2.27 Fear and Loving in the Revelation

The Revelation of St John is one of those books that engenders an unconscious but natural avoidance. You don't hear it often studied in small group. There is the sense that the density of detail, the pervasive use of symbolism, and perhaps even a prerequisite knowledge of the Old Testament to parse it can be daunting. Unlike reading the Gospels or the Pastoral Letters, the pay-off in study to understand who we are before God, our sin, our salvation, and how to live our lives, appears reduced together with the higher level of attention needed to achieve it. Conversely, we rightly scrutinize those who show an overly excited attention to books like the Revelation and Daniel and Ezekiel for their prophecies, recognizing the catastrophe of assuming that we understand the Gospel so well that its time to "graduate" to the deeper, "more interesting" things.

As much as I grew up in a church that reveled in their frequent forays into these books, where one inevitably finds himself unable to defend his unorthodox view of the Gospel without resorting to passages that most have trouble understanding, even I found my limits visiting one group where it appeared prophecy was all that they studied. There was a level of pride I had never seen before, that they knew things that the world (and even most of the other churches) missed. There was this feeling of something missing among them, of love, of connection, of people who truly like one another, that overwhelmed even an outside observer. And there was nausea of knowing how patently off they were in their conclusions by any standard. It might be the subject of comedy had they not believed in it so strongly and acted so miserably. I was still part of that larger group, and even I could see it. They couldn't.

When I left, when the Gospel, that swept-clean spotless and paved road, appeared inescapably running through every book of scripture I read, I put down those books of prophecy. I couldn't touch them. It would be years before I was willing to read them again in any state of mind, and with more humility, wondering how much I would be able to understand just by reading. As enigmatic and cryptic as they seemed earlier, with plenty of persons around me eager to insert their confidence that this meant this or that, I now started from exactly zero. Lost.

I like puzzles. The less I understand, the more I feel like my dog gnawing obsessively on his bone, unable to feel satisfaction if he lets go, until it is finally, eventually consumed. With such puzzles there is the fleeting hope held out that it may be solved, if only one is persistent.

But beyond a challenge, I find a certain draw to this book. For such a puzzle, yet I'm taken by the encouragement that "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. (Rev 1:3)" Somehow this book (as neglected as some others in my reading) was written to be understood, taken to heart, and heeded.

The word "awesome" is used so liberally and casually in the world. It's no surprise we on the Christian side want to do what we can to take it back, to reclaim it for things that are properly awesome. So we stress the language when we find a scripture, to see if we can emotionally force the feeling back where it should be in our services and our singing. Even so, it's hard for many of us, jaded by such inflated language in common use, accustomed to incessant and relentless stimulation in daily life, to see awesome for what it is, and to react properly to things as they appear in the Book. The problem with stressing the word, with injecting the emotions to reclaim the language is that it may yield a similar deadening to its affect if we even a little overuse it above what the verse may call for. No longer a new Christian, I find often that I feel immune, or now even resistant, to such deliberate stresses -- such proclamations of "incredible" and "awesome" -- even while knowing in my mind I should have been moved to some degree. I confess that when David says "oh, how I love your law", that I desperately want to know what that must be like, to feel that throughout my being, instead of simply nodding along.

The Revelation, like some other passages, is a breath of fresh air. Because in it we come face to face with God and Christ and in their activity in the denouement of the world. Each chapter, moving along, elicits increasing feelings of gravity, of terror and dread. No logical, rational person should remain unmoved or untroubled.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. For someone increasingly desensitized to the use of words crafted to evoke emotional response, it is the very picture put in many lesser words that draws one back to their proper sense of awe. Dread is thus a welcome feeling, a stabilizing feeling, knowing that you have captured something very basic and profound about the true God, even perhaps understanding Isaiah's own "falling on his face as if dead" before the Almighty. For a Christian, this dread is terrible and at the same time wonderful in that one fully appreciates how this awesome face, turned against you, is at once turned away from you, turned outward to become a shield and protection to you. What must Daniel have felt to discover that those savage cats would tear any attacker to pieces, as he possibly rested his head on one with his feet on another as he went to sleep?

Immediately there is again sweetness, and comfort in this book, among the terrific pictures of destruction, death, martyrdom, and finale. For a long while I've loved the depth, and the density and the elegance of how it is written even as I struggle with what seem to be puzzles.

Take the letters to the churches, Rev 2 and 3. It helps me to break up each letter in five parts: the Preamble (introduction of who is speaking), the Praise (for that church), the Problem, the Prescription (what to do) and the Promise. Others name these differently. The thing is, if reading quickly, its easy to miss how these parts are woven into each other to increase the effect of the message.

Take Smyrna, for example. Jesus is "the first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life," and he says that he knows their tribulation and poverty. The church in Smyrna is suffering. Yet he assures them, praises them, that they are rich. He knows of the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not. Evidently, many or most in this church are converted Jews and among their persecutors are unconverted Jews attacking them. Jesus tells them not to fear. From their Gentile persecutors, they will be put in prison, to be tested, and have tribulation for ten days. This is the problem. He prescribes that they be faithful until death, which is a serious possibility. And then he promises them a crown of life, and further that he who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.

Jesus calls their Jewish tormentors a "synagogue of Satan" not simply as a condemnation, but an aggressive affirmation to this church that for all of the slander that they have left God by following Christ, they are in fact God's own people and what they have left is of Satan. He sets the record straight lest in this onslaught one's faith begins to falter. For a Jew, likely put out of their synagogue which was the center of their spiritual and social life amid Gentile pagans, this is a fortifying assurance. For myself, I remember under far less dire circumstances, after severe yelling matches with parents and friends still in my old group, wondering if the differences were so big after all; wondering if I shouldn't just give it a rest and be quiet? Perhaps try to reduce the conflict that erupted around me. I wasn't prepared for the level of animosity when conversations started out as a calm back-and-forth. For a brief moment I had my sister alongside, angry, stubborn, over-eager to argue publicly against the bad doctrine, rejecting any compromise, pushing forward as we studied while this rift between myself and my old church widened into the necessary chasm. Finally we both left.

She eventually went back to them. I'm convinced however, that I needed someone next to me in those moments, uncompromising and willing to call that life for what it was, in order for me to continue. Anger and determination from her did more to steady my faltering resolve than sympathy could.

Why the contrast in the promise? Between a crown of life and second death? Because they are "apostate" Jews, and the Jews believed in an enduring punishment for Gentiles and apostates alike. They are threatened with hell, and Jesus promises them instead a crown of life and that second death will have no power over them.

And how does he introduce himself? As "the first and the last". If anyone should have the power over life and death, it's God. "Who was dead. And has come to life." If anyone should know about death, and wrenching life from death itself, it's Him. This is his mark of authenticity and authority and capability in these words.

This is care and intensity in something measured to bring comfort.

The message to Philadelphia is another variation on this theme, except here Jesus is "holy and true", having "the key of David, who opens and no one can shut, and who shuts and no one can open." But the problem is different, lacking the teeth of Gentile violence. Here, it is vindication that Christ promises against the same "synagogue of Satan". Why the keys of David? Why are we talking about doors? Because it's from David's line that the Messiah, the Savior of Israel comes. Because they are being told that outside of Israel they are shut out of God's presence and salvation.

But Christ holds that key. They cannot shut what he opens, nor can they enter what he shuts against them. Those liars will be forced to come and fall down at the feet of the Jewish Christians, to acknowledge what they viciously denied, that their long-awaited Messiah has deeply loved these people. He counsels them to hold on, that he will keep them from the hour of trial coming upon the world. And he ends with: "He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, he will not go out from it anymore" asserting their unassailable place in God's holy presence. "I will write on him the name of (again) My God, and the name of the city of (and again) My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from (yet again) My God, and (even again) My new name." Jesus is repeatedly stamps the Father's name and His name on His people so they can't get it out of their heads that "I love you".

We have the privilege of knowing Him, of standing before One who, as CS Lewis put it, is "not a tame lion" who the world yet approaches carelessly and lightheartedly. For people who are broken by standing in invincible wretchedness before a holy God, and further beaten down by the world at its worst, we are picked up never to leave His Holy Temple. And this is our God.

The picture is never so clear as when there is good contrast.

