior to all.

As a comparative, Christ's death is the ultimate death. There remains no more sacrifice for sin. All guilt is remitted. No more mortal High Priest is needed. We also have juxtaposed in this book the Lord's priesthood against the Levitical priesthood as a whole. Our Lord is from the Tribe of Judah. This means nothing to gentiles, but Israel's priesthood was limited to the Tribe of Levi. The Lord's priesthood is pictured in Melchizedek, a priest with no beginning or end, a priest of no tribe. 

This is important to remember as this argument was laid out earlier in Hebrews. Melchizedek ministered to Abraham (Abram at the time) while he was still in uncircumcision. 

So also Christ did not glorify Himself to be made a High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:

“You are My Son;
today I have become Your Father.” [Ps. 2:7]

As He also says in another place:

\You are a priest forever
in the order of Melchizedek.” [Ps 110:4]

In the days of His flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death. He was heard because of His godly fear. Though He was a Son, He learned obedience through the things that He suffered, and being made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey Him, being designated by God a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

-Hebrew 5:5-10

The Priesthood Pertains Only to Israel

This priesthood is relevant only to the children of Abraham. When the Lord provided coats of skins for Adam and Eve (the founders of all races), he used no intermediary. The picture was complete. Blood was shed for sin. But we must also note in Genesis that no mention of the blood is given, the focus is on the covering (the atonement). 

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

-Genesis 3:21

Israel's sins were "covered" by the animal sacrifices, but the sin was never taken away ("For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." -Heb 10:4). For Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., the only way sin is taken away is by the perfect sacrifice of Christ (to which they looked forward as we look back). The context of a priest (High Priest) is only for Israel. Christ is not our High Priest (just as he is not the Son of David) in the current calling. In Adam, he his our Lord and our God. He has always been the God of the Gentiles (Rom 3:29, 15:10-11; etc.). But Gentiles never (even now) have been called to be a "nation of priests" as Israel was (Ex 19:5-7).

We will never see the Lord as priest in the Post Acts epistles. We must keep all this in mind and we look back at the Law and the inferior priesthood of the Levitical High Priest which is the context of much of the Book of Hebrews. Christ did his work as High Priest as part of Israel's covenant for them. This is the immediate context of verse 27 in question. 

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

-Hebrews 9:24-26

When the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies, there was no seat. He did not sit. His work was never done as sin was only covered and not forgiven in full. And no gentile (from Adam on) looked to an annual feast nor waited on the work of a High Priest in a tabernacle or temple. The covering was only for Israel, under the First Covenant, and connected to her special, earthly calling. (We remind ourselves here that the hope of the current calling is greater than Israel's hope.)

The Roman Catholic system of priests, confession, Penance, and Purgatory is reflection of this inferior system. They offer daily a sacrifice that they teach can never take away sin. Men must confess, perform Penance, and then may still have to pay for sin in the fires of Purgatory (only venial sins as grave/mortal sins will damn the soul, Christ is of no value without your  works of Penance, as assigned by a priest). Of course, in that system, your family can pay for sins after death with their suffering and works of charily while Christ's work remains impotent. They have saints who have bled for sin. They are still offering the "blood of others" which can never take away sin.

The Judgment and Salvation in View

The Greek word translated "judgment" in Heb 9:27 is "krísis." As used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew canon, Old Testament), it carries both the idea of judgment and salvation. We need to think of salvation in its broader sense of rescue (but even the narrow sense can be applied). So when the High Priest dies, the accused Israelite is saved from what?

What is the significance of the High Priest dying to a Jew under the Law? A Jewish reader would understand the significance of the comparison. Let's look at how a person who accidentally kills another is handled under the Law.

“Six of the towns you give the Levites [priests] will be cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone may flee. In addition, give them forty-two other towns. In all you must give the Levites forty-eight towns, together with their pasturelands.

-Numbers 35:6-7

A Jewish reader would understand the significance of the High Priest's death in relation to the accused in a city of refuge. The accused must go to the city of refuge or be subject to death by an avenger. He is essentially trapped there. If he were to leave, he was subject to revenge by the deceased's family.

Then the Lord said to Moses: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee. They will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial  [judgment: krisis] before the assembly. 

-Numbers 35:9-12

We note again: The accused must stay in the city of refuge if he wants protection from any avenger. If he leaves the protection, he is liable to be killed by an avenger. We repeat this condition so we don't miss the requirement for his full release of responsibility. He must stay in the city until the death of the High Priest. This is paramount to see. The condition is noted three times in one passage.

 

The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send the accused back to the city of refuge to which they fled. The accused must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil. ‘But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which they fled and the avenger of blood finds them outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. The accused must stay in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest; only after the death of the high priest may they return to their own property.

-Numbers 35:25-27

When the High Priest dies, the avenger cannot act. The accused is judged/saved from vengeance. This fits not only our selected passage from Hebrews 9, but also the greater theme of the one, perfect sacrifice of Christ for all forever. Christ the High Priest died for Israel, all were set free, no new High Priest is needed as the ultimate has risen from the dead! There remains no more sacrifice (death/blood payment) for sin.

This picture is consistent with other Hebrew references. The Passover, The Day of Atonement, etc. and other types and shadows explained in the Book of Hebrews as is the death of the High Priest and its connection to judgment/salvation (krisis). 

One passage to help us further see the connection between judgment and salvation (rescue):

And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered (saved) them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge ... when the judge was dead, they returned (turned back) ...’ 

-Judges 2:18-19\

 

The judges of Israel were first of all saviors. This is seen in the judgeship of Othniel and Ehud ‘The Lord raised up a savior to the children of Israel’ (Judg. 3:9-15). The reader will doubtless call to mind the many passages where the poor, the needy and the righteous call upon God to ‘judge’ them, and such passages as Psalms 1:5 where the ungodly are excluded from ‘judgment’. It is this Old Testament conception of judgment and the particular exercise of it seen in Numbers chapter 35 that must be kept to the fore as we read Hebrews 9:27.

-Charles Welch (Perfection or Perdition, excerpt, P.150) 

We also must remember that chapter breaks in scripture are not in the original manuscripts. After the passage at the Hebrews 9, chapter 10 in our bibles continues the theme of the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ.

For the law is a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of those things. It could never by the same sacrifices, which they offer continually year after year, perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshippers, once purified, would no longer be conscious of sins? But in those sacrifices there is an annual reminder of sins. For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifices and offerings You did not desire,
but a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You have had no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘See, I have come to do Your will, O God,’
as it is written of Me in the volume of the book.” [Ps 40:6-8]

-Hebrews 10:1-7

The cities of refuge, the judgment, the salvation, the finality all point to Christ. We dare not reach into that book and pull out a verse to serve our traditions.  In Christ we are clean. No one can bring a charge against us. Let them judge us. In Christ we are fully sanctified.

Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in my integrity. I have trusted in the Lord; I will not slip.

-Psalm 26:1

 

Charles Welch offers this structural outline from Hebrews 9 with the idea of judgment/salvation:

A 27. And as. 

B 27. The men die once. 

C 27.Judgment. 

A 28. So also. 

B 28. Christ was offered once. 

C 28. Salvation. 

The Hebrew Context of the Book of Hebrews

 A Jewish reader wouldn't need the explanation. That is for two reasons. First, he would be familiar with the history of Israel, the Law, the High Priest, the sacrificial system, the cities of refuge, and the annual feasts. Second, he would not have any concept of a bodiless "soul" floating about. When Lazarus died in John 11, there is no mention of any hope that he is sitting around, bodiless, somehow in Abraham's bosom. There is only talk of the only hope for the dead, resurrection in Christ.

Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You may ask of God, God will give You.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, yet shall he live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

-John 11:21-27

We have covered this topic elsewhere, but we note it in this study to once again point out that no Jew would understand the context of the priesthood and the dying spoken of in Hebrews 9:27 as being some teaching on bodiless souls going to either heaven or into God torture chamber. The hope is always freedom from death ("the gates of Hades/Sheol") in a future resurrection. 

When Job faced death, he wasn't rejoicing or thinking he would immediately be in "Abraham's Bosom" (which was not possibly in any case). Did Adam and Noah go to "Abraham's Bosom?" Just food for thought as the passage concerning Abraham's Bosom in John is almost universally plucked out of its context as the sole "evidence" for a bodiless future (a doctrine of the Pharisees).

They change the night into day;
the light is short because of darkness.
If I wait, the grave is my house;
I have made my bed in the darkness.
I have said to the pit, ‘You are my father’;
to the worm, ‘You are my mother and my sister.’
Where now is my hope?
As for my hope, who will see it?
Will they go down to the gates of Sheol?
Will we descend together in the dust?”

-Job 17:12-16

This is the writing of Hezekiah king of Judah after his illness and recovery:

I said: In the middle of my days,
I shall go to the gates of Sheol;
I am to be deprived of the rest of my years.
I said, I shall not see the Lord,
even the Lord, in the land of the living;
I shall see man no more
with the inhabitants of the world.

-Isaiah 38:9-11

 

These are believers. And the entire passages should be read to get a sense of the full gloom they have in facing death. The gates of Sheol (Hades, Hell) is death. And death is not looked to in joy. This is why the Lord states that a profession of faith in him is a the key to bursting forth out of the gates of Hades (compare Paul in 1 Cor 15). Gates aren't attacking the "church" (the picture alone makes no sense), gates are holding in the dead. And the only escape is resurrection life.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (KJV: hell) shall not prevail against it.

-Matthew 16:15-18 (MEV)

It is Gentiles who have taken this passage and this book from their purpose and have imposed the Greek mythological version of Hades and our own religious traditions upon them.

Reading the Passage With a Jewish and Scriptural Understanding

Let's read our passage in Hebrews 9 again (even using a biased translation) with hopefully a better understanding of the significance of the High Priest (which is present in the entire last section of the epistle as a whole):

It was therefore necessary that the replicas [pictures, types, shadows] of heavenly things be cleansed with these sacrifices, but that the heavenly things themselves be cleansed with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter holy places made with hands, which are patterned after the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor did He enter to offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. For then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the world was created, but now He has appeared once at the end of the ages to put away sin by sacrificing Himself. As it is appointed for men to die once, but after this comes the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to save [rescue] those who eagerly wait for Him.

-Hebrews 9:23-28

As with the Book of Acts and the  other Acts-Age epistles, we stress again, the expectation of the return of Christ is part of the context.  We have looked at this elsewhere. But we need to be reminded (in light of the human traditions of Christendom) that the churches of the Acts age (with Jews and grafted-in gentiles) were anticipating both the Tribulation, the Return of Christ to the land to establish his Kingdom in Israel.

While none of that applies to us in the current age, it is present in the Book of Hebrews. But even without that piece, the passage stands on its own when we understand the teachings connected to the High Priest and the cities of refuge under the Law.

The Jewish believer is being assured that Christ's priesthood is superior to any priesthood in the Law. His sacrifice was not like that of bulls or goats, but of his own blood (something no other High Priest could offer). Upon his death, all sin was remitted. The city of refuge inhabitants were free. No charge could ever be brought against them whether inside or outside the city. It is appointed unto the High Priest to die, then the judgment from the council of innocence, then the full release. 

After the human High Priest died, the accused were free. Christ's sacrificial death is far superior and never had to be repeated for anyone else. All in Christ are free forever.  

When we allow ourselves to see this, Hebrews 9:27 comes alive for Jew specifically and for us in its continuing glorification of the finished work of Christ. It is not a random, out of place threat. It is pointing the glorious freedom from even accusation we have in a Savior who has died to make us free, but who will never die again!

Why Does God Hate Divorce? A Fresh Look at Malachi 2:10

For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that He hates divorce

-Malachi 2:16a

Netflix is currently running a docuseries titled, "Death of the Pastor's Wife."   This isn't a review of the program, but suffice to say it's unintentionally a good docuseries on just about everything wrong in what is called Evangelical Christianity (with which I identify). It's also good case study of the disease we've looked at  from several different angles which I call the clergy/laity system.

In the Netflix docuseries, the sick and demented pastor, John Paul Miller, after cheating (committing adultery) on his first wife, getting a divorce (don't miss that) so he could marry the worship leader (who also committed adultery and then got a divorce so she could marry JP, don't miss that) who was much younger, abuses and cheats on this second wife as well. Feel free to watch the series and be disgusted with him on your own.

The modern Christian reasoning the second wife uses to stay in the abusive and sick second marriage is also a disease that seems to permeate all of Christendom. That is, she does what most of Christianity does and builds her theology on selected verses taken out of context. It's sad to watch because she really wants to do the right thing. Unfortunately, she was able to be manipulated because of her failure to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). A review of all the common theological errors of just about everyone in this series would require multiple blog entries. So, let me limit this to our verse above and the pastor's abuse of it.  

[Note: although this entry focuses on what I believe are gross blind spots and bad interpretation within Evangelical Christianity, the enormous Catholic Church has no room to boast as its threat of eternal damnation for the "grave sin" of divorce (without the very expensive annulment approval of the CC) is probably far worse in terms of abuse.] 

The pastor in the series (although divorced himself as noted) text bombs his second wife (remember, she was also already once divorced after an adulterous affair with the pastor) screeching at her and asking why she would do something "God hates." He is, of course, referring to Malachi 2:16 (quoted above).

