The Apostasy of the Church vs. the Falling Away After the Millennium

Posted on 11 Jul 2005 by James Johnson

I do not believe that II Thes 2:3ff and I Tim 4:1ff are speaking of the same
event. I believe that I Tim 4:1ff has to do with the apostasy of the church, and
that has clearly already occurred. I Tim 4:3 is very descriptive of the RCC
apostasy with its forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats.
II Thes 2:3ff deal with what is often called “the Antichrist”, but as Paul styles
him in II Thes 2, he is “the Man of Sin”. The Man of Sin is the same as the beast
of Rev 13:1-10 and Rev 19:20. He is a historic individual. I believe he is
Nero come to life again because of the prophecies in the Sibylline Oracles
and because it harmonizes with hints in Rev 19:20 where the beast and false
prophet are judged without having died first. The scriptures require that
every man die BEFORE the Judgment (Heb 9:27). Since both the beast and
false prophet are judged without being killed (Rev 19:20), then they must
have risen from the dead prior to the Judgment. That is what the Sibyls say
will happen.

When we deal with “the Antichrist” we usually point out that John said that
many antichrists had already come into the world in the First Century (I Jn
2:18). While that is obviously true, it does nothing to affect the
prophecies of a particular man at the end of the world who will be evil
incarnate (Rev 13:15-18, 9:18, II Thes 2:4), who will rule the whole world
for 3 1/2 years (Rev 13:5), perform miracles (Rev 13:4, 12, 16:13), consorts
with demons (Rev 16:14), and who will be captured, judged and thrown alive
into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19:20).

When Paul wrote II Thes in AD 54, Nero was already emperor, and Paul’s
statement that the mystery of iniquity (v7) was already at work in Paul’s
day has special significance in view of the fact that Nero is to rise from
the dead at the end of the world (cp Zech 11:17’s future “idol shepherd”,
the epitome of a ruler/shepherd at some future date who promotes idolatry).
The Antichrist has two comings, just like Christ did. His first coming was
as king of Roman Empire. His second coming will be king of the entire earth
(Rev 13:7). The Antichrist (Man of Sin) rises from the dead, just like
Christ did. When the Man of Sin arises from the dead, he establishes His
kingdom by conquest just like Christ does when He comes again. He will be
head of the revived empire (the Persians) that was one of the seven heads
(the seven successive world empires) that was wounded unto death (Rev 13:3).
He is head of the revived Perisan empire that will be the eighth world
empire that follows the seventh world empire (probably the New World Order),
but the eighth empire will be one of the previous seven (Rev 17:11), Persia.

In the text of II Thes 2:3-9 below, note that Paul speaks of a man, not an
idea or organization. He is a “son of perdition” (v3) in that he is cast
alive into perdition, the Lake of Fire (Rev 19:20). He sets himself up as
God (v4), exactly as Rev 13:12-15 describes it. If the Jews rebuild their
temple he will probably literally fulfill the sitting in the temple of God
(v4), for he is to take Jerusalem (Zech 14:1-2). He is to be revealed in
his time (v6), as a man wounded unto death (Rev 13:3) who revives to life
again at his second coming (cp Rev 19:20, Sib Orc V:39-49). The Man of Sin
is to be destroyed with the brightness of Christ’s coming (v8), exactly and
precisely as Rev 19:11-21 describes it. The beast-man of Rev 13:1 operates
by the power of the dragon, the Devil (Rev 13:4, 12:9) as we read below in
v9. Every detail of II Thes 2 fits the description of the beast in Rev.

Here is the text of II Thes 2:3-9.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 ¶Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin
be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that
is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing
himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with
the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders,

This view outlined above does the best of reconciling all the requirements
regarding the Antichrist. I arrived at the above conclusions only after a great
deal of thought and study. I tried my best to be as honest with the data as I
could be, no matter where it led. Though it is far from the current thinking, it
actually fits with what the text says, and with the non-canonical writings,
and with the writings of the church fathers. It also avoids having to
regard the whole thing as some highly symbolic figure of something, we know
not what. The literal meaning of the various texts are harmonious with one
another and result in a highly meaningful picture of the end of the world.
All of the Bible prophecies regarding the Man of Sin fit with the view I
have outlined (cp Dan 7’s little horn). The Man of Sin is a specific
individual who will rule the world for 3 1/2 years, which is exactly the
same time as the ministry of Jesus. As Jesus went to Hades and ruled there
for 3 1/2 days (Lk 11:22, Mt 12:40), the Man of Sin will rule Jerusalem for
3 1/2 days at the end of the world (Rev 11:11, Zech 14:1-3). The Man of Sin
conquers the earth with his armies (Rev 9:15-16) even as Christ conquers the
world with His armies (Rev 19:21). In every sense the Man of Sin is “the”
Antichrist.

When we deal with the end of the world, we are dealing with powers and
events that are out of the ordinary and sound strange to us in our world of
pure technology. There are many references to miracles at the end of the
world (Rev 13:13-14, 16:14, 19:20). These Rev miracles agree with the
miracles prophesied by II Thes 2:9 and Mt 24:24 that are to occur at the end
of the world. We should therefore not be as the German Rationalists and try
to explain away every supernatural event in Revelation, for they clearly
occur. Here is an example:

Revelation 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the
mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth
of the false prophet.
14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth
unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the
battle of that great day of God Almighty.
16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue
Armageddon.