Interesting Reading

Carey Nieuwhof

https://careynieuwhof.com/9-things-worked-church-decade-ago-no-longer-work-today/

https://careynieuwhof.com/why-the-church-needs-to-decide-on-its-real-mission/

https://careynieuwhof.com/ministry-actually-difficult-decade-ago/

https://careynieuwhof.com/10-reasons-even-committed-church-attenders-attending-less-often/

https://careynieuwhof.com/the-looming-pastoral-succession-crisis-and-why-its-already-bad/

Christianity Today

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2005/september-online-only/cln50912.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/january/tired-of-show-church-cant-compete-with-hollywood.html?paging=off

https://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/august/why-im-not-world-changer.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2013/january/in-defense-of-church-hoppers.html

https://lightenough.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/in-defense-of-church-hoppers/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2015/july-web-exclusives/farewell-cultural-christianity.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2011/spring/goingdeep.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/october/state-of-american-church.html

https://www.christianity.com/church/church-life/all-alone-together-the-tragedy-of-superficial-relationships-at-church.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/march/9-things-i-love-to-see-when-i-visit-church.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2018/august/5-preaching-styles.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/february/why-you-need-to-change-how-you-preach-and-5-changes-ive-mad.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2017/february/loyal-church-denomination-anymore-good.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/october/why-millennials-wont-build-kinds-of-churches-their-parents-.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/may/why-next-great-move-of-god-will-make-church-people-uncomfor.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2018/august/new-music-is-not-worth-fighting-for-so-what-is.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2017/february/7-steps-to-start-becoming-church-people-want-to-commit-to.html?paging=off

Patheos

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/04/a-description-of-the-early-christians/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-reasons-why-people-leave-church/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theroadhome/2018/04/the-source-of-your-pain-is-cultural-collapse/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theroadhome/2018/04/modern-loneliness-is-like-nothing-that-has-come-before/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theroadhome/2018/04/the-quandary-of-the-evangelical-man/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/09/25/the-clarion-call-to-watered-down-evangelicalism/

Micah J Murray

https://micahjmurray.com/why-we-left-the-church/

N T Wright

http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/04/believing-and-belonging/

Thom Rainer

https://thomrainer.com/2016/09/five-reasons-churches-dying-declining-faster-today/

https://thomrainer.com/2018/08/dying-churches-dont-know-dying-revitalize-replant-053/

https://thomrainer.com/2017/07/seven-common-reasons-churches-dramatic-decline-attendance/

https://thomrainer.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-churches-drive-away-first-time-guests/

https://thomrainer.com/2016/08/four-types-churches-will-soon-die/

https://thomrainer.com/2016/09/five-reasons-churches-dying-declining-faster-today/

Other

http://credohouse.org/blog/the-intellectual-crisis-of-todays-church

http://www.dearbiblebelt.com/why-men-hate-going-to-church/

https://lewayotte.com/2013/01/10/there-is-no-biblical-support-for-paid-pastorselders/

https://www.ministrymatters.com/lead/entry/4984/why-are-so-many-churches-empty-the-importance-of-in-depth-bible-study-for-a-congregation

http://malphursgroup.com/13-deadly-sins-of-a-dying-church/

https://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/inside-report/magazine/id/10804/t/new-life-for-a-dead-church

https://www.crossroadschristian.org/blogs/blog/the-twelve-mistakes-dead-churches-make

http://www.joyfulheart.com/plant/restart.htm

https://www.crosswalk.com/church/pastors-or-leadership/ask-roger/17-ways-to-know-that-your-church-is-dying.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1010/Amid-Evangelical-decline-growing-split-between-young-Christians-and-church-elders

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/12/26/on-leaving-church/

http://www.maggienancarrow.com/2015/the-church-is-not-dying-its-failing-theres-a-difference/

https://www.crosswalk.com/church/pastors-or-leadership/6-subtle-signs-that-a-church-is-on-its-deathbed.html

http://www.dearbiblebelt.com/why-men-hate-going-to-church/

http://credohouse.org/blog/the-intellectual-crisis-of-todays-church

http://seniorpastorcentral.com/953/why-churches-should-euthanize-small-groups/

https://blog.heartsupport.com/lets-stop-pretending-christianity-is-actually-relevant-okay-ade4c00dabcc

http://timmybrister.com/2005/08/franchising-church-the-latest-greatest-trend-of-the-megachurch-movement/

https://christianneity.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/lack-of-gravitas/

https://alastairadversaria.com/2018/01/27/what-pastors-could-learn-from-jordan-peterson/

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/11/gravitas-weight-gain.html

https://blog.capterra.com/lessons-from-autopsy-of-a-deceased-church-you-can-use/

https://mereorthodoxy.com/american-church-deserves-to-die/

https://www.faithandleadership.com/cherry-crayton-waiting-words-were-glad-youre-here

https://www.faithandleadership.com/ryan-p-bonfiglio-lets-make-church-center-theological-education-again

https://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/10-signals-say-you-not-welcome-this-church.html

Gen 14 - Abraham and the Four Kings

Thoughts on Gen 14

Gen 14 is one of those detail-rich passages we might read on the way to something else, pulling out a few points we can apply personally, and otherwise consigning most of the information to the distant recesses of memory. We have little personal connection to that world and aren't given enough of a picture to develop one. It may be worth asking questions of the details we have to see what we can get, accepting that many questions must be left open.

We have the general story of four kings sweeping from the East, defeating the combined armies of five cities and taking Lot and the inhabitants of infamous Sodom captive, and Abraham in turn defeating the invaders and rescuing Lot. Prior to returning all of the spoils to Sodom, Abraham makes a tithe of his possessions to Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem (later Jerusalem). Both the tithe and Melchizedek himself will be referenced later in other books and chapters.

(Note: I had thought to keep some detail out of this, but many thanks to my father for providing external references and a host of grammatical and historical corrections. I include several below.)

Matters of Geography and Dating

The four kings from the East serve as potential anchor points to the historical record for those attempting to piece together a proper chronology of the Bible's events. We have an Amraphel king of Shinar, an Arioch king of Ellasar, Chederlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim. As allies they conquer Sodom, Gomorrah and the three other cities of the plain. Thirteen years later the tribute cities rebel and in the fourteenth year the same kings return. So the first criterion is we're looking for four kings who reign in some degree of alliance with at least a fourteen year overlap. We may also favor the possibility that one or more of these kings is recorded by their historians to have fallen in battle, although this is not explicitly stated in Gen 14:7 (simply that they were defeated).

The Shinar of the Bible is typically linked with the area of ancient Sumer. At this point in history, this may or may not have included the city of Ur, almost certainly the same city as Abraham's origin (Ur of the Chaldees). I say *almost certainly* because there seems to be a problem identifying who the "Chaldees" ("Kasdim", in the Hebrew) are. The Septuagint renders them in Greek as "Chaldees" though to our knowledge Chaldeans don't appear on the landscape of the region until the 10th century BC, which is about the time of Solomon. There is further discussion as to whether the name of Abraham's ancestor, Arphaxad (Arpakshad) contains the word/name "Kasdim" and how it is used.

Babel (presumably early Babylon), Erech (Uruk) and Accad (Akkad/Agade) were in the land of Shinar. These were the "beginnings" of Nimrod's kingdom (Gen 10:10 -- possibly what Nimrod inherited from an earlier person, before he built the other cities) and the plain was the first mentioned settlement as people journey east from where the Ark landed (Gen 11:2). Babel and Erech are certainly cities. Akkad is known to be a region a bit further upstream. From secular history we are told that Sargon built a capital city named Agade/Akkad, but it was depopulated after him and has not yet been found. (See JP, note 1)

Ellasar is most commonly thought to be the same city-state of Larsa which was often in conflict with its neighbor, Ur. (See JP, note 2)

Elam is that center-West portion of modern day Iran which sits close to the cities of Babylon, Ur, Larsa, etc. They were often in conflict with Sumer, Larsa and Ur. At one point it appears the king of Elam installed a son as a ruler on Ur's throne. That could potentially accord with a king of Elam heading an army with a Sumerian king at his side.