But what exactly does God hate in that chapter and why does God hate divorce in general? We will look at the context of the verse in the Book of Malachi, but first let's look at the Lord's words in Matthew that also need examination in context (rightly divided). 

But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality...

-Matthew 19:9a

Just on its surface, this verse is telling us of at least one reason for "divorce" (we will look at that word shortly). When we pull half of verse 2:16 out of its context in Malachi, we are left with the idea that God just hates divorce for the sake of hating divorce. Of course, God allows divorce for several violations of the Hebrew/Jewish marriage covenant (such as we shall see when we examine Matthew 19:9 more closely). God allows that which he "hates?" Yes. And that makes perfect sense when taken in the context of the verse in question. 

Let's start by reading the address on the envelope.

The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

-Malachi 1:1

The harsh words of this book are to God's chosen nation, Israel. His beloved. The apple of His eye. We need to mark some things because of that. First we note, as we are taught, that all scripture is profitable (2 Tim 3:16). So there is something for our learning in this book, but there is a difference between that which is for us and that which is to us. Malachi was prophesying to Israel. Not to us, not even to gentiles in his own day (unless he specifically notes them). As we shall see, Malachi (and God) is concerned with the covenant God had with the fathers (Israel's fathers). 

Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

-Malachi 2:10

God did not make the Sinai covenant with Adam, Noah or even Abraham (who was justified in a state of uncircumcision, Romans 4:9-12). He does not have that covenant with us in this age. The First Covenant is expressly and specifically with Israel alone (Ex 20:5-9).

We are not in covenant relationship with God in this age, but we must leave that there (we have covered this elsewhere). We will note again that while not directly to us, these things in the prophets are for our learning. We learn about the character of God and what he hates. We can certainly profit from understanding such things.

We also see in this one verse (in addition to the reference to the covenant) God's charge against his own people. They have dealt "treacherously" with one another. This is among his own people. We cannot make this "unbelievers" as those who teach Replacement Theology must do. If the "church" is Israel, the application here would have to be the "church." But we do not need that false application to understand God's anger here. And we never forget that this is all part of the reasoning for God hating divorce.

Treacherously is translated from the Hebrew word, "bâgad." We have the idea here of dealing deceitfully (Strong's Hebrew Definitions). The word also carries the idea of covering something with a garment (ibid). We can see the relation. Something that is hidden. When we deal deceitfully we are hiding both the truth and our own intentions. This is the overarching charge God has against his chosen people.

 

Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and Jerusalem. For Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which He loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant of the man who does this, teacher and student, yet who brings an offering to the Lord of Hosts.

-Malachi 2:11-12

Here the charge is centered on Judah and Jerusalem (try cramming "church" in there). This is not a study on the entire Book of Malachi, but I think it is helpful to know the setting here. Malachi is prophesying to a post-Babylonian captivity people during the time of the Second Temple (~400 BC). The nation was being rededicated after Nehemiah's request to return to Judah and rebuild had been granted (Neh 2:5-8). We are near the end of the inspired Hebrew Canon. To be sure, I do not know my Hebrew prophets as well as I should or hope to, but the big picture is clear.

Since I've mentioned his prophecy, just a quick reference to Nehemiah 13.

On that day they read aloud from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people. In it there was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the congregation of God, because they did not meet the children of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam to curse them. However, our God turned the curse into a blessing. When they heard the Law, they separated from Israel all the racially mixed.

-Nehemiah 13:1-3

There is absolutely no room here for some sort of church-Israel connection. There is no room under the Old/First Covenant that one's race would be the marker of "salvation" (as we commonly use the word). When we rightly divide, we can see God's plans for the nation in his greater plan for the earth. We know those outside Israel could have resurrection life while simultaneously being excluded from the blessings specific to Israel's calling in the First Covenant to be a holy nation of priests (Ex 20:5-9). 

This begs the question, "priests for whom?" And the answer is, priests for the nations in a future earthly kingdom. For that to happen, Israel needs yet to be winnowed and cleansed. But rest assured it will happen one day under the Second Covenant. But, again, we must leave that there. We just acknowledge that we can in no way insert a "church" with a heavenly hope into these prophecies and passages. Again, there is more than one "church" in scripture.

This is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying out, because He no longer regards the offering, nor receives it with good will from your hand. Yet you say, “Why?” It is because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously. Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

-Malachi 2:13-14

Would we ever say to any believer of what men today call the "church" that his/her offering is received or rejected of the Lord? All men have already been reconciled to God through the single and perfect offering of Christ (2 Cor 5). Now, not all men are thus redeemed, faith is necessary for that (Rom 4:9-16, etc.). God is reconciled to all men from his side through Christ, but men must individually be reconciled to God by faith (2 Cor 5). 

Verse 14 tells us why Israel, as a nation, is being judged and why she is having her offerings rejected. We've already seen that Judah has dealt deceitfully and has profaned the covenant the nation had with God. But now the Lord brings a specific accusation: the treachery against their wives.

Since Adam, God has used the marriage and unity of one man and one woman as his template and his picture. In this section of Malachi we see God equating Israel's idolatry and deceitfulness with him with deceitfulness in the marriage covenant. Just as Moses striking the rock the second time ruined the picture of the single striking of Christ (once for all), so does treachery in marriage ruin the picture of God's care and  oneness with his own. 

The second striking of the rock was so offensive to God's picture of the provision in the single offering of Christ that Moses was forbidden to step into the blessings in the promised land. Moses, yes the great man of faith Moses, lost an inheritance and is a picture and warning to all. Moses did not lose his free gift of resurrection life. He did not lose the blessings he will enjoy in a future earthly kingdom in Israel, but he did lose the joy of leading Israel into the land.

Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels. Will we bring out water from this rock for you?” And Moses lifted up his hand, and he struck the rock twice with his rod, and plenty of water came out, and the assembly drank, and their livestock. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”

-Numbers 20:10-12

God is very protective of his pictures (types). This is another reason we must be very careful in handling God's word and in rightly dividing it properly. 

God loves his own. Dealing treacherously in a marriage covenant hurts both God's picture of his relationship to his people and it hurts his people. We should start to see what it is God "hates." 

 

Did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously. For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that He hates divorce; for it covers one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.

-Malachi 2:15-16

 

God hates divorce because it is the end result of treachery and a distortion of his design. 

Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, but rather that he should turn from his ways and live?

-Ezekiel 18:23

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Is that because prefers they stay alive in their wickedness? Of course not! He would rather have seen them turn from the way of death unto the way of life. Death is the end for the unbeliever (not entering some sadistic torture chamber of God's as most of Christendom teaches). It is the end of any hope of reconciliation with God. In the great resurrection chapter, death is spoken of as our "enemy" (1 Cor 15:26). Resurrection is the undoing of death and the power of the gates of Hades (i.e. the grave). 