Since there are miracles assoicated Armageddon, we should not be highly
skeptical of literal descriptions of creatures that have no present
counterpart. Genetic engineering or demonic manipulation could produce
literal creatures such as the fire-breathing serpent horses of Rev 9:16.
Since the vision is of the future and demonic power or genetic engineering
could conceivably produce such creatures, there is no reason that we should
doubt that the account in Rev 9:13-21 is anything else other than a sober
account of the last battle at the end of the world.

If you take God exactly at His word, a whole new meaning emerges from the
book of Revelation. It truly is a revelation of what is to come. It is
literally true, and it harmonizes with all other biblical prophecy and with
credible non-biblical prophecy. It avoids having to take the book as a
figure of speech and having to make up explanations for the supposed
figures.

BTW, Justin Martyr (1st century AD) believed in a future literal 1000 year
reign of Christ. He was a disciple of the apostles and prophets. His view was based on the the epistle of Barnabas, a first century work that the church fathers attributed to Barnabas, the prophet and companion of Paul. Barnabas said, “When His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day” (Barnabas 15:5).
Barnabas also said, “In six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end” (Barnabas 15:4).

Barnabas makes the dispensationalist view of the millennium impossible because Barnabas says that the “Lawless One” will be destroyed by Jesus when He returns. The millenialists say that happens at the end of the millennium. My view harmonizes with what he believed, that there will be a future literal 1000
year reign of Christ. It happened from AD 345-1345. Justin was right about
the millennium, though it did not occur exactly as he envisioned it, for he
linked it with passages like Isa 11:6 that describe the new earth.

Posted in Church Doctrine, Eschatology, The Millennium | Leave a comment

Is the Advocacy of Christ Nullified by His Eternal Subordination to God?

Posted on 8 Jul 2005 by James Johnson

Some correspondants have complained that if Jesus is to be subordinate
to God forever, as I Cor 15:28 says that He will be, that it affects His ability to
be our Advocate. How does subordination to God affect his ability to be our
Advocate? The Jewish high priest was an advocate to God for the sins of the
people (Heb 2:17). The angels were advocates for men prior to Christ’s
high priesthood (Mt 18:10, En 15:2-3). Their subordination to God did not
prevent their advocacy. I do not see how being the second most powerful
being in the universe affects His ability to plead for us. Pleading our cause
does not mean He forces God to do what He asks. His power is therefore
irrelevant in pleading our cause. God’s estimation of Him is what is important,
and God esteems Christ’s name above every other name for ever (Eph 1:21).

When Christ assumes a position subordinate to God, it is after the
Resurrection (I Cor 15:24-28). At that time we will have been raised from
the dead and received the indwelling of the full powers of the Spirit (Acts
2:38-39, Heb 6:4-5). After the Resurrection, we will have personal access
to God (Rev 22:14, 1). Enoch says that we will then not sin any more
because we will be tied to God (En 61:3). We will no longer need an
Advocate at that point because we will not sin, and we will have personal
access to God, and we will have the full indwelling power of the Spirit. We
will be priests and therefore actually be advocates for the subjects of our
kingdom (Rev 1:6). Christ will be High Priest for the whole world and will
be the Advocate for men, but He will not need to advocate for us. We will
be perfect (Heb 12:23).

Posted in Biblical Studies, Church Doctrine, Soteriology | Leave a comment

Rev 5 — Christ Is At the Controls of the Universe

Posted on 7 Jul 2005 by James Johnson

I think that I Cor 15:24-28 and Rev 5 make it plain that Christ is actually
controlling the universe right now. He is seated with God at God’s right
hand (Acts 2:33, Rev 3:21). The major point of Rev 5 is Christ assuming all
power in heaven and on earth, where He becomes “all in all” (Eph 1:23). At
the Judgment, Christ relinquishes the present authority that God has given
Him and the Father resumes His station as “all in all” (I Cor 15:28).
Christ then subordinates Himself to the Father for eternity (I Cor 15:28),
but is even then given power above every other being (Eph 1:21). These
changes in rulership are reflected in Rev by the sequence of who the elders
and four living creatures worship. In Rev 4 they worship the Father (Rev
4:10). In Rev 5 after the Lamb takes the scroll of all power, they worship
the Lamb (Rev 5:8). At the end of the world when Christ returns all power
to the Father, they again worship the Father (Rev 19:4).

When I was flying airplanes, we had pilot and instructor pilot positions and
other crew positions on our bomber. The instructor pilot was the senior man
on the airplane. Sometimes the instructor pilot was even the wing
commander. He sat in the instructor pilot position behind the pilot and the
pilot actually controlled the airplane. Sometimes they would swap seats and
the instructor pilot would then fly the airplane. What the pilot said was
law to the the rest of the crew when he was in the pilot’s seat, but the
instructor pilot was actually the senior man. He was just letting the pilot
fly the plane. I view what God is doing with Christ in a similar light.
Christ is flying the “plane” of the universe and He controls everything, but
even though He has all power in heaven and on earth, He does not rule over
God (I Cor 15:27). At the end of the world they will “swap seats” and God
will “fly” the universe from there on out.

Posted in End Times, Eschatology | Leave a comment

How Should We View Shortly?

Posted on 6 Jul 2005 by James Johnson

Ron wrote:
>Dear brothers. Quite a point is being frequently made in your exchanges
>regarding “en-tachos” (“shortly”) in Rev. 1:8, which seemingly indicates
>the events described in Revelation had to either all be fulfilled within a
>limited number of years from the date they received the message from John,
>or at least begin to be fulfilled. In my opinion, the language has more to
>do with the events being fulfilled within a short period of time, whenever
>they begin.