The Goiim are harder to pin down. The word can be translated as heathens, or nations, referring often to non-Semitic (especially Caucasian) peoples in general. Hence, Tidal, king of Goiim, is often rendered Tidal, king of Nations. We don't have an exact match in history for Goiim as a nation. This could indicate that Tidal was the leader of a confederacy of various peoples, thus far unidentified in history. The Hittites/Hathi are also occasionally considered due to their (at some point) dominance over the Anatolian region of modern Turkey at the north-west border of Shinar and the resemblance of a king's name (much later in history) of Tudhaliya. (See Note 4) Similarly, a Hurrian people living in the Zagros mountains (Western Iran) had a king named Tishdal.

Compounding the question of who were the Goiim is the possible mention in Josh 12:23 of "the king of Goiim in Gilgal (sometimes Galilee)", Is 9:1 "Galilee of the Goiim" (Gentiles/Assyria?) and in Jud 4:2 where Sisera's residence was in Harosheth-ha-goiim" (Harosheth of the Gentiles).

There is a more attractive link between these "Goiim" and the "Gutium", a people that historically did live in proximity and frequent conflict with Sumer, Larsa, and Elam and may have had a king named Tidalmesh or some variant of the same. I haven't found much information on Tidalmesh, however, beyond a possible name. An alliance with four powerful kings in roughly the same area makes a certain sense.

Further. You don't conduct military campaigns far from home when there is turbulence back home among far more powerful parties. This re-entry into Canaan represents a rare period of peace and accord between peoples who rarely found themselves together in that same state. Perhaps with guards needed at home, without going as an alliance, it might not have been practical to raise an army large enough to conquer the south-west regions twice in fourteen years. So you would need general peace as a prerequisite for such a campaign. Even Sargon didn't go so far south as Canaan.

Lastly, as for timing, we're probably looking at the time period between 2300BC and 1700BC to be liberal and encompass a number of chronologies. The more commonly used Exodus date is around 1450BC which at a minimum would put Abraham at 1450 BC+430 BC=1880 BC, representing when Abraham received the covenant from God, which would be his departure from Haran. Other chronologies that attempt to address some difficult verses pertaining to the length of Israel in Egypt and the time of the Judges may push the date back further but none earlier than Sargon's time (2300BC). This is a maximum reasonable span, for archaeologists who believe the Bible is accurate.

Geneologies

The land of Shinar was settled by "the whole world" with "one common speech". So there likely was a great mix of various people. Nimrod is from Ham so perhaps that indicates the dominance of Ham's descendants in that land at some point. We don't know exactly where to place Nimrod in history, given how the Hebrew introduces him as a son of Cush but outside the normal listing of his sons, as if a parenthesis.

The Amorites are also from Ham, but from another son, Canaan.

Abraham is from the line of Shem. Elam is a son of Shem. Asshur (with a city in Assyria named for him) is also from Shem.

Whichever tribal group dominates Ur when Terah and Abraham leave might have some effect on why they did.

Abraham's Migration to Canaan

Some questions first arise in Gen 11. Abraham's father, Terah, takes him and his wife and Lot out of "Ur of the Chaldees" in order to enter Canaan. Note, then, Abram was heading for Canaan before we read of God's call. Terah "took" Abram and Lot, so that indicates the original decision to leave for Canaan was his.

Heb 11:8 doesn't shed much more light on this calling, only that he obeyed and went by faith, though he did not know where he was going.

Why were they going to Canaan? Ur, and its environs, is the center of known civilization. On the other hand, Amorites (and others) lived in Canaan and about from the time of Sargon of Akkad (~2300BC) until just before Hammurabi (1750BC) were regarded as uncivilized, lesser peoples.

One theory advanced is that Terah is fleeing political or military upheaval in Ur. But if Ur is part of Shinar, stopping in Haran (also likely dominated by Shinar) when Canaan is the goal seems strange. If not, then why plan as far as Canaan, if he can just flee to Shinar, and possibly closer cities than Haran? And what's suddenly in Haran that changes Terah's mind about continuing on?

A second theory is that depending on the time frame, if Amraphal conquers Canaan about the time that Terah sets out, he could have either been part of a military occupation or outpost heading to Canaan (which could explain why Abraham trained his own small army) or a large expedition of settlers from Ur determined to capitalize on freedom and opportunity in newly subjugated territory. Abraham leaves Haran with possibly more people than he went in, which could indicate he or Terah had been taking in people for the trip.

We don't know how much time passes from the setting out of Terah from Ur to Lot's capture. Abraham may have delayed in Haran to some degree to honor his elderly father until he died. We do know that Abraham headed far south even down to the Negev, at which point a famine forced him to continue on to Egypt, which he somewhat quickly left again. After that time he settled in a number of places until Lot parted company, at which point Abraham stayed near Hebron, near the oak trees of Mamre the Amorite. The theory of heading to Canaan after Shinar's conquest of it rests on Terah departing just after, and that Abraham's various settlements were less than fourteen years. With no mention of Abraham encountering the first conquest, presumably this happened before his arrival in the land.

It is worth noting three things:
1) Very little conquest, outside of an Amorite town of Hazazon-tamar (likely modern day En-Gedi on the West side of the Dead Sea) is mentioned in the area that Abraham is believed to have occupied West of Sodom.

2) Abraham with a trained army of 318 (and a significant amount of resources for plunder) is completely ignored, despite the four Eastern kings running through all people East of the Jordan, and throughout the Southern portions of modern Israel up to the Negev. They would have had to pass by him on the way down to the plains. Is it possible that Abraham, from the same region as Amraphel, is considered a "friendly" in a territory that did not rebel? Is it possible that Abraham in fact was friendly until Lot is swept up in the pillage of Sodom? The four kings apparently proceed north on the West side of the Jordan, bypassing Melchizedek and Salem with no more conquests after subduing Sodom.

Likely Abraham would have heard of the rebellion years before. He may have been in range of army scouts from the kings. However he seems far enough away to personally only get the news by someone who escaped the captivity, nor was he afforded an opportunity to warn Lot to evacuate.

Further, 3) there is a difference in the order given of the four kings between Gen 14:1 and 14:9. Despite that in 14:1 Amraphel is mentioned first, possibly because he was the pre-eminent of the earlier expedition or perhaps in general, the five cities of the plain rebel against Chederlaomer and he heads the actual battle. Is the difference in order significant, with both Amraphel and Arioch (Ellasar) listed as 1st and 2nd, and then again as a pair, listed in the 3rd and 4th positions?

Does the servitude of the five cities of the plain to Chederlaomer and the lack of fighting West of the Jordan (as opposed to South and East) indicate that each of the four kings held different territories as their own vassals? That certainly provides the incentives for this alliance, where Elam takes the plains and Shinar holds Canaan West of the Jordan. I have heard from some (not confirmed) that both the Gutium and Hittites (at different times) had presences even in areas to the South and also East of the Jordan. Which might suggest that the Amalekites' territory near the Negev might have been vassal to Larsa, if this line of reasoning holds.

Incidentally, heading Northwest from Babylon to Haran and then South along the Jordan is a natural path around the fertile crescent that avoids the inhospitable desert. The four kings may have taken that through to the East side of the Jordan and may have also been attempting to take the same path back from the West side when Abram caught up with them. Terah and Abraham took the same path from Ur.

Another question: was Abraham always nomadic or was it only after the departure from either Ur or Haran that he adopted the lifestyle?

Lastly, and I don't know what significance it has, note the in Gen 12, when Abram leaves Haran for Canaan, he further takes people he had acquired in Haran. He is going on God's directive. Is he also resuming whatever mission his father had and then paused? Are these simply extra shepherds to handle his flocks, or are they people leaving with some expectation to settle, having pledged themselves to Abraham now that his God has promised to give Abraham a land of his own?

Abraham's Relationship with the Amorites

Is it significant that Abraham's allies in the land are Mamre, his two brothers, and that they are all Amorite? Given that the Amorites are a huge (albeit scattered and nomadic) presence on both sides of the Jordan and even throughout Mesopotamia, Abraham might have had a greater familiarity with them. Bear in mind, these are not a small people and would at some point take Babylon itself. The renowned Hamurrabi was the sixth Amorite king to rule Babylon, although by that time his ruling nation had adopted the language and customs of the previously dominant Akkad.

While the Amalekites are attacked in general, only the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar are attacked. If this is En-Gedi, then this is possibly the four kings' route down into the Valley of Siddim (now the Dead Sea) to threaten the five cities.

Aner, Eschol and Mamre, (beyond a standing alliance) may well have had additional incentive in attacking the four kings after the assault on the Amorite city.