All of that hope is lost in the death of the wicked. They surely deserve death (as we all do because of our own sin and our sin in Adam). But in death all hope is gone. This is similar to why God hates divorce. It is not the act of divorce itself that God hates (unless abused), it is that which leads to divorce. It is the deceitfulness that God hates. 

• sexual immorality
• adultery
• abuse (physical or emotional)
• lack of provision
• lack of affection

These are the things that destroy a marriage. These are the sins and failings that lead to divorce. God has allowed death (our enemy) to keep us from being trapped in this earthly body of decay and sin. God has allowed divorce (which he hates) to free the abused from the bondage of a treacherous spouse.

Where is the deceit? The deceit is in the denial of the vow. Let's look again at verse 16.

For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that He hates divorce; for it covers one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.

The "spirit" refers to the life God has given you. For us, we need to take heed to our new nature in Christ. No use telling the lost man to look to his carnal nature to find what he needs. The redeemed must recognize that while we do have a new spirit (nature) from God, we still have an old nature. We must learn to walk in the new nature (the newness of life). If we walk in the lust of the flesh, horrific sins against marriage will manifest. Remember, the wicked sins of 1 Corinthians 5 and 6,are charged against believers. It does not hurt to continually be reminded that we must recognize that we have both an old nature and a new nature, and learn to walk in the new. 

just as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with Him in the likeness of His death, so shall we also be united with Him in the likeness of His resurrection,

-Romans 6:4-5 

I say then, walk in the spirit [new nature], and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

-Galatians 5:16 

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the age of this world and according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among them we all also once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and we were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and He raised us up and seated us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that we should walk in them.

-Ephesians 2:1-10

We must now turn to a dispensational distinction Paul gives us regarding divorce. In the Acts age, when Gentiles were grafted-in for the stated purpose of making a real, live, relevant Israel jealous (not to make "the church" jealous, Rom 10:19; 11:11,14). Paul, in the Book of Romans, is addressing grafted-in Gentiles in the context of his teachings on the last days and the expected return of the Lord to establish his Kingdom in Israel (Acts 1; Acts 3, etc.). The message of that age was still "to the Jew first." It is focused on God's plan for the earth.

We have covered this elsewhere, but just as the Lord in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24-25) spoke of the burden of children in the tribulation ahead for Israel, so does Paul warn of this burden because "the time is short" in 1 Cor 7. In that chapter, Paul teaches that it is best not to marry (he will seemingly contradict this in 1 Timothy 5, only if we fail to rightly divided the dispensations) and to not have children. But for those who cannot control themselves or who are already married, Paul upholds the sanctity of marriage.

In the midst of those instructions and the honoring of marriage, Paul says something that would be strange to someone in Israel in light of their covenant.

Now to the married I command, not I, but the Lord, do not let the [believing] wife depart from her husband. But if she departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And do not let the husband send away his wife.

-1 Corinthians 7:10-11


But if the unbeliever departs, let that one depart. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

-1 Corinthians 7:15-16

 

Just to quickly address the word "save" here. We must understand that this word also is subject to its context. One can be saved from a sinking ship. When Paul was in the storm in Acts 27 and told his fellow passengers to remain on the ship to be "saved," he obviously wasn't teaching "salvation by floatation." In 1 Corinthians, with the terrible prophetic days for Israel and the earth "at hand," Paul is thinking about physical salvation of the unbeliever.

Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved.

-Acts 27:31

 

The Lord is also referring to physical salvation (rescue) when he notes in Matthew about enduring to the end. The end of what? The end of Israel tribulations. He is not teaching "salvation by surviving."

“The brother will deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child. And the children will rise up against their parents and cause them to be put to death. You will be hated by all men for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, escape into another. For truly I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

-Matthew 10:21-23 (spoken to his chosen disciples)

“So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. Let him who is in the field not return to take his clothes. Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse in those days! Pray that your escape will not be in the winter or on the Sabbath. For then will be great tribulation, such as has not happened since the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be. “Unless those days were shortened, no one would be saved..."

-Matthew 24:15-22 (spoken to his chosen disciples)

Let us return to the instructions for grafted-in Gentiles concerning marriage in 1 Cor 7. The first passage quoted from 1 Cor 7 above is specific to women believers. In light of the end, they were not to depart from their husbands. But if they did depart, they could not remarry. .The departing was then connected to obedience in light of the end (and perhaps not willing to bear children). In such a case, between believers, he was not free to divorce her. From earlier in the chapter (v.5) we know that this will leave him open to an attack from Satan, but it is allowed.

The word translated "divorce" in many versions (but not all) is the Greek word aphíēmi. I have changed the Modern English version above to "send away" instead of "divorce" (And do not let the husband send away his wife). When the Lord references the "certificate of divorcement" in Matthew 5:31 from the Law (Deut 24), he uses "apostásion." It is used three times in the Greek, all as part of "certificate of divorcement." 

I would suggest, the lack of the Greek word "apostásion" in 1 Cor 7 makes sense. Under the Law, the formal "bill of divorcement" is more than simply sending away or putting away. It has no direct application to Gentiles who were never under the Law. I think we can thus say, the "departing" and "sending away" of 1 Cor 7:10-11 is clearly to the gentile in that age. A believing husband and believing wife. She shouldn't just walk away and he should not send her away. 

The second passage (1 Cor 7:15-16) is regarding an unbelieving spouse (either male or female). No writ of divorcement (as required under the Law) is needed here as it would be if they were under the Law. If the unbeliever wants to leave, the believer is free to remarry. Under Roman Law this was allowed. But even here in God's eyes, for the grafted-in Gentile who was not under the Law (1 Cor 15, 21, etc.) nor ever under the Law (Rom 2:14; 1 Cor 9:21; etc.), Paul allows this rather "easy divorce." I say that, but Paul does not even use the word. 

In Israel if one just "sent away" his wife, there were still be restrictions on him and on her. There had to be cause under the Law for a writ of divorcement (Ex 21, Deut 24, etc.). If a wife is simply sent away and then marries another, he has caused her to then commit adultery. 

But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put (apolýō) away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away (apolýō) commits adultery.

-Matthew 19:9 (Darby)

apolýō means to separate or loose. I believe the reason listed here (but not earlier in Matthew 5) concerning this question, "fornication," is a specific sin which makes the marriage itself null and void. The word  translated "fornication" is "porneía." It is translated as fornication in all 26 uses in the KJV. The word translated into some form of "adultery" is "moicháō" all six times in the KJV and in nine other translations that I checked (from literal to dynamic equivalencies) in including, obviously, in both Matthew 5 and 19. 