James replies:

I think that “shortly” has the problem of perspective whether you take it
from the amount of time that elapsed from the writing of Revelation to when
the events began to be fulfilled (e.g. the generation of the apostles is
“quickly” to the preterist) or to onset and duration of the event
(e.g. an explosion is “quickly”, as Ron would have it). I say
that, because the events began to be fulfilled even before the
writing of Revelation. The 144,000, for example, were raised
with Christ (Mt 27:52-53), but Revelation was not written until about AD 96.

The fulfillment of the prophecies continues until after the new earth
begins (cp. Rev 22:5). Likewise the dispersion of Israel referred to in Rev
12:14 began in AD 70 with a further and more serious dispersal occurring in
AD 135. If events began to be fulfilled from the time of writing, then
“shortly” is 2000 years and you have to consider perspective, because 2000
years is not short from man’s perspective. Most of Revelation 8-22 deals
with events yet future, but the fulfillment of some of Revelation began in
AD 30 (e.g. Rev 5) with the coronation of Christ.

The strict futurist/historist, like Larkin, takes the entire book to be
prophetic and sees future prophecy even in the 7 churches. While I would
freely agree that the seven churches, though actual congregations, are
typical of any congregation of Christ that might be found today, I do not
believe they are prophecies, but rather they are types. We can learn from
the behavior of the churches and compare our congregation to the seven to
figure out which one we are, but the letters to the seven churches were just
that–letters to seven literal churches. The promises made to the seven
churches are by reference (Rev 2:7, et al.) applicable to anyone who cares
to hear what Jesus promises. The promises to the seven churches extend to
all Christians from Pentecost till the coming of the Lord.

I believe that you are quite right about some events happening suddenly.
The events of the coming of Christ are spoken of in several places as being
sudden and unexpected (Mt 24:37-39, Lk 17:26, I Thes 5:2, II Pet 3:10). It
will happen suddenly and will be apparent like lightning shining in the
heavens (Mt 24:27, Lk 17:24). The coming of the Son of Man, however, is the
culminating event of a long series of disasters upon the earth. A long
running series of plagues has gone on for several years prior to the coming
of the Lord (e.g. Rev 8:7, 8, 10, 12, 9:1, 13, 11:15). These plagues have
destroyed the earth’s industrial economy and men have reverted to manual and
horse powered devices before the end of the world (Rev 19:21, 18:13). The
Man of Sin will reign over the earth for 3 1/2 years before the coming of
Christ (Rev 13:5).

A years’ long run of plagues can be considered from one perspective to be
“quickly”, since it is less than a man’s lifetime, but it is certainly on a
different scale than the coming of Christ where the living Christians are
changed in the blink of an eye. However, these events at the end of the
world, though years’ long, follow a number of other prophecies that have
already been fulfilled by then. These events at the end of the world are
subsequent to the millennium of Rev 20:4, so there has to be a substantial
amount of time elapsed from man’s perspective from the time of writing of
Rev until the times revealed in Rev 22. My view of Revelation, though
including things that happen suddenly, such as the coming of Christ,
includes several events, such as the Millennium and the dispersion of
Israel, that happen over a long period of history from man’s perspective.
In my view the only really satisfactory solution to the “quickly” “suddenly”
issue is to view these words from the perspective of the Father who is
looking at this portion of His plan from the perspective of His eternal
purpose (Eph 3:11). From His perspective of viewing it from the perspective
of what He plans for eternity, it is indeed quickly.

Posted in Biblical Studies, Hermeneutics | Leave a comment

The Letters to the Seven Churches–Are They for Us Today?

Posted on 5 Jul 2005 by James Johnson

>I’m sorry but Revelation (singular) is to 7 churches that existed 2000
>thousand years ago. Not us. It’s not about the end of time.
>It’s about the Lord’s vengeance on the Roman empire.
>God help you all to see that……James 1:5….Matthew 24:36

You are correct that chapters 2 and 3 are seven letters written to seven
churches that existed 2000 years ago. There are some interesting things
about those letters, however.

1) Not only are they addressed to the seven churches, but they are also
addressed to “He that hath an ear” (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22), and
most people I know have at least one ear. I conclude, since all people have
ears, that John was writing to everybody.

2) These letters were addressed to Christians living in John’s day. I know
that because Jesus addresses some people who had “left thy first love” (Rev
2:4) and of others Jesus said, “Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not
denied my faith” (Rev 2:13). Since these letters were to Christians, we
need to look at the conditional nature of the promsies. Seven times in Rev
2-3 Jesus said His promises were only to those who overcame. Overcoming is
determined at death (Rev 2:10b). The seven promises were to Christians who
overcame sin by being faithful unto death.

3) The promises to these seven churches were to be fulfilled AFTER the death
of those who heard them!

4) Since Rev was written about AD 96 and was to be fulfilled after the death
of First Century Christians, we therefore conclude that the promises to
these Christians were to be fulfilled at some future time subsequent to the
First Century.

5) If the promises in Rev 2-3 are to “he who has an ear” and “he that
overcometh” and are fulfilled subsequent to the death of the hearers, the
fact alone that Jesus wrote to seven specific churches 2000 years ago is not
particularly relevant in determining to whom the promises were written and
when these promises were to be fulfilled.