The King of Sodom

The king of Sodom is always mentioned first in the lists of his own alliance, and he entreats with Abraham regarding what happens to the loot. We conclude that he is likely the head of the most important city, and this status extends to his successor.

Because the king of Sodom comes out to meet Abraham with King Melchizedek in the King's Valley (Shaveh) north of Salem, it is often assumed that the king of Sodom survived. Many translations like the NIV thus read that when the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some of their men fell into the tar/slime pits and the rest fled to the hills, where the more "literal" NASB and others just say "and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell in them." It's still not hard and fast that "they" doesn't refer generally to their armies, but I think this likely indicates that the kings died.

Which means the king who met Abraham is whoever took over after the previous one died. This could explain his eagerness to let Abraham keep the loot from Sodom. Firstly, the better part may not have been his goods originally (unlike the previous king) and secondly, he's now the new kid on the block where Abraham is undisputed and sole power in the area. Beyond simple humility, Abraham's refusal to accept the goods may have been a recognition that the King of Sodom was trying to buy Abraham's protection and military ability. Abraham suspected an ulterior motive and how Sodom would boast that it had made Abraham rich. Perhaps this also translates into a something meant to bind Abraham to him through the perception of him being indebted. Abraham returns in victory only to find the machinations starting from the people he had just saved.

Given how rich Abraham already was, riches alone may not be part of the subsequent worry Abraham shows in Gen 15, following this encounter with the King of Sodom.

In a vision following this, God opens with, "Do not fear, Abram. I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great." Protection (implying a felt need for protection) and reward. Yet Abraham's principal worry is later revealed to hinge around an heir. Material goods mean nothing if his inheritance passes to another not related (strangely, Eliezar of Damascus, born in Abram's house, is closer in this scenario than even Lot is?) But then, maybe this is how Abraham has begun expecting to "help" God keep that promise. That the inheritance stays in his general "house".

I don't have a full read on exactly how this is affected by the previous conversation.

Abraham's Army

One pastor suggested this is another "Gideon" moment in the Bible. I don't think so. Melchizedek rightly acknowledges that God delivers the enemies into Abraham's hand. Beyond that the text doesn't support a Gideon moment, where a man is moved by God to take a deliberately inferior force, using unlikely tactics, against a dramatically overwhelming force for an astonishing victory. God was then making a point to a rebellious nation.

Upon hearing of his nephew's capture, Abraham simply led out his trained men, which number 318. We are told in the previous verse that he was living by the "oaks of Mamre the Amorite", the brother of Eshcol and Aner, and that they are Abram's allies. Possibly, because Mamre is the last of the three mentioned to the King of Sodom as deserving a share, Mamre is the youngest.

In that conversation, only Abram and his three allies are specifically listed as having a share in the spoils, not any of the people under them. Which opens the possibility that, like Abram, they also were leaders of comparable numbers of men. Otherwise, their share would be something like 3 parts out of roughly 320. Perhaps not insignificant, still. Shares were not typically considered in such an egalitarian manner as to officially extend to each participant in action. In the Middle East even until today the tendency is that the war leader gets the main share of the battle and then he becomes "a river to his people". The king of Sodom doesn't treat with the foot soldiers about dividing spoils, but rather only the leaders.

Bear in mind, further, that armies in those days were not the same size as armies in modern times, or even armies many hundreds of years later (e.g. from Jud 7 and 8 it appears Gideon mustered at its largest 32,000 against an enemy of 135,000).

In the days of Sargon, he led an army that peaked at 5400 men against city states which maintained standing armies of typically 600-700 men. And he did this after he controlled around 14 city-states which could each provide him troops. These, often considered king's bodyguards, would be better equipped than the reserves (the rest of the people) called up in time of war, who would have far less (if any) training. Sargon's troops employed composite bows and early battle armour. One thing Sargon and others hadn't worked out was the regular supply of food for their armies, which were ordered to pillage by force any non-Akkadian farms and settlements within the general empire. Not being a sustainable mechanism, this presents an upper limit to the size of any army located in one place for military action. It can feed itself on the go as long as it doesn't stop. In areas of lower population, you simply can't bring a large army, because there won't be enough to pillage. This pattern continued after Sargon's death.

This is one reason that Amorites were particularly despised: they were nomadic and hence didn't greatly contribute to the provisions that could be extracted from a territory to supply an army. Agriculture is a demonstrated necessity for large standing armies. If foraging armies easily defeated armies of established settlements, that suggests the settlements can't have been very big.

Also, keeping in mind that a large army was useful to maintain peace and support conquests over the size of Sumeria in general, and that the worst threats would (and did) come from the nearby city-states (and not from provincial areas like Canaan), it seems reasonable that a large military invasion of the size used by Sargon throughout Mesopotamia is unlikely. It may have been that the four kings might have amassed 2000 soldiers, but possibly as little as 1000, seeing it as sufficient to take back lost territories.

Abraham's 318 soldiers (a small army even by today's standards) may not have been a trivial force in the region, especially if the three Amorite brothers brought at least as many.

It is suggested by some that the mention that "they were allies of Abram" -- instead of "Abram was their ally" -- may suggest that Abram was initially a junior partner in this alliance, possibly as a newcomer to the region, and a nomad amid more permanent Amorite settlements. He would have been useful to stave off Amalekite (and other) attacks, and he would have found some protection surrounded by the Amorites. The Amorites, being familiar with Ur, might even have welcomed possibly Ur-trained military expertise in their less developed southern region.

By the time of the battle the game is clearly Abram's and the details are given matter-of-factly. He divides his forces (not the most obvious choice if you are severely outnumbered) and attacks by night. This would neutralize both archers as well as (horse/camel) cavalry if it was part of the four kings' army. Additionally, after Sodom, the kings are returning victorious, flush with slaves and enormous wealth. They aren't in the state of mind to expect an existential threat. Soldiers would have been diverted to simply contain the hundreds (maybe thousands) of captives from the cities and guard the loot. Many would likely be drunk and feasting or just recovering at night.

Lastly, there are often profound differences in the abilities of armies assaulting static or arrayed positions as opposed to being forced to defend themselves from surprise attacks. The four kings did very well against those native to the land and presumably only left once all threats to their dominion had been eliminated (again, Abraham was not seen as a threat).

Abraham may have been familiar with their tactics, having lived in or around a prominent or capital city. He may have believed he had the upper hand, especially with the security of God's as-yet-unfulfilled promise (meaning that Abraham has to survive this). Abraham's apparent lack of hesitation may have been the confidence of a leader who has read his opponent correctly, has a clear mission, the resources to carry it through as well as a moral responsibility to rescue his blood relative.

At the end of the conflict, whatever the arrangement may have been between Abraham and his allies, he is clearly the senior party, negotiating with the king of Sodom on their behalf for their shares.

The Giants Weren't a Significant Factor

Notice the route that the four kings take. They defeat the Rephaim, the Zuzim (may be the same as Zamzummim), the Emim and the Horites, up to the wilderness (desert, unpopulated areas). They are going south on the east side of the Jordan, possibly well overshooting the end of the (now) Dead Sea and as yet avoiding the cities of the plains. They then swing ("back") north and west to Kadesh (not confidently located -- but see Note 5) and hit the Amalekites (all along the southern and Negev areas of modern Israel) and a specific Amorite settlement. Then they defeat Sodom and the other four in a combined battle.

I'm not certain if the Horites are related, but the Rephaim, Zuzim and Emim are definitely linked in their descriptions as giants along with another people known as the Anakim (also named the sons of Anak). See Deut 2:11. The Emim in Moab are regarded as Rephaim, but called Emim by Moab. The Anakim are also considered Rephaim (suggesting Anak who is descended from an Arba -- Josh 15:3 -- is also possibly from a Rapha, but we don't have any better information on these three). Similarly the land given to Ammon was also inhabited by earlier Rephaim, who Ammonites called Zamzummim. In Deut 2:10, the Emim are apparently as numerous and tall as the Anakim. When the Hebrew spies look at the land of Canaan they run into the Sons of Anak (Num 13:33) and report that they felt like grasshoppers to them and probably were regarded as such by the Anakites. Finally, Og the King of Bashan (the same as the land of the Rephaim), when killed in battle with Moses, had a bed frame approximately 13x6 feet (Deut 3:11). Og is officially the last of the Rephaim, yet, if Anakites are considered Rephaim, we know of several descendants of Anak fighting for the Philistines as giants: Goliath and his two brothers who were killed by David's relative and an unknown affiliate. Does this suggest that Og is the last of the established Rephaim, but not necessarily of the entire race? Og is the last time the word "Rephaim" is mentioned outside of simply naming the land itself.