Under the Law, a bill of divorcement was required for very specific violations of the marriage covenant (as bullet pointed above). One could not simply "send away" his wife for any reason. We can sum it up this way (under the Law):

• A Writ of Divorcement was allowed for specific sins of treachery in marriage
• Sending away was only allowed only in the case of a discovery of fornication

When God divorced Israel, he did it under the terms of the covenant he had with them (and with them alone). God did not divorce Nineveh. God did not divorce Amalek, etc. God did not simply send away Israel without cause.

We come back to our opening questions. Why does God hate divorce? Did God do that which he hated against his own Law (as Pastor John Paul Miller accused his wife)? Putting these thoughts together, we conclude: 

God does not hate the act of divorce, he hates the necessity of the act of divorce. God hates what leads to divorce.

If the accusations (presented with a great amount of evidence) against JP Miller in the Netflix docuseries are true, he is guilty of many acts of treachery against his wife (wives, if we count his first wife) and thus she had the right to divorce him. What God hates is his guilt in all these areas:

• sexual immorality
• adultery
• abuse (physical or emotional)
• lack of provision (to the best of one's ability)
• lack of affection

God doesn't hate divorce without cause. He hates the cause of divorce.

Next time we will look at God's divorce of Israel and what that means in light of prophecy and God's plans for the earth and the promised land. 

I saw that for all the adulteries of backsliding Israel, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. 

-Jeremiah 3:8

Self-Righteousness Dressed as Caring Christian Populism

The following is admittedly subjective, but based on decades of experience, interaction, and observation. Allow me to pause from my usual study style as I address an issue that I believe will be part of a future end-time deception; a Christianity not based on the cross and resurrection, but rather built on the supposed goodness of humankind.

populism noun

pop·​u·​lism ˈpä-pyə-ˌli-zəm 

a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people [plural] especially against the Establishment

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary (emphasis added)

Populism usually arises from a general discontent. … People feel that things are out of control, socially and economically. … The idea that this is the fault of the meritocratic elite is an easy sell. 

—Nicholas Lemann

… anti-government populism is beginning to give way to the more classic, anti-corporate populism … 

—Leslie Savan

… Elizabeth Warren summoned the familiar and fiery spirits of Democratic populism. "Our job is to fight for the families of America," the Massachusetts Senator yelled over applause. … "Stitch up the tax loopholes so that millionaires and billionaires pay at the same tax rate as the people in this room." 

—Jay Newton-Small


The move comes amid a rise in economic populism in the GOP, Republican strategist John Feehery told the Washington Examiner. Even as the party writ large is generally supportive of the business community, an insurgent crop of Republican lawmakers is pursuing a more working-class-friendly agenda … 

—Samantha-Jo Roth

"Populism" has always been the smiling face of harsh, authoritarian Socialism. I figured this out form my world history class in high school in the 1980s. From Marx to Lenin to Stalin to Mussolini to Hitler to the Mao to Ho Chi Mihn to Castro to Maduro to Labour to the DSA to the American Democratic Party to the current state of the GOP... it's all built on the idea that a powerful central government is needed to enforce the foundational beliefs of either end of supposed spectrum (including massive wealth distribution programs championed on both ends of the political spectrum). 

The reasoning given is always the same: we care and we will use force in the name of goodness and righteousness (as we define it) to take care of our lessers.

For wealth redistribution to happen to any degree, there must necessarily be an authoritarian government to exert its force over individual liberties and private property. One of the things these seeming opposites (Leftist Populism vs Rightist Populism) have is a hatred of private property and capitalism (the two things that have created more wealth, comfort, and health in the history of the world). And when they confiscate wealth from those who created it, they invariably take a generous chunk for themselves (but that's another matter).

As the youth in the West start to embrace the language and beliefs of Marxism, they do it in the comfort and with the advanced technology that western capitalism (free markets, I use "capitalism" because of common usage, but it's a Marxist term) has created for them.

The following are just a few examples of many populist quotes we could review from Adolf Hitler who is on the supposed Right (the sources are secondary referring to the original). 

“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.”  [Source: Interview by Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt (January 27, 1934), quoted in David Schoenbaum, Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany]

“Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the people completely free.” [Source: April 12, 1921 speech via Hanover College course archives; Foundations of the Modern Age, Fall Semester 1998, Frank Luttmer]


“The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?... Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can.” [Source: "Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy". Book by Avraham Barka]

Likewise, we could find numerous quotes from the other totalitarian Marxists, but I'll will just quote Stalin (on the supposed Left) to show that the assumed "opposites" had far more in common in their philosophies than many want to admit. And both murdered millions. 

“Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create a planned economy."[Source: Marxism Versus Liberalism by Josef Stalin]

 

Without the references or specific markers, the concepts and beliefs are almost identical. 

While in my high school class, I created a circular continuum listing various political parties and movements from history. The Left and the Right populists meet at essentially same place no matter which extreme you head towards. As you go farther Left the circle brings you back to the same place those going farther Right go. Again, it is not a straight line Left to Right continuum, but a circular line. 

There are variations on which ethnic or religious groups that might be persecuted under any particular system (and to what degree), but both "ideal" versions are built on some sort of hate. Whether it Hitler killing Jews or Stalin killing Jews or American Leftists celebrating the death or murder of Bible-believing Christians )and wishing death on more), hate is hidden under masks of works like "love" and "joy."

Strength Through Joy (KdF - Nazi Germany)

Vote Joy

Joy, and its companion, fun, are powerful political weapons — weapons that have been used successfully to undermine the ridiculous habits of white supremacy.

-Sheryll Cashin (Politico) september29, 2024

It may be seen as a stretch to connect Hitler with Kamala Harris, but the thinking is the same. To enact the programs each desired they would require absolute control over wealth, property, and liberties. Each one believes that people should cede rights, liberties, property, and even our children to a powerful centralized government for our own good. And it will all be in "joy" with an accompanying smile. You see, they're the good guys. They're the righteous ones and by extension the other side become the enemies of joy. Note how joy is connected to the boogeyman "white supremacy" on the American Left to be sure that hate is stirred under the guise of "joy." And I would add here that the burgeoning Democratic Socialist-Muslim alliance on the American Left is virulently antisemitic (just as some previous antisemitic movements in history).  

I would also add that if someone thinks the comparative is ridiculous, we all know the media would go berserk (with 24/7 coverage) if a candidate of whom they disapprove remotely reflected Nazi propaganda. The media and Left freak out when anyone to the right of Mao raises his arm. They scream "Nazi salute!" The choice of words is far more telling than some accidental gesture. The media is on the side of the authoritarians as they also pretend they speak for the "common man." 