6) It is obvious that:

a) Christians are not eating from the tree of life (Rev 2:7)
b) Christians are in danger of the second death (Rev 2:11)
c) Christians do not eat of the hidden manna or have a God-given white stone engraved with
their secret name (Rev 2:17)
d) Christians do not have power over the nations (Rev 2:26)
e) Christians are not clothed in white raiment, are in danger of having their names blotted out of
the book of life, and have not had our names confessed before the Father and the angels
(Rev 3:5)
f) Christians are not permanent pillars in God’s temple for they can leave the church, we do not
have God’s name written upon us, and we do not have New Jerusalem’s and Christ’s new name
written on us (Rev 3:12)
g) Christians are not sat down with Christ on His throne as He is sat down with His Father on His
throne (Rev 3:21)

From the above analysis, it should be clear that the promises in Rev 2-3
were to be fulfilled subsequent to the death of First Century Christians and
therefore were still future at the time that John wrote. Rev 2-3 are NOT
promises to living Christians, but to dead Christians who overcome sin in
this life. From the nature of the seven promises to the seven churches it
is clear that they are to be fulfilled at the resurrection. For example,
the promise of our future access to the tree of life is mentioned in Rev
22:2 where John describes New Jerusalem having come down to earth. He
describes our future access to the city and the tree when he says, “Blessed
are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of
life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev 22:14). Inside
of the city are the trees of life (Rev 22:2). This is obviously something
for the future. At the present time we do not have access to the tree of
life and we likewise do not have power over the nations, but rather “suffer
persecution” (II Tim 3:12), and are “of all men most to be pitied” (I Cor
15:19). The letters to the seven churches are to Christians of all ages and
places. The promises of Rev 2-3 will be fulfilled to all faithful
Christians after the resurrection of the dead.

Posted in Biblical Studies, End Times, Eschatology | Leave a comment

The Spirits in Prison — 1 Pet 3:19

Posted on 21 Jun 2005 by James Johnson

Dave wrote:
>I think that the key to it is the tenses of the verbs …
>
>1 Pet 3:19
>19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
>(KJV)
>
>Allow me to elaborate a bit …
>
>1 Pet 3:19
>19 By which (that is, in the Spirit — Jesus did not preach directly, but
>by the Spirit that was in Noah)
>
>also he went and preached (past tense — in the time of Noah)
>
>unto the spirits [that are now] in prison (present tense — they are now in
>prison — they were not in prison when Jesus through Noah preached to
>them.)
>

James replies:
You are supplying a verb and tense that are not in the text. It says, “He
went and preached”. Both of those verbs are past tense. I don’t find any
present tense verbs. You are supplying them. V20 indicates that the
preaching happened after the death of the Ante-Diluvians. It says the
spirits were in prision when the preaching occurred, and they had been
disobedient in the days of Noah. Their spirits were not in prison when Noah
preached to them, but the spirits were in prison when Jesus in His
disembodied spirit form went and preached to them. Noah did not preach to
spirits in prison, but Jesus did.

Posted in Biblical Studies, Life After Death | Leave a comment

Law Is the Basis for Love

Posted on 20 Jun 2005 by James Johnson

I don’t understand how reading God’s will and trying to do it is adding to
what he said. The same Bible that says “Love one another” also says,
“Hereby do we know that we love him, if we keep His commandments” (I Jn
2:3). How is that adding to what He said? It is true that love motivates
me to do His will, but love without knowledge is lacking. True love desires
to know more about the object of that love and to please Him.

It is true that love the highest goal of God’s will. However, people most
often do not serve God from a good feeling about Him, but because of fear of
what He will do to them. Then after they have served Him and learned of
Him, they come to respect Him. Finally, after they have gained knowledge of
God they come to love Him. However, first obedience comes from fear.

The statement “there is no need of law if we love one another” is shocking
to me. Love cannot operate in the absence of law. There is no such thing
as “loving” in the absence of rules that define love. Where there is no law
there is no transgression, but neither is there love, for love is defined as
keeping God’s commandments (Jn 14:15). Love for brethren is seeking their
highest good, but “good” is defined by law. You cannot love without rules
to define what is good. Merely feeling good about someone has no relation
to true agape love, that is, seeking another’s best interests (Rom 1:32).
Love does not exclude law. Love requires law in order to operate.
Sometimes love is rebuking a brother for his actions or spanking a child
(Pvbs 13:24). Feeling good about someone has no place in this kind of love.

Posted in Biblical Studies | Leave a comment

Comments on the Spirits in Prison — 1 Pet 3:19

Posted on 2 Jun 2005 by James Johnson

Because of sin, before the cross the souls of all men went to Hades (Lk
16:22-23) or else were wandering ghosts (Mt 14:26), because Jesus says,
“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven” (Jn
3:13). Hades is the unseen place of the dead and it is the realm of him
who has the power of death, the Devil (Heb 2:14). The souls in Hades are
not there because they want to be. They cannot leave because they are
captives of the Devil (Zech 9:11-12, Isa 61:1). Even men like Samuel and
David went to this dark and dreary place (I Sam 28:14). They had water
(Lk 16:24) and did not have pain, but it was not a nice place (Ps 107:14).
It was a pit from which there was no escape, a prison (Num 16:30, 33).