They are frightening. But they can also be killed.

It's possible that what we see in scripture may reflect a gradual decline of these peoples. There are significant territories East of the Jordan that the four kings go through. However, we just read that they "defeat... defeat... defeat..." as if engaging an entirely unextraordinary force. Anakites in the south west are encountered by the Hebrew spies, yet, only Og is mentioned among those particular three Rehpaim territories encountered in Abraham's day. Remember, the Hebrews had God fighting for them, but that advantage likely did not apply to the four kings.

Joshua and Caleb extinguish them handily from all the land in the West where they still have fortified cities, leaving only a trace in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod in the south west (hence Goliath). But despite the original fear of the spies forty years before, no extended record of any attack on the Anakite cities appears (unlike Jericho or Ai, etc.) Most of the enemies in the land aren't Anakim, which further suggests that the Anakim were perhaps even a minority in a land of normal-sized people. Og is the king of Bashan, but the last of the Rephaim, which may indicate that by this time, a handful of Rephaim rulers may simply stand out among a normal population. In the case of Goliath and his brothers, they will later serve the Philistines. Despite the Anakim surviving in the Philistine cities by David's day, there are no armies of giants. They may simply have died off or been subsumed into the larger population as genetically compatible outliers.

This may also be upheld by the absence (at least in our record) of giants fighting in normal-peopled armies in the days of Joshua and Caleb. They stuck to their cities and only integrated out of necessity (as in Gath, Gaza and Ashdod). That would accord with a natural genetic source (or upkeep) of their giantism. They have to keep it in the gene-pool.

The question arises: who are these Anakim? The Hebrew spies called them "nephilim", which takes us back to Gen 6:4, where is says the "nephilim were there in those days (pre-Flood) as afterward, when the sons of God..." Many presume "afterward" means the post-Flood days since we read of "nephilim" in Joshua's day. So both nephilim groups are the product of angels and humans. However I've always had a problem with the idea of angels being permitted to come down again after the flood and doing the same thing that helped get the earlier world destroyed catastrophically. Those angels who left their first estate were not spared but are bound for the judgment day (Jude 6). It's not out of the question that after the flood, some angels did the same and suffered the same results, but it seems strange. And if they did, their giant offspring enjoyed dramatically reduced success.

It's been pointed out that the Hebrew isn't necessarily as clear as the English as to where the punctuation goes. We may also potentially read it where "nephilim were there in those days" is distinct from "as afterward when the Sons of God..." meaning that we are distinguishing giants not related to angels from giants that are the product of angels, all within the same pre-flood age.

We read about the post-flood Anakim, and it's natural to assume that this earlier parenthetical is talking about pre- and post-flood, but that's not demanded. The Hebrew spies may have too-liberally used the word "nephilim" in their description, yet it remains that there were powerful giants. And if there are nephilim giants that are not the product of angels, that suggests that somewhere in the genetic makeup of pre-flood man we have giantism, which thus allows for the possibility that it may still have been present in the genetic makeup of Noah, his sons and their wives. Given enough in-breeding, giantism well could reappear as other traits do today in various populations. We even have giantism today, some were even overly strong wrestlers. But we also know about the shortened life-spans of those born with this condition. Could be the same, could be different.

They may have had limited eyesight (see Note 6).

It's not then so strange to wonder if these Rephaim never got to be a big enough population to significantly alter the balance of power in a region as a people. They simply had too many problems and recovered more slowly from defeats. They were frightening in a one-on-one battle, but never present and armed in numbers to threaten well-equipped armies.

It sounds like a fairy tale, talking about actual giants walking with tiny people, but there it is in scripture. Each group in turn was displaced. The Hebrews destroyed Og and his army, and his territory went to Manasseh. The Ammonites took over the land of the Zuzim. The Moabites took over the land of the Emim. Presumably the last of these people died with Goliath and his brothers.

The Edomites displaced the Horites (despite it being the same vicinity, no mention is made of any Rephaite connection to Horites). If these are the Hurrians, they were likely not among the early settlers but could have arrived after the first invasion of those Eastern kings.

One last thought on this, and admittedly I'm now stepping beyond extrapolation and interpolation and into the realm of speculation. Very far up on the earth's surface (generally where we couldn't easily ascribe something to a pre-flood period) we have the preservation of strange humans like the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon. As for the later, he's now renamed "early Modern Human" since there's a direct genetic link to the rest of us. For the former, popular impressions are still suffering from the examination of one of the early specimens that apparently suffered from a crippling and debilitating form of arthritis. The late zoologist Boton Davidheiser commented that dressed up in coat and hat on the New York subway, no one would look twice.

That admitted, is it possible that, in the days of chaos and expansion that defined the early post-flood world, and an environment much less hospitable than the earlier times (think aftermath of tsunamis, but on a worldwide scale), Noah and his family were still more genetically diverse than we are today? Our earlier ancestors, those that hunted, apparently had the leg bones of Olympic sprinters. Cro-Magnon humans were extremely tough and sturdy with all the normal hallmarks of intelligence, language and social behaviors. Neanderthals have similar advantages, and in fact nearly all of the world, with the exception of those specifically from sub-Saharan Africa, share a non-trivial amount of "Neanderthal" genes. This could be explained by a secondary migration from Africa out into the world where Neanderthals already were (the "Out of Africa" theory). On the other hand, it could be explained by peoples heading towards Africa before tribes that included these different humans began intermingling, and those other humans never followed. Did they die out before crossing Southward? Was the southern continent not hospitable for them?

Keep in mind that, if you plot the lifespans of the humans recorded in scripture for both pre- and post-flood times, you see a dramatic decline in longevity immediately after the flood. This may coincide with other infirmities that simply weren't there before the flood.

Could these Anakim giants be simply another strain of humanity that didn't thrive in the post-flood world?

My Notes:

See James Parkinson: RESOLVING CHRONOLOGY OF THE 2nd MILLENNIUM B.C. My dad's view offers a suggestion as to who these kings are, as well as the Pharaohs of Joseph's and Moses' day. In this case, although it appears he starts by identifying these kings and working forward using the timeline in scripture, this in fact works into earlier efforts of his where (like most) he finds an indisputable date (i.e. Babylonian captivity) and works backwards.

Regarding chronology (the attempt to link dates in history and other related story with Biblical events) not many people have this interest and there are a few accepted versions. For the most part, scripture allows one to easily piece the timeline together by often giving the intervals between significant events or the lives of people. You can then use this to go all the way to Noah's day and beyond this way.

It's not all cut and dry however, because scripture appears to give different dates for the same period.
Two major questions involve how long was the period of the Judges and how long were the Israelites in Egypt.

1 Kings 6:1 says that 480 years pass from the Exodus to the beginning of building of the temple, which is also the 4th year of Solomon's reign. In Acts 13, however, if you add up the intervals listed, you get a figure of 573 years. There isn't much dispute as to a number of spans, so really, the question is how long was the period of the Judges?

Another question arises as to how long was Israel's time in Egypt, given that Exodus 12:40-41 tells us its 430 years from Jacob's entry into Egypt until the Exodus. However, Gal 3 says that 430 years elapses from the Abrahamic promise until Sinai (which based on how long it takes Jacob to get to Egpyt, makes their sojourn 210-215 years instead of the full 430).

We assume the inerrancy of scripture, so we are presented with the question of how can these dates be different and yet correct, and so several options (not presented here) are explored. This results in variations of chronology that can add up to 300 years to figure out when Abraham lived. In this case, my dad's chronology accords to a fair degree with the identifying of these kings and Pharaohs.

On the other, it doesn't quite work with mine, but I admit his argument is worth consideration.

Notes from my Father:

Note 1: A valuable reference here is K.A. Kitchen, "On the Reliability of the Old Testament;" Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. While no book is entirely perfect, Kitchen is a renowned archaeologist and his book is a powerful rebuttal to the minimalists -- those who hold that the Bible is not a reliable record of history.

Note 2: JP: Ken Kitchen, p568, note 23, argues that this is not Larsa.