The takeaway here is not to be taken in by the words they use. As is the biblical model, it is by their fruits (not their words) that will judge what they offer.

False Premises and False Conclusions from Darwin to Denominations

Logic is greatly misunderstood. We often think logic is based on what we think is obvious. However, that is not how logic works. At the the very base of logic is the idea of drawing a logical conclusion from established premises. The key being both the veracity of the premises and the undeniable (no alternative) to the conclusion drawn.

• Premise: Tom is a cat
• Premise: All cats are felines
• Conclusion: Tom is a feline

This may seem obvious, and to some degree it is. But even with this simple example we are asked to accept that (a) Tom is, in fact, a cat and that (b) all cats are felines. Again, we can show this, but that's the point. We cannot always simply assume a premise is true or that a conclusion is reliable.

• Premise: Tom is a cat
• Premise: All cats are gray
• Conclusion: Tom is gray

Here we see the logical conclusion that Tom is gray. However, the second premise (that all cats are gray) has never been established. If the second premise were true, then, yes, the conclusion would be both logical and sound. So, something can be a logical conclusion based on believed or even generally accepted premises, but that does not make that conclusion necessarily sound.

There are also two assumptions in the first argument. We assume Tom is indeed a cat and we also assume that all cats are felines. Now, that second point may seem crazy, but we have not examined and tested  every single cat who has ever lived to determine they are all felines. That might seem like we're stretching things a bit, but there are times when we assume truths which might not be true due to our limited scope. If someone grows up in a secluded area where all the cats are gray, she may be inclined to believe our second premise is true. 

When it comes to science, many things which are technically theories (that is, they've never been proven to be true or they have never been observed) which we treat as truths. Further, there are things assumed true (no longer considered theories) which either are impossible to test or do not hold up against all the evidence available. Finally, we assume some things are true based solely on our limited capacity to test the veracity of the belief.   

This is not a post on the subject of logic, so we'll have to leave that discussion where it is. We will now turn to Carl Sagan's argument for an enormous and wildly old universe.

The first problem is that the calculations for both age and distance are assumed to be consistent over millions and billions of years (necessarily trillions and quadrillions, etc. of years as no single point of origin can be pinpointed or even assumed). But, again, we will have to leave that where it is. 

Sagan himself, in his Cosmos PBS series, conveniently states that it is not necessary to go back beyond the supposed Big Bang (the dating of which has varied over the years, which in itself should make us question dating conclusions). But if matter is all there is, and matter cannot be created or destroyed (a law of science, not a theory, Law of Conservation of Mass in a closed system), it must then be eternal (having no origin). We must go back infinitely in time. The Big Bang theory itself is an argument against itself. We mention this only to show how the anti-biblical movement expects its adherents to have faith without using the word "faith." They ask that illogical premises be accepted despite our very real logical conclusion that inorganic matter cannot create itself.  

The numbers are incomprehensible. According to current scientific beliefs (Scientism), the nearest star in our own galaxy (Proxima Centauri, the nearest, mind you) is over 4 light years away. One light year equals 9,460,730,472,580 kilometers. Four light years is equal to 2.3514501 x 10 ¹³   Miles. Try to comprehend that number. Now recall that this is the closest star, in our own galaxy. Such impossibly huge numbers are used, in my opinion, so the mind will just accept them. Contemplating such numbers ends in futility and it is easier just to affirm what should result in natural skepticism.

So when the naturalists show us a pretty picture of supposed planets which may be like earth and which may have life (the mathematical numbers are incomprehensible here as well, along with the idea of an infinite past in which life and intelligence and complex biological an chemical information just happen to accidentally develop, for no reason, like that of earth), ask yourself how they could possibly know or test such a conclusion? They can't. We shouldn't even have to get to that point because, as noted, the laws of science not only state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but inorganic matter cannot create or become organic material (life).

This is what they show us ("relatively close, 40 light years away" -Fox4 News)

235,145,010,000,000 miles away. No, we cannot comprehend this distance. "Relatively close" is a ridiculous statement meant to cause uncritical acceptance.

Btw, all of the following are artists' renderings (Earth and Kepler-186F) which most people assume are photographs:

NASA essentially gives us "artist's concept" for everything

This is what they are using (color enhanced by NASA):

Darwin described what he called the "simple cell." But a single cell is "irreducibly complex." That is, any reduction in the complex structure of a single cell would render it useless and dead. This begs the question, where did this complex design and the organic information needed for it to exist come from? Further, why and how did a supposed cell create itself out of inorganic material (which we've established is an impossibility)?

And we haven't even touched the hem of the garment on not only complexity of proteins and their accidental creation, but the necessity of only certain proteins, arranged irreducibly in a specific order in order for life to even be possible (and only possible as the protein arrangements alone do not equal life).

 

Darwin and his contemporaries considered cells to be simple, jelly-like structures, but modern science reveals them as highly complex, irreducibly intricate systems... The discovery of such complexity challenges the notion that cells could evolve gradually through small, random changes. Studies suggest that evolving even a single protein from another could take far longer than the age of the universe under natural mutation rates.

The problem in evolution only gets worse from there. Let's just take the human nervous and cardiac systems. These are impossibly complex systems that no computer could even attempt to create with all the data provided, let alone it creating either by accident for no reason. And these extremely complex systems also work in tandem with each other (along with all the other complex systems in the human body). And there are similar, yet uniquely complex and widely varied systems in nearly 7000 mammal species. 

Evolution is sold to us as a force that cares about things like "survival" and "healing" and "procreation" and "advancement." It somehow created complex information from nowhere to insure survival. But the idea of survival in meaningless. What is its point? Everything dies. Nothing matters. 

Death is necessary in the evolutionary system for advancement and survival. If this accepted, we would be saying that evolution makes more complex life, just so it can die and give way to even more complex life. Somehow evolution has a plan! It thinks ahead!  And it kills its creation in order for the next advancement to arrive only so it can kill that off in a never-ending, goalless system of death leading to nothing. 

"Life" (including all life forms) is an accident with no purpose. We have given it value. We have declared it "important." Yet even these thoughts must be explained by random chemical responses to stimuli. This is thinking logically. It is drawing conclusions from even the unproven premises they have foist upon us. In the aforementioned Cosmos series, Sagan demands that his listeners think no farther back than the imagined Big Bang for this very reason. he is training people not to think beyond the premises they are told are proven. But thought itself, like everything else in that system., must also be accidental and explained in purely physical terms.

Every thought of every creature in a system that must be explained solely by the laws of science as men have declared them in terms of those laws. That is, things like feelings or opinions or values are all just chemical responses to stimuli. Uncontrollable. Random and meaningless and none greater than another. 