When Jesus came to earth, one Sabbath He stood up in the synagogue in
Nazareth and read from Isaiah where it said, “He hath sent me to heal the
brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind” (Lk 4:18). We know about people made glad by the good
news of the gospel (Mk 6:20) and about people whose sight was restored (Mt
11:5), but there is no instance during the life of Christ of Him
delivering the captive. The captives were in the prison of Hades. That
is where Jesus went when He died (Acts 2:27). It was there that He
preached to the spirits in Hades that they might believe on Him (I Pet
3:19). The spirits who believed on Him He took with Him when He ascended
back into heaven (Eph 4:8) when He led captivity (those who had been
captives of the Devil in Hades) captive (He took the souls of the dead
from the Devil because He is stronger than the Devil (Lk 11:22)) and gave
gifts unto men (He sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles). Jesus now has
the keys of death and Hades (Rev 1:18), since He took them from the Devil
as spoils of war (Lk 11:22, Mt 12:29). From the cross onward, we find the
souls of the righteous in heaven (Rev 6:9, 20:4). Paul also says that
when he died he would go to be with Christ (Php 1:23) and that when we are
absent from the body, we are present with the Lord (II Cor 5:8).

The whole idea of “redemption” or “ransom” is based on the simple fact
that the souls of men are captives of the Devil. Their souls are captives
because of sin, and the Devil has the power of death. They are held
captive until the ransom is paid. The terms “redemption” and “ransom” are
not figures of speech. Men were literally ransomed from Hades (Hosea
13:14) by the blood of Christ (Rev 5:9), because they were literally
captives there (Ps 107:14). When the debt of sin was paid and they
believed on Christ at His preaching (I Pet 3:19), they were rescued from
Hades and followed Him to heaven when He ascended (Eph 4:8).

In I Pet 3:20 when Peter speaks of the spirits in prison he focuses on the
majority of those who were in Hades, that is, the Ante-Diluvians, the ones
who lived before the Flood. There were billions of souls there from
before the Flood. The population of the earth had not grown to nearly
that many people since Noah came out of the ark, so Peter focuses on those
souls that constituted the majority in Hades. These ancients who died in
the Flood heard Jesus speak the good news of the gospel, that is, that He
was come to ransom men from sin. These souls from before the Flood had
heard the message from the ancient prophets such as Enoch (e.g. En 62:5-8)
and they knew about God’s promise to send a Deliverer. The message that
Jesus spoke and the evidence He provided was convincing to many in Hades,
and they believed. Those who believed, He rescued from Hades when He
ascended to heaven (Eph 4:8). There they await the resurrection of their
bodies (Rom 8:11) and the establishment of Christ’s eternal reign over the
earth (Ezek 37:21-28). Christ finishes the work He has begun when He
comes again and raises the physical bodies of the dead who will then never
die again.

Posted in Biblical Studies, Life After Death | Leave a comment

The Woman’s Role in the World

Posted on 27 May 2005 by James Johnson

James wrote:
>>I think you make some good points in showing that the Bible does not
>>prohibit the woman from any interaction with men under any circumstances.
>>It is clear that certain things are necessary, such as shopping and
>>contracting. When she interacts with a merchant, it is on a buyer-seller
>>basis. When she interacts with a contractor, it is on a contractual
>>basis. The world over, people recognize the arm’s length relationship
>>between a contractor and contractee. The contractor is not the woman’s
>>servant. He is doing a job, but she is not his boss. He only has to do
>>what he contracted to do.

Dave repled:
> James — this is pure mumbo jumbo. What does the verse
>say — it says she should NEVER EVER exercise authority over a man. You
>make all kinds of exceptions but ARBITRAIRLY draw the line at
>”supervision.” THE BIBLE DRAWS NO SUCH LINE.

James answers:
Come on, Dave. The Bible is book, not a verse. You have to take the whole
picture on a subject. Consider the example of the Sabbath. God strictly
forbade work on the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-10) even to the point of it being
punishable by death (Num 15:32-35), but He recognized exceptions for care of
the sick and animals (Lk 14:3-5) and service in the temple (Mt 12:5). None
of that is found in the verse prohibiting work on the Sabbath. Likewise 1
Tim 2:9 strictly enjoins the wearing of modest apparel, but there are
occasions when everybody is immodestly attired, and they do not violate I
Tim 2:9. The fact that occasions arise when we are properly immodestly
attired does not nullify the general requirement to be modestly attired.
The woman’s subordination to man is a general requirement for which
exceptions exist. Like the case of the Sabbath, there are times when there
are exceptions to women being in subjection to men, but it does not nullify
the general requirement for the woman to be subject to the man. The man is
to be subject to his wife in her sexual desires (I Cor 7:4), but that does
not nullify his position as head of the wife (Eph 5:23) or make her over him
(Eph 5:24). There are times when a woman tells a male clerk what she wants
at the store, and he goes and does it. That does not make her his boss or
him subject to her. Everybody recognizes that there is an arms length
relationship between vendors/merchants/contractors that does not involve
employer/employee, master/servant relationships. There is a difference
between merchant/customer relationships, even if the merchant is selling
personal services like PattiMaids, and the relationship that is established
between a servant and a master. It is recognized by the law.

As a “furthermore” in regard to the above argument that the text says that
she should never ever exercise authority over a man, you yourself recognize
that there are times when it is lawful for her to do that, e.g. when it is
not as a Bible class teacher, elder, or preacher. You recognize limits on
the prohibition of this verse and say it only applies to ecclesiatical
settings. I maintain that there are no indications in the passage that
limits it to the assembly. It is a general order that is to be maintained,
for which there are minor exceptions such as merchant/customer
relationships. However, the general rule of the man/woman relationship (I
Cor 11:3) is violated when a woman is placed in authority over the man.