Note 3: JP: Earlier, Ur-Nammu, who founded the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, defeated Puzur-Inshushinak, king of Elam, and replaced him with one of his own choice. Might that not be the beginning of the Genesis 14 alliance? The wording of verses 1,4,9 and 14 suggests that Ellasar may have been vassal to Ur, and Goyin/Gutium may have been vassal to Elam. Ur-Nammu led the first invasion - verse 1 -- while Kutir-Lagamar led the second. Perhaps because Harran was taken by Ur, and Sodom was taken by Elam. Perhaps Gutium took the area S.E. of the Dead Sea, and that is how the Horites -- Hurrians -- came to be there. I ratehr think these two wards ended the Early Bronze Age.

Note 4: JP: Kitchen, p. 320, "bears an early Hittite name, Tudkhalia, and his title is a fair equivalent of the 'paramount chiefs'..."

Note 5: JP: Qadesh means 'holy'; probably Arabic 'Ain Quadis', 40 miles S of Beer Sheba.

Note 6: JP: Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon, "Battles of the Bible;" New York: Barnes & Noble, 1978 and 1997, p93, "(Contrary to current fashion, which would like to transfer whatever is doubtful in the Biblical accounts to the realm of myth, endocrinology has been marshalled to prove convincingly that limited eyesight, common in tall, strong people, could have hampered Goliath's capability to react correctly to David's aiming his sling.)"

To the Bible Students

An Open Letter

I nearly cried getting back to Hope Bible Church.

For four weeks, each Sunday I met with the Indian Bible Students in Coimbatore, and on one Sunday with those in Bangalore. It’s been ten years since I’ve been among the Brethren in any formal context. Much of my family and my wife’s, and some of our good friends, are with them, so we haven’t been entirely isolated. For both of us many of them are an extended family, reminders of wonderful memories and convention adventures. There were more Bible Students at our wedding than friends from our church where we were married.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. As it was when I first left, after many years of being away from conversations with the Brethren, I think I expected that going to India and meeting with them, it would open up a lot of serious discussion. If what Charles Russell (and others) taught is so sensible and common-sensical, then why did we leave? How could any thinking Christian leave? Wouldn’t you want to know? Which would then mean me opening up the Bible, showing them the problem passages, in fact the same passages which blindsided and overwhelmed me, and they, being better taught about verses than your average Christian, would respond. Dialogue would ensue.

Because it is necessary. As Peter said, these are the words of eternal life. Nothing else so impacts our lives, nothing else can possibly be so important. You need to get it right. Any doubt has to be explored and flushed out.

At least it did with me. And because I grew up in this body of teaching, because I grew up in the shadow of so many very smart people, learned elders, good speakers, hearing so many difficult questions debated and discussed, I thought I knew these people. Maybe I have an edge in anticipating questions, at knowing the philosophical and theological vulnerabilities, and the way arguments tend to proceed. And I know both sides. I know what we grew up in and I also know why one leaves by reasons of doctrine, rather than the more common apathy which has hit so many young people.

I admitted to myself that no single conversation was likely to convince, where for me it had taken hundreds. I thought I was being honest. I thought I was prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within me.

I imagine fancifully that, could I have gone back 20 years and sat down with a younger self, couldn’t I have opened the Bible, and laid out so strong a case that I would have seen the problems earlier? Maybe. As that younger self matured, I became more aware of something missing in my life. It became chic to talk about the various difficulties paralyzing the “Movement”, and some of us tried to think through what could be done. More and more of us wanted to be different, carve our own path, and not be reliable parrots of Russell’s Volumes. I wanted the credit for being orthodox without the crutch of mindless dependence on those Volumes. So like the more popular elders I picked this or that peripheral teaching to build my differences of opinion. But at no point did I wonder if the core teachings were at fault.

Was I too comfortable? Was I too self-assured of what I believed? I don’t know. The younger “me” was certainly more arrogant. Harder to correct. Didn’t listen to others. Anyway my whole life was defined up among the Brethren.

My first meeting with the Coimbatore Brethren gave me a bit of a start, but at the same time was a reminder of what had once been normal. Their Friday night service was a study on Ezekiel. I had been filled in on last week’s Ezekiel 15 study so I knew I would have trouble with it. There was the young elder with a contented, calm, surreal smile engraved on his face as he went through the first seven verses of Ezekiel 16. He confidently taught that this was a picture of the nominal church, succumbing to the corruption of Roman Catholic Babylon, and as well also a picture of Abraham’s life as he stumbled sinfully. How many Brethren have I met in my life who patiently explain that something is just so, feeling little pressure to convince?

I know Ezekiel 16. I’ve read it time and time again for various reasons. The conclusions were wrong. Not a little misunderstanding. He took something that is relatively clear, and changed it entirely, and then dispensed it to the congregation, who nodded and followed along. To be sure, some will later admit that this may be “one interpretation”, or may not be correct. But they have yielded an hour of their life listening to what they will defend as teaching. And rather than read the scriptures alone (which would have been infinitely more profitable) he took from his imagination and taught it to the church.

Bear in mind, this is a likable person, very decent and friendly. And he had good answers to some scriptures I brought to him in our conversations. Applaud him for wanting to get into Ezekiel and teach his church something complex. It’s my fault for not mentioning this directly to him, that it appears here, though when I had the chance I got the sense my opinion would not be well received. I am, after all, now an outsider. I’m not in the Truth.

I shouldn’t highlight his performance particularly except that it was my most recent experience and it is so typical of many sermons that I used accept that it’s hard not to mention it to argue my case. I’m still pained by an elder in Romania, proclaiming during his hour discourse, that in the Parable of the Soils, the 30, 60 and 100-times yield of crops were really percents of progress along the consecrated path. Technically, by the numbers, that should have translated to 3,000%, 6,000% and 10,000%. We had our elders too, from this country, one of whom in a Second Volume study, testily answered me that “accurate history would confirm Bro. Russell” when I referenced another brother’s work with respect to a dating problem. He had his own new ideas for other things, though.

Unfortunate as these examples are, such eager “new ideas” were all too familiar for me. They highlight two general problems with how the Bible Students look at teaching:

1) The Bible as written is boring

2) The best stuff is the new stuff we can pick out of the same passages that everyone already knows

Look at how your average Sunday goes. The first session is a sermon, or discourse, by a given elder. The second is usually a Bible study, and by Bible study, we often mean reading through one of the six “Studies in the Scriptures” Volumes, looking up the verse references mentioned after each paragraph (to verify that Russell got it right) and discussing it, possibly giving a new spin on this or that. A few modern ecclesias read another book, a rare few dare to actually read through the Bible instead. But let’s look at the discourses.

Elders typically alternate as to who gives the Sunday discourse, choosing their own topics. (I may be wrong but I think there is something written in the Volumes about the superiority of topical Bible studies). The young people look forward to the good elders, like Michael Nekora or Carl Hagensick (very regretfully both have since passed), because they will find some obscure reference and talk about it, or take something we have all heard of and give us a better framework in which to understand it. I had a few great elders in my class like this. Others had few or none. At the regional conventions, you got to hear the best elders from all the classes.

For my part, I’m still indebted to many like David Rice for my primers on chronology (even now I reference Time and Prophecy and Stream of Time) and Jim Parkinson (my father) for the archaeological and historical backgrounds. Richard Doctor for another. I owe a lot of my thinking to quite a few of these elders.

And George Duhaime who at a Chicago New Year’s youth seminar set the first seeds of doubt in my mind as to how the Great Company has been handled. There were 50 young people crowded in that classroom, only two of whom paid attention and might remember it. To be fair, Br. Duhaime’s attempt to spark critical thinking and get us to solidify our beliefs in scripture succeeded beyond his intent. Dismayed at how little appeared for this doctrine I wondered if Russell could be wrong here… It eventually put everything else I believed under a microscope.

The less stellar elders tended to just repeat much of what was in the Volumes. They all thought they were doing a good work, but for the most part it felt like filling time. In fact, for some of the older brethren – how can you not elect them to be elders? They’re respected, and that is the highest level of respect. And once you’re an elder, speaking is part of the job. We all had elders that we, as young people, groaned to hear. Outwardly we were nice about it.

But at the end of the day they choose the topic. It is a short review of information digestible within a single hour’s worth of time, normally unconnected to last or next Sunday’s discourse.