A murder is no greater than an act of selflessness. Love no greater than lust. Charity no greater than greed. These are all just accidental chemical reactions foreordained by DNA and random stimuli. And even if we don't want to accept such an idea, there remains nothing to distinguish concepts like right and wrong or moral and immoral (no matter how the godless philosopher wants to cloud the clear issue).

A blind, inorganic, non-living, thoughtless force is given the attributes of a caring god, and the irony is lost on the God-rejector. The atheist declares himself smarter than the God of scripture yet far less intelligent than a blind, meaningless, insentient force. He cannot create the simplest thing with all his intelligence that a blind force created by accident for no reason (defying the laws of science to do so). 

They have a god. It is all-powerful, it is all-knowing, it is smarter than the atheist can even comprehend. But it asks nothing of him and he is free to create his own system of morality. This is the god they choose, the god they worship, the god they believe has their best interests at heart. It is also a god they can ignore when their flesh desires whatever it will. In fact, some of the worst acts of the flesh can be excused or even championed as they serve their master's goal of "survival" and evolution.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, many professed Christians and many denominations (including the enormous Roman Catholic Church) have compromised with evolution. In an evolutionary system, death is good and necessary (contradicting its supposed goal of survival) and God is its author. Death is the enemy. It is not the mechanism of advancement, but a power that had to be defeated. 

The acceptance of evolution and an eternal, mindless universe has sewn the seeds of destruction of not only the western world, but of the truths of scripture, the only place men can find the remedy and rescue from the power of death. 

The forces that have poisoned sound doctrine have done so, no gently, but with force. A corrupt laity has imposed its errors on the willfully blind sheep and they accept no compromise. They have joined the God-deniers in there dismissal and mockery of God, the scriptures, and faithful believers. Bible teacher, J. Vernon McGee explained, and rightly warned, his decision to leave the Presbyterian Church because of its compromises with the world:

"[the] liberal leadership [had] taken over the machinery of the presbytery with a boldness and ruthlessness that is appalling." 

Ruthlessness indeed. And the clergy class in the Presbyterian Church as other clergy in other systems claiming the name of Christ has taken along with it countless millions and has led them into darkness and doubt and destruction. 

[McGee] often spoke of the days of societal apostasy in Christianity and secularism that he believed he was witnessing during his lifetime, warning that spiritual apostasy was always the first of the three stages leading to the fall of nations, commonly observed throughout the Bible, the second and third being, respectively, immorality and political anarchy.

-Compare: The Amazing, Alarming, and Awful Apostasy

 

We are in the last stage. The outward church is in apostacy. Immorality is the norm and widely accepted and approved as not only normal, but even as good. Western political parties are embracing the chaos of communism and atheism. The true God is shunned and any politician openly quoting scripture is demonized as the sellers of Sharia Law and ritual-based Christendom are championed. A very dark age is ahead. An age so dark, it cannot be imagined. 

And its cause is greatly because of the surrender of the individual believer to a wicked and corrupt clergy class. This has always been a curse on Christendom. But the curse is now ubiquitous and the clergy class horrifyingly compromised and corrupt. Men love to surrender their duty too a clergy class. A class that has rejected Paul and his revelation for the current age. They'd rather follow their pastor or their denomination. So it was, so it ever shall be.

Study to show yourself approved by God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

-2 Timothy 2:15 

Follow me [Paul] as I follow Christ.

-1 Corinthians 11:1 

 

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, exhort you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you were called.

-Ephesians 4:1

Basic Introduction to the Idea of Understanding the Acts Age in Bullet Form

 We return to another bullet list. I believe this quick overview might help those interested in making sense of either seeming contradictions in scripture or who may wonder why they don't see things evident in the lives of some believers in scripture evident in their own lives.

Many local churches (and most denominations) claim they are either an "Acts church" or they believe they are part of the Acts body of believers (they believe was created at Pentecost) and share its hope. Even so-called cessationist groups claim large parts of the Acts age and its epistles for themselves. We will not examine the Acts epistles here (we've done that elsewhere), but this distinction between the Acts and Post-Acts epistles is paramount in understanding seeming difficulties and the calling of the current age. I've included a quick chart and a link to related posts.

Recall there are 21 epistles which fall into three groups of seven:

Acts Age (7)	Post-Acts (7)	Apostles to the Jews/Dispersion (7)
Romans	Ephesians	1 Peter
Galatians	Colossians	2 Peter
1 Corinthians	Philippians	1 John
2 Corinthians	1 Timothy	2 John
1 Thessalonians	2 Timothy	3 John
2 Thessalonians	Titus	Jude
Hebrews	Philemon	James

 

Related studies:

Video with Slides: The Epistles

Who is a Jew?

Acts Age Epistles - Part 1

Acts Age Epistles - Part 2

Acts Age Epistles - Part 3

Acts Age Epistles - Part 4

Acts Age Epistles - Part 5

The Present Age - What is Our Hope and How Do We Live - Part 1 

The Present Age - What is Our Hope and How Do We Live - Part 2

Let us turn to the Book of Acts itself and the conditions and teachings and patterns found there.

As we think about the constant drone of being an "Acts church," let's look briefly at how starkly different the Acts age was, not only in practice and instructions, but in its hope. As we read our list below, ask yourself if your pastor is prepared to preach directly from these texts and promises and warnings without spiritualizing or trying to explain away the passage or the book as "transitional" (thus rendering it useless to us on the other side of the supposed transition). These same pastors unironically pull some things from the Acts age as absolutes while dismissing other things as compromises for the assumed transition.  

We pause here to note a transition of sorts that we should recognize. There is no more revelation from God. Paul received the final revelation from God and the canon was closed with Second Timothy. That does not mean that all of scripture has been fulfilled. Of course not! There are many prophecies from both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures that still have a fulfillment ahead. 

The transition we do recognize is a transition from the leadership of the chosen apostle to the Gentiles, the one to whom the final revelation and the Mystery of the current age was revealed (Paul) into the post-apostolic age we are currently in.

This is not an exhaustive list, just some nuggets to think about as your pastor takes you to the Book of Acts and tells you that you are in the same calling and church. (Obviously some things Paul or the Apostles did that we cannot do have no spiritual application. Paul claiming his roman citizenship, for example. We obviously do not claim such a legal privilege, but we can easily ignore such things as they have no connection whatsoever to the faith and acts of obedience in the Book.)