>You are guilty of a violation of 2 John 9 when you bind this, which
>apparaently you do not do — so it cannot be a very important doctrine.
>Too bad Tina has to suffer over it.

What is this Dave? You introduce II Jn 9, and then say I am not guilty of
it, so it seems pointless to introduce it, except that you cast the
controversy into the role of either being unimportant or heretical if you
don’t take the accepted approach. Let’s look briefly at II Jn 9. It is the
hammer the brethren use to bring the unorthodox back into line. However,
the use of it is arbitrary and reserved for cases when nothing else can be
found to defeat unorthodoxy. Why is the woman’s subjection to man a proper
use II Jn 9 and some other things are not? I have never understood how you
can consistently apply II Jn 9 if you understand it to be a generic command.

I believe II Jn 9 is talking specifically about the teaching that Jesus
did not come in the flesh. When it is taken to mean any teaching of Christ,
then the consistent use of it 1) makes the ignorant and weak doomed to
eternal hell and 2) makes everyone who does not exactly agree with you
doomed to eternal hell. Neither of these conclusions is consistent with the
Bible. God’s grace covers ignorance and weakness (Col 1:10, Php 3:15, I Jn
1:7) and the Bible calls for tolerance when disagreements arise (Rom 14:21),
when accommodation can be made.

>>The prohibition to be in silence and not in authority in relation to men
>>is a general prohibition, just like the Sabbath is a general prohibtion to
>>work. There are exceptions to it as you point out in reference to
>>singing, just like there are exceptions to not working on the Sabbath.
>>The prohibition against women exercising authority over men seems to be
>>universal, because the reasons that Paul gives for a woman not having
>>authority over a man are fundamental, and are not an ecclesiastical
>>ordinance such as the Lord’s Supper. There is nothing about them specific
>>to the assemblies. The first reason is man’s primacy in the creation
>>order. The second reason was the woman’s gullibility in buying the
>>Serpent’s lie. Both of these are still true, and the logic of neither of
>>them is limited to the assemblies.
> If she is to learn in silence then Tina should not be
>writing to this list — she should only be reading. This is inescapable.
>Your position is totally untenable.

How is it untenable when the Bible clearly approves of women teaching men in
some circumstances (Acts 18:26)? The Bible teaches that there are
circumstances when a woman may teach a man a man publicly (Col 3:16), but
she may not be in authority over him. This forum constitutes such a
circumstance. This is an open forum where there is no discussion leader.
The only control is a moderator who insures comity is maintained, and that
moderator is male.

>The prohibition has to do with teaching on religious and moral matters.

Dave, this is a pure assertion. You cannot establish this from the text as
your position on modest apparel demonstrates. The reasons Paul gives for
the woman being in subjection to man are as fundamental as the creation
itself. There is simply nothing there about the church.

>It does not have to do with a woman being a computer science instructor and
>having men in the class. You are telling me that no Christian college
>student can go to a class that has a woman teacher. This is just over the
>top and way beyond what the bible requires. This was the last thing that
>Paul had in mind when he wrote about our obligations in this regard.

Dave, the reality is that there are women in Congress, and some cities have
a woman mayor. Those are things a Christian woman should not do (I Cor
11:3). However, like I am stuck taking classes from an evolutionist or an
atheist or a fornicator, I do not believe that God expects me to live as a
hermit (I Cor 5:10) because some people don’t do right. I believe that a
Christian woman would be prohibited from a job as a college professor where
she was obligated to teach co-ed classes.

Women in positions of authority are most often merciless (try to talk a
woman cop out of a ticket or appeal to Judge Judy’s compassion) and strictly
by the book, or else they are weak and ineffective. They are unable to
handle power because of their emotional nature. That is the underlying
reason behind Paul’s second reason “the woman being deceived was in the
transgression”. It is the woman’s nature to be led by her emotions and to
therefore be gullible. That is why a man can seduce a woman. He can cause
her emotions to overcome her judgment. It is the man who is endowed with
the power to more consistently apply rational judgment. The woman’s
judgment is unduly influenced by emotion or total lack thereof. She is not
as proficient in leadership qualities as men are because she was made to be
a helper suitable for man (Gen 2:18). She is designed to be a follower and
not a leader. Because Eve did not have good critical judgment, she was
deceived. That is characteristic of women, and for that reason God placed
man in charge.

James wrote:
>>If we keep on in the direction that we are going with the modern reasoning
>>about women, we will soon follow the denominations into women preachers.
>>Some of the liberal brethren have already done so. Following your
>>reasoning we could just as easily have women preachers. I mean, aren’t
>>they subject to the elders? They are not REALLY in positions of
>>authority, are they? Pretty soon Paul’s prohibition is reduced to
>>meaninglessness, just like God’s commandment to care for elderly parents
>>was circumvented by corban.
Dave replies:
> This is again just a nonsequitur — it has nothing
>to do with whether Tina can keep her job with some slight adjustments.
James answers:
Talk about a nonsequitur! The discussion is about whether Tina can be the
boss of a man. Both of us agree that she could keep her job with some
slight adjustments!

>It is wrong in the church to have a woman preacher or to have a woman teach
>a class in which
>adult men are involved.

Yes, it is wrong for a church to have a woman preacher or Bible class
teacher because
1) Adam was first formed, then Eve. (I Tim 2:13)
2) Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression (I Tim 2:14)

For the same reasons it is wrong for a Christian woman to be a co-ed college
professor, a mayor, a senator, or a boss.