Think about it. This has nothing to do with teaching. While still a Bible Student, I had conversations with many of the better elders from the Los Angeles class, some of them were even educators. Wade Austin (late) years before seemed to want to try something new. He asked for four or five discourses in a row, so he could teach something consistently. I don’t remember even what it was. But that was novel. Some of that was starting at conventions where there was more flexibility to innovate when I left.

But a teaching system that is driven by “what do I want to teach today?” isn’t teaching. Teachers have objectives and curricula. They choose their objectives based on what they know their students will need to go out into the world and succeed. They have timeframes necessary to teach. They appreciate that delivering the message is worthless without being able to tell what the audience has understood from it. Few important things in life can be properly taught in the space of an hour, and if everything you teach must be delivered in an hour or less…?

How many elders are professional teachers but the rules are changed when it comes to Sunday?

It’s because of the assumption that the people they are teaching are largely already taught, and the basics of the Bible are largely boring.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. Look at how Russell started in the mainstream churches. And he, like many others (Henry Grew, Nelson Barbour, George Storrs, George Stetson, etc.) found “things new”. Among others, wrestling with the problems of one verse saying “Jesus came to save the world” and another that talks only of “Jesus’ sacrifice saves His Saints” they arrived at the conclusions that the only way this works is that there must be a second salvation for non-Saints. They search for each and every little scattered verse that might indicate something deeper, something missed by the mainstream churches. And they found the hidden truths (rescued, they believed) that God is not a Trinity, Hell is not torment but just extinction, etc.

The glory, what sets Bible Students apart from the world, is rescuing presumed ancient Truth from the widespread errors of Church-ianity by studying in painful detail each verse, each apparent contradiction, and developing a harmonization of them all together. That harmonization isn’t from scripture. It’s new. It’s from them. The Bible says Christ died for the world and Believers are resurrected. That’s it. A universal salvation is extrapolated from these seemingly contradicting ideas.

The world has had the Bible for 2000 years, and for most of that, they’ve apparently been dead wrong. So how much interest do you place in just looking through the scriptures alone, if you know most everyone got it wrong? The glory is in the new things, the refreshing things, and celebrating what sets you apart, which is the rescue of what you believe are the hidden, original Truths.

And the new Truths have to be defended as original if they are to be legitimate. No one would buy your claims knowing that the apostles believed something else.

Russell proselytized the churches. To him, it was time for a harvest among Christian churches, a coming out of Babylon-ish error. Already-schooled Christians were the target, not Hindus in India or Animists in Africa. The basics of scripture aren’t in practice important; they’re assumed. It’s the new things that are necessary.

This probably worked well in the beginning, when most were converted from the churches. What happened to each successive generation born into the movement? Perhaps the seed of decline were sowed in a movement less given to teach the basics of the Bible without jumping headlong to the new things?

So finding new insight is vastly more exciting than the scut-work of year-long adult Sunday schools. The elders with the best insight, who deliver their discourses with animation, passion, conviction and ideas that might stand up in the follow-up discussions, they are remembered. You choose your topic based on what you find interesting.

On the flip side, you will rarely then go outside of your comfort zones, rarely be confronted with any scripture that keeps you awake at night, and most rarely the ones that challenge your beliefs.

Yes, everyone says they’re a Bible Student. Some adhere stubbornly and strictly to every last word of Russell. Others style themselves as more independent thinkers, so they can imagine that they come to this set of beliefs on their own, and then only agree conveniently with Russell. The more divergent are your opinions from Russell’s (which don’t threaten core doctrine), the more satisfying the position is.

The core doctrine is assumed, not investigated or challenged. One goes out to teach things to people who barely know their Bible and pleasantly shies away from debates (especially public) with those that do. Gone are the public debates and outreach of Russell’s day.

For those who don’t know what I was taught:

1) The heart of the Gospel is that Christ’s death guarantees everyone a resurrection. They will be resurrected into the 1000 years on earth following Armageddon. Satan will be imprisoned and unable to tempt the world. During this time unbelievers will come into a full knowledge of God and turn to God. Note the specific two parts of the Good News:

a.       Everyone resurrected

b.      1000 years are for the unbelievers resurrected

2)    At the end of the 1000 years, Satan is freed, will tempt these people and some who choose evil after having known perfectly what is good, will be annihilated, totally and immediately in Second Death. No torment, no prolonged pain. Just gone.

3)  Christ’s human death, unjust in light of a perfectly holy life, is traded for Adam’s death. Adam’s condition of sin passed down to descendents is reversed. If Adam didn’t need to die, then neither are his descendents raised in sin, doomed to die. Thus while the Atonement by Christ benefits each of us, it is principally focused on Adam and negating the death penalty extended to his children. This is drawn heavily from 1 Cor 15:22

4)    The sacrifices of the Jewish Tabernacle and later Temple are pictures of a real sacrifice for the whole world. Israel is a small picture of the whole world, and its salvation a picture of how God will redeem the world. Its priests are pictures of the Church.

5)   Much of the Bible can be viewed as Type/Antitype, where an Old Testament even, person or practice, is a picture of a reality that comes later.

6)    Those who accept Christ’s sacrifice now are part of the Church. They have an elite, heavenly status in the coming 1000 year kingdom, and will have a role in ruling, and bringing those on earth back into relationship with God.

7)     The 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14 are a truly Little Flock, the Church proper, who have remained faithful, over the ages since Christ.

8)  The Great Company in Revelation 7 are a secondary class of Saints who, in some way, have either sinned or simply not worked well enough to be counted among the 144,000. They are still redeemed, but their reward is less than the 144,000.

9) Abraham, the forefathers, and the prophets of old (called the Ancient Worthies) will be resurrected as leaders on earth, and are righteous and redeemed, but do not have the full spiritual resurrection of the Church.

10)  God is not a Trinity. Jesus Christ, the pre-incarnate Logos or Word, is the first of all created beings, Michael the Archangel, even “a god”, but not properly God. The Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and manifestation of God, the Father’s power.

I’ve never “won” a debate with any of the Brethren, whether I’ve had all the scriptures or not enough. It doesn’t work that way. I can get passionate, frustrated, even angry, while they remain calm, perhaps seeing this as another assurance of their being correct. If I give one scripture and logically demonstrate that they can’t argue that it means what they want it to mean, they pick another and it starts over again as if the first never existed. If I can stop them from trying to jump around scriptures, the best that will happen is they get confused, think about it overnight, and then they decide I can’t possibly be right.

They are so convinced that they are right. And they expect the “in-name-only” Christian world to be surprised and to challenge it. But they expect so much to win that debate that it is impossible for them to feel they have lost; that there is something fundamentally problematic in their argument or verse.

If you are unshakably convinced that the Bible supports every major point that Russell and his forbears made, then it is impossible to prove by scripture it doesn’t.

Thus, the best I get asked is “why would you want to believe in hell?” As if the most correct teaching is the most emotionally appealing? As if one chooses to believe in Gravity.

I had so many clear discussions in India. I knew my scriptures better than I ever have. The discussions were all engaged and pleasant. And I’m convinced that, outside of a miracle, I made no difference.

As much as I would wish to sit down and have an honest, careful, and thorough discussion on just the scriptures with my former Brethren, and discover even one of them who was searching, who had doubts now cleared up, with their eyes lit up, with that sudden and intense fire I myself knew those many years ago…

To my former Brethren, many of whom I love deeply, I have to come out and say it. You’re wrong. By God, you’re wrong. And you have no idea.

Indeed, I had no idea. And you see the world as opposed to you, so you expect challenges. And yet you are also to be teachers to an ignorant world. You’re in the minority, tasked with evangelizing at least Christians. You ought to more engaged in addressing and understanding the majority, not hidden in your own small enclaves expecting to be treated as the experts.

Paul Lagno, among others, used to lead studies encouraging us to resist “sectarian tendencies”. It’s not like brethren don’t know this is what they do. But they don’t know why. The sectarian tendencies aren’t intellectual laziness and Laodicean apathy, they’re a carefully maintained hedge to allow you to remain confident that you’re right, hidden among everyone else who agrees.