• The Lord did not reveal the details of the Kingdom "in Israel" to us (Acts 1)
• No one sees flames above his head when receiving the Spirit (Acts 2)
• We do not have all things in common (Acts 2)
• There were no Gentiles at Pentecost (Acts 2)
• Do we tell people to get baptized to receive the Holy Spirit? (Acts 2, compare Acts 10)
• We do not promise the return of Christ if Israel repents (Acts 3)
• We do not heal the lame (Acts 3)
• We do not sell all we have and live communally (Acts 4)
• No one drops dead from lying or holding back promised proceeds  (Acts 5)
• Angels don't open jail cells and give us instructions (Acts 5)
• We don't listen to any Sanhedrin at all about anything (Acts 5)
• We do not perform signs and wonders (Acts 5)
• We don't refer to "our father Abraham" when speaking to Jews (Acts 7)
• Jacob's sons [12 tribes] are not "our fathers" (Acts 7)
• The Egyptians did not deal deceitfully with our fathers (Acts 7)
• No one receives a new nature by the laying on of anyone's hands (Acts 8)
• The Spirit takes no one away (Acts 8)
• God is not speaking and assigning specific commissions (Acts 9)
• God does not have those commissioned specifically to Jew or to Gentile (Acts 9, Gal 2)
• We don't raise the paralyzed (Acts 9)
• Gentiles do not have to wait to be part of the current calling (Acts 10)
• The Holy Spirit does not fall before or after baptism (Acts 10, compare Acts 2)
• No one is commissioned to Jews only (Acts 11)
• Angels do not release us from prison (Acts 12)
• Paul knew Israel was still Israel (Acts 13)
• Paul identifies with Israel as having common fathers (Acts 13)
• Paul speaks of Christ as the Savior for Israel (Acts 13)
• John the Baptist's ministry of the Kingdom was to Israel alone (Acts 13)
• We don't heal the cripples (Acts 14)
• We don't preach many afflictions to enter the kingdom (Acts 14)
• We don't have different rules for Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15)
• We don't teach Jews to be cicrumcized (Acts 15)
• We don't place Gentiles living among believing Jews under the conditions of Leviticus (Acts 15)
• We don't cast out spirits of divination (Acts 16)
• We don't promise anyone if he believes he and his while house will be recused (Acts 16)
• It is not our practice to go to Jews [still separate from Gentiles] first (Acts 17)
• We don't go to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts of the Law (Acts 18)
• We do not lay hands to commit the Holy Spirit (Acts 19)
• We do not speak in tongues or prophesy (Acts 19)
• Declaring the whole counsel of God meant the Hebrew canon alone (Acts 20)
• The Holy Spirit is not giving new revelation to us (Acts 21)
• We do not take vows or shave our heads (Acts 21)
• We do not assure Jews we are keeping the Law and teaching circumcision (Acts 21)
• We do not refer to "the God of our fathers" (Acts 22)
• We do not refer to the Law in our defense (Acts 23)
• The Lord does not stand before any of us with specific instructions (Acts 23)
• We do not bring alms and offerings to the nation Israel (Acts 24)
• We do not purify ourselves according to the Law to observe the feasts (Acts 24)
• We are not judged for nor do we preach the hope in the promises God made to Israel's fathers (Acts 26)
• We do not preach only what Moses and the Prophets said would come (Acts 26)
• We do not observe nor make plans based on the Day or Atonement (Acts 27)
• We cannot claim miraculous rescue from the Lord for ourselves and others (Acts 27)
• We do not get bitten by poisonous snakes to no effect (Acts 28)
• We don't tell Jews we are still observing all Mosaic customs (Acts 28)
• We do not suffer for the hope of Israel (Acts 28)

These are just some things pulled from the Book of Acts itself, We have not included the Acts age epistles. We have looked at those and linked some of those studies above. This was a time when the kingdom was "at hand" and both the time to "restore the Kingdom in Israel" (Acts 1) and the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3) and the return of the Lord in the clouds to take his place on David's throne were the expectations.  

I realize that many of points noted are explained by believers either simply cultural accommodation or singular to Apostolic callings. On the latter, I hope we can then agree that there are no apostles today as we see none of these things in any single believer. Certainly no one is writing any inspired texts. We note again, the canon was closed with Paul. 

I now rejoice in sufferings for your sakes, and I contribute my share to what is lacking among the tribulations of Christ, in my flesh, for the sake of his body, which is the church, of which I have become a minister, according to the dispensation of God which was given to me for you, to fill the word of God – the mystery which was hidden away from the ages and from the generations, but now has been made manifest to his saints, to whom God wished to make known what the richness is of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory, whom we proclaim, admonishing every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, in order that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus, for which I also labor, striving according to his invigoration which invigorates me with power.

-Colossians 1:24-29 (Far Above All)

But if we fully embrace both the common explanations, we have rendered the book (and the epistles) as almost meaningless. You may have noted that the Book of Colossians is from Paul's Post-Acts ministry and is one of the seven books written for the current age.

The excuse of  all things being either transitional or of local custom or pertaining only the apostles is essentially the entirety of the Book of Acts as we seek to find ourselves in it today. And while we may conveniently (as I would frame it) chalk up all of the references to Israel, the fathers, and observances of the Law and Feasts to simply "accommodation," such accommodation today would be considered today by believers as heresy and even a denial of the faith.

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God [the priesthood], and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

-Romans 9 (during the Acts Age)

Paul, near the end of the Acts in Acts 28, is still calling Jews his "brothers" and is still preaching "the hope of Israel" to Jews first. While in chains for the hope of Israel in Acts 28, when he reveals the glorious hope and unsearchable riches of the current age, he declares he is in chains for hope of us Gentiles (which would be all men when the middle wall of partition fell). 

After three days Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. When they had assembled, he said to them, “Brothers, having done nothing contrary to our people or the customs of our fathers, I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. When they had examined me, they were determined to release me, because there was no charge against me deserving death. But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not that I had any charge to bring against my nation. For this reason I have asked to see you and speak with you, because I am bound with this chain for the hope of Israel.”

-Acts 28:17-19

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called the “uncircumcision” by the so-called “circumcision” in the flesh by human hands, were at that time apart from Christ, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were formerly far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who has made both groups one and has broken down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of the commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile both to God into one body through the cross, thereby slaying the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

-Ephesians 2:11-18

Separating Jews and Gentiles; teaching Jews to circumcize and observe the Law; putting Gentile believers under Levitical restraints; going to Jews first in any city or town with a synagogue; speaking of the hope of Israel; promising the return of the Lord, etc. These would all mark one as a loony at best and as a dangerous cultist at worst today, but all were the practices and the patterns and the teachings of the Book of Acts. 

So where does this leave us? It is my opinion that while most of professing Christendom tries to find itself in the Book of Acts, most of what it finds there (a) it does not practice (b) it does not experience (c) it condemns as error either then or today. They have rendered the book useless as they claim it is their Magna Carta.  

As for us, we endeavor to walk, not in another's calling and hope, but in our own. For this is how we will be judged.

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, exhort you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you were called.

-Ephesians 4:1