>This is what Paul is talking about. He had nothing to do with putting
>women in charge of men in industry or government — this was the furtherest
>thing from his mind.

Says Dave . The text says the woman should do it because the man was
created first and the woman was deceived and fell into transgression. Where
do you see “church” in that?

>Women can be totally superior in technical ability in computer science, and
>totally able to instruct men in this regard. Adams sin and Eve’s temtation
>has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Paul was obviously restricting his
>appliction to issues of morality and religion by using Adam and Eve as
>examples. To accuse me of going in this direction is a straw man — you
>know that this is not what I believe and the church that I attend is NOT
>going in the direction of women teachers or preachers.

The skills of men and women have the old bell-shaped-curve distribution
function. Their leadership curves are offset from one another, but they
overlap somewhat. However, in leadership skills the man’s curve is
generally more capable than the woman’s curve both in the mean and the
6-sigma outliers. You can find skilled women who are better than most men
in most any endeavor, just like women marathoners are better than most men
at running. However, the men still are better overall. You can see this in
business. Women complain about the “glass ceiling” and complain that men
discriminate against them for the highest positions because they are women.
Well, some of these companies would sell their own mothers as streetwalkers
if they could get away with it and make money, so the real reason is not a
prejudice against women. The real reason there is a “glass ceiling” is that
when you get to the extremes of leadership like you have at heads of
corporate America, men are simply better than women at leading. In
recognition of the general superiority of men over women in leadership, God
placed the woman in the home as the helper to man and placed the man in the
positions of leadership.

I am not creating a straw-man. Your view is illogical because there is no
reason to restrict the leadership of man to church as you arbitrarily do,
and to arbitrarily restrict the verse undermines the Bible principle of
man’s leadership over women. People look at your position and compare it to
the verse and say, “Well, if the leadership of men can be disregard
everywhere except the venue of the church, I don’t see any reason to apply
it there. After all, in Christ Jesus there is no difference between men and
women”. That is exactly what seveal of the denominations have already done.

Your arbitrary decision to apply I Tim 2:12 to only ecclesiastical
situations ignores the real reasons that Paul gives for not giving women
authority over men and makes the decision to not have women teachers a
doctrinal matter that is peculiar to a particular group. Others (e.g. the
Church of God) feel free to ignore that peculiar doctrinal bias. The real
prohibition is general. Just like Christ is subject to God, women are
subject to men (I Cor 11:3). If women would do what God says and be keepers
at home (Titus 2:5), we would not be having this discussion and our children
would not be the heathens that many of them are (I Tim 2:15).

>>In the early centuries idolators often became Christians (I Cor 6:9-11).
>>Could a heathen priest continue in his occupation? Could a pimp continue
>>to market girls? Could a guild member continue to attend the guild feasts
>>to their patron god? Could lottery ticket vendor continue to sell lottery
>>tickets? Could a heathen actor continue to portray lewd and immoral acts
>>in a play? Can a software developer build a porn site? These men had to
>>leave their jobs because they could not continue in them and live right.
>>They could not be accused of failing to work to support their families.
>>Many of them suffered hardships for Christ in order to do right.

> Tina — did any of this influence you? PLEASE TELL ME
>WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT??????????

If it is wrong for a woman to be over a man, it is sinful for a woman to
supervise a man, just like it is wrong for a man to sell prostitutes or
crack. The issue is, “Is it wrong for a woman to rule over a man”. If it
is wrong for her to do that, it is wrong for her to maintain a position
where she does that. Yes, this influenced Tina’s thinking. She believes it
is wrong for her to supervise a man and she is leaving it just like she
would do if her boss asked her to sell crack.

>>It is clear that the brethren recognize the general applicability of I Tim
>>2:9ff to general Christian living, because it is always the passage
>>appealed to in order to establish the requirement to dress modestly.
>>Adorning oneself in modest apparel is not limited to the assemblies, but
>>it applies to living in general. There are also exceptions to it, such as
>>when taking a bath or making love, but in general it applies. Likewise
>>there are exceptions to women exercising some authority over a man, but
>>she should not be in a supervisory position over a man, else the
>>commandment means nothing.
> So, you have set yourself up to decide what the
>exceptions are?

Dave, you are the great offender of what you complain about here. You are
excepting absolutely everything except for the church with respect to I Tim
2:12, and you have no justification for it. I except (and “accept”) those exceptions I can find in the
scriptures. I find that a woman can buy and sell (Pvbs 31:16, 24). I find
that a woman can teach a man in a private setting (Acts 18:26) and publicly
where she is not over him (Col 3:16). I find that a woman can even be a
judge in making decisions regarding men (Jdg 4:4). I also note that it
was Barak and not Deborah who was commander of the army (Jdg 4:6).
God even stripped Barak of honor for involving Deborah in his battle plan (Jdg 4:9). I
further note that God specified that it was the SONS of David who were to
sit upon his throne (Jer 33:21) and it was the SONS of the high priest who
succeeded him (Dt 10:6, Lev 1:5).

> I would be very, very careful if I were in your position James. People’s
>lives are being affected by what you are teaching. I hope you realize the
>consequences of what you seem to be imposing on others. And if you are NOT
>imposing it, then it just can’t be that important, now can it?

I tell women what the Bible teaches just like I would teach a woman not to
commit fornication. People’s lives are affected by having to give up
selling drugs or drinking alcohol. Christianity is all about changing
lives, David. I am surprised you have not noticed . There are things as
a Christian that I simply cannot do, and I may have to suffer the
consequences for it. Sometimes it may mean losing your job. That’s when
you see what a person’s commitment really is. You think Tina is crazy
because you do not believe the Bible teaches what she believes. She has
thought the matter out at length and she is remaining stedfast to her
convictions. God will take care of her. She has grown children and they,
if nobody else, will help her. God will likely provide another job for her,
but if not, she will get by somehow. Christianity is not, after all, a
matter of getting rich, but of getting to heaven. It IS important to act in
consort with your convictions.

Posted in Biblical Studies, Church Doctrine | Leave a comment

What Teaching or Practice Will Separate a Man from God?

Posted on 11 May 2005 by James Johnson

I believe that understanding something as complicated and deep as God’s
plan, redemption, salvation, sanctification, human relations, emotions, etc.
is a difficult task. Our understanding is colored by what we have accepted
as true. To a Calvinist, the word is filtered through the sovereignty of
God. To a preterist, God’s word is filtered through the requirement that the
prophets spoke of things that are already past. To an MDRer, it is filtered
through a need to avoid fornicators. These things illustrate basic
assumptions that guide our understanding. For me, I read with the
requirement that a passage must not be understood to violate free will. It
must also be read literally, if possible. Others do not share that
philosophy, and as a result, they will NOT come down in the same place as I
do. I believe that God recognizes that in the absence of a hotline to God
where we could ask questions, that men cannot infallably interpret
scripture. We are not going to agree on what the Bible says if we do not
share the same starting assumptions. Our paradigmn will prevent agreement
because of the different requirements of our basic assumptions.

The strange thing is that even though Christians hold different views on how
the Bible should be understood, they share common values such as the DBR of
Christ, Jesus is Lord, God is King, the Bible is God’s word, you have to
live right to please God, there is a judgment, etc. The devil is in the
details of how these things are implemented. The only possible solution to
the diverse views that men who purport to be Christians is in an honest
heart and God’s grace. Two honest men who start off with different
assumptions will likely not agree on the interpretation of a scripture
unless they can resolve the differences in the underlying assumptions. That
may be a very difficult thing to do, even for two very honest men. These
basic assumptions are deeply rooted, strongly held, and not easily moved.
As long as men hold these differing fundamental views, they will attempt to
harmonize the Bible with these underlying assumptions. The result will be
that they will simply skip passages that do not harmonize and place them in
the category of “not understandable”. These verses will simply not be
noticed since no meaning is attached to them. Other verses will be read
accommodatively or even figuratively in an effort to harmonize the
scriptures with the underlying strongly held philosophy.

Because men honestly hold different philosophies/hermeneutics/assumptions,
they will not agree on specific verses because most of the time the
underlying assumptions are not dealt with. Since the root cause is not
addressed in the discussion, there can be no reconciliation of views. Such
often results in religious division. I do not believe that it can be
avoided. The solution is to be tolerant as much as we can of others in view
of our own limitations. We should find a local group with whom we can be
satisfied. We should teach what we believe to be the truth, and let God
decide who He justifies, and who He does not.

The bottom line is that each person will decide for himself where he draws
lines of fellowship and what he can tolerate. With some, that line seems to
be himself and a few others. With others, it seems to be most everybody.
You will have to decide for yourself what is tolerable. God will be the one
who sorts them out on the ground . (There is an old joke about the Navy
air defense, that they shot first, and sorted them out on the ground–only
funny if you are an aviator).

There are really not that many things in the scriptures that it claims will
separate one from God. If you deny the Lord, He will deny you. If you
don’t confess that Jesus is come in the flesh, you are none of His. If you
are immoral or lazy, you have denied the faith. Hypocricy identifies you as
a son of the devil. As far as doctrinal differences, it is harder to
identify those that damn a man’s soul. Baptism is a hotly contested topic,
but, even at that, most Christians practice some form of baptism, and the
Mormons and several others even baptize “for remission of sins”. We know
what the Bible teaches on baptism, but it is much more difficult question as
to what God might accept from someone whose basic assumptions preclude
arriving at the truth on baptism. Will he be eternally lost because he
honestly believed he didn’t have to be baptized “for remission of sins”?
Only God knows the answer for sure. The blood of Christ enables Him, if God
wishes, to justly grant that man eternal life. The man was, for sure, wrong
about baptism, honestly wrong, but the man attempted to serve God to the
best he understood.

In the final analysis, we can’t determine who God accepts, because so much
depends upon his heart that we can’t see. Even the apostles made a mistake
once when they forbade a man who was casting out demons because he did not
hang out with their crowd (Mk 9:38-39). We ought to show as much kindness
as we can muster, and try to help those that oppose themselves in the hope
that we might be able to show the way of truth more perfectly or maybe come
to a more complete understanding ourselves. We will find those whom we
judge to be self-seeking, dishonest, or worldly, for sure, but we ought to
give the man the benefit of the doubt until we are convinced of his
motivation. A good dose of charity is always in order, because the way you
treat others is frequently how they will treat you.

Should we ignore error? No. We should oppose it. However, we ought to
consider ourselves, as we oppose error lest we be found treating others as
we ourselves would not like to be treated. Be careful of accusing others of
being a son of the Devil. It might, just maybe, be your brother that you
are calling a name.

Posted in Soteriology | Leave a comment