You sit through so many discourses, and you think this is teaching. Some new insight into scripture, something you’ve never heard before. Or maybe many tired discourses, and you persist quietly in your seat as I did many times, justifying that at the least this is your Sunday service to God. You have no idea what solid, day after day, consecutive verse after verse, chapter after chapter teaching does in a Christian’s life. If you did, you wouldn’t be able to sit through one more discourse. I’m reminded of Rev 3, where, in thinking you are rich you are impoverished. I wish you knew.

You learn about prophecy, the Tabernacle, sacrifices – you know your Old Testament better than most Christians. You can impress most Christians, run circles around them in terms of knowledge. It’s an indictment against my side, but not a validation of yours.

You’ve turned the Bible into a bunch of disconnected, context-less proof texts, so that without the Volumes to tell you what each means, without some subjective gut feeling as to what feels right, without an easy and ready answer for every curious question, you have no confidence in handling major and important passages. You instinctively know cannot simply start reading from Rom 1 to the end and assume it will make sense from the plain language alone. And yet you read anyway.

And it was among your ranks that it was drilled into me how important context is!

So you have in effect cancelled the Reformation. Luther and others put the Bible into the hands of everyday people who could read it and understand without a priest, and you have left the Bible in their hands but convinced people that whatever they read, they won’t understand it without an additional key. The Bible by itself is unreadable. Go ahead: read the Watchtower Reprints, 9/15/1910, p4685 (quoted later in this). Russell is exactly right. If you read the Bible alone for two years, you will leave the teaching of the Brethren. There’s a very good reason. He treats this as a badge of honor for his Volumes, that you can read them alone. The rest of the world sees this for the damning admission it is: that the Volumes don’t come from the Bible.

You don’t say this. No one admits this. If you did, the game is over. It is at last “another gospel”.

If you read the book of Romans you will arrive at simple conclusions. All men have sinned. Certain truths of God are obvious so that men are each without excuse. With and without the law, the law of God justly condemns. God’s wrath can be stored up by hypocrisy and evil and some final judgment day. We will be judged by the evil done in this life. We are by nature enemies of God.

But Jesus died for us, for those who believe in Him. Those who believe are the true Israel to be saved. We are saved not by our own choices or what good we imagine we do, but by God who wills. Some are chosen from a race of enemies by Grace, and even in this unilateral choosing by God’s will, there is no unfairness for those not chosen. So, everyone God has chosen, being bought, is put on this path by God, foreknown, predestined, called, justified and unfailingly glorified. Held by the hand, right to the end, so that if God didn’t spare his own Son for us, he will spare nothing to accomplish his purpose.

Romans, from any half-decent translation, takes you down that road that spells out our own personal guilt, depravity, undoubted fellowship among the enemies of God, and in the midst of spelling out divine justice in punishing them, lifts us up out of that, sweetly, tenderly, compassionately and lavishes upon us every good thing in bringing us back.

You think everyone is saved. Humanity dodged the bullet. What you miss deeply is how much you have dodged the bullet. Because you instinctively see this largely as a corporate human problem. Easy to believe that God loves the world, but does he love you? It’s not hard to see that when you understand what scripture says about you personally. But then you’d have to admit that God is just in punishing sinners in what they do today. That if you had no real excuse, neither do they. And if they don’t, there is the chilling realization of who you actually are before a holy God. Isaiah fell on his face as if dead. How shall we stand?

While still a Bible Student, I began to get what Romans was about. I even agreed with some that this rosy future we present to those unconsecrated unbelievers belies the reality of remaining as enemies of God. No one wants to say to the unbelievers they’re trying to reassure that they are Gods enemies. That doesn’t sell. So we whitewash their sins, our sins, into mistakes and errors which will be corrected in the 1000 years. And we render them so pitiable and helpless, self-destructive while oblivious, that God couldn’t possibly be fair if he didn’t give them a better chance. I’ve heard it repeated that Hitler will have a harder time in the Kingdom than Mother Teresa.

You can read the Bible, pick a place, it hardly matters where, and keep reading a few chapters and you will get the Gospel, plain and simple, the same truths from any starting point in Scripture. By and large, the Bible does not need interpretation or harmonization. It is its own interpretation and harmony. The Bible reads surprisingly as clearly as any other book.

You don’t really believe that. I’ve seen the uncomprehending stares when confronted by an unknown verse. You’re searching your minds for an explanation and if you can figure out one in the moment, you’ve defused another land mine. As if scripture is a trap.

The simple reason you don’t go chapter by chapter, verse by verse through scriptures on Sunday is the reason I found: that you will get too many uncomfortable verses, that you will read and assimilate the simple logic, the propositions, and the very clear explanatory language, and your whole carefully maintained vision of God and the world and yourself will come tumbling down and you will be left bare.

If you read scripture this way, you will be falling all over yourself at practically every verse, explaining it according to what you already believe. You’ll do more justifying than reading. And you do this enough in your normal discourses. And you don’t even know you’re doing it. It just feels normal.

Five Sundays I sat through this, and other sessions as well. I suppose it could have been harder there than here, but as I remember not by much. I changed, not them. I’m incompatible. I can’t do it anymore. How can any of you do it? Is it just social? You have the illusion of being godly, of listening to the Bible, but unless you’ve left you don’t feel how empty it is.

I didn’t. I just felt emptier and emptier, pouring myself into various activities to convince myself I was active for God, talking more and more about the problems in the Movement, wanting to change things. Brethren told me you get out what you put in. I wanted to believe it.

But I had nothing to put in. Possibly I had more than many of my young peers.

Returning to my church was like coming up for mountain air after a long life in a smoggy city (Los Angeles, for my part). For a time I learned to live without it. But I need it. Badly. I craved it. I couldn’t even describe how much I craved it.

To hear the Bible preached and explained, clearly... So that tomorrow or next year I may return to the same passage, having forgotten the sermon wholly, and be able to figure it out all over again, easily, and have it speak to me easily. This is the source of eternal life, these words. This is a glimmer of eternal life now, today. You feel it with every fiber of your being. You feel alive. It causes you to wonder “didn’t our hearts burn within us?” to hear preaching and recognize truth.

To the Point

I need to talk about the scriptures. Maybe, if you’ve read this far, maybe something in you wants to know why a Bible Student could leave, one who cares about being faithful to the scriptures. People leave for all sorts of reasons, some marrying non-Brethren, some want the fluff, excitement and social networks of superficial churches, others just want to come to Memorial and otherwise live their lives as they want. Some just don’t care.

Maybe you care.

I care.

Deeply.

About you.

How I wish you could come out, into the Light, into the Truth, and see what I’ve seen. How I wish you could feel the Holy Spirit working in you, with you. Be filled, be passionate, be courageous. Do what you are commanded to do, by Christ, to go out into the world, preaching, teaching and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And have freedom of thought. Twenty-five years I could talk about and question anything I liked, but I always instinctively knew what the limits were… what would keep you “in the Truth” and put you on the outside. It’s a subtle feeling. And unless you’ve actually come across a hard question yourself, you’ve probably not felt it.

Distributing booklets at County Fairs, advertising to a handful about public meetings, this is a poor substitute. Most of you know this. You know the Movement is dying. You tell yourself this is expected in the end times, but it’s not a comfort while you seeing people giving up. You would rather go out with a blaze of glory in Christ’s name, but there are few fights to be seen. You need to know that there is more to this Christian life.

Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His Saints. There are martyrs out there, today. Some go through prison camps, torture, deprivations. There are people losing jobs, wives, and children for standing up with Christ. There are people taking Bibles into hostile areas. There are masses of people who have not heard of Christ. You have heard that, while this is a good work, this is not the general work of the brethren. Your elders will not recruit you into these efforts because that is not the direction of your ecclesia. We honor and at the same time trivialize the sacrifices of so many out there, disparaging them as sincere but misguided, because they seem in the “nominal churches”.

So your calling is more elite than that of the outside churches, but if you’re honest you know that your own personal work is far less. How do you really think you will be rewarded?

Some of the ecclesias have started moving, a little, doing more work, evangelizing, teaching, doing what good churches outside do, but all as a change of behavior without adopting other doctrines. You borrow selectively. Others Christians do the same things because of their doctrine, not despite it or without respect to it as you may do.

If you believe you were personally lost, then found, then you are desperate to seek out those who are lost, and waste no time. They have the urgency because of what they believe. There is little urgency in Bible Student churches. Which is why your ecclesias are falling asleep.

"Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

I need to talk to you about Scripture.

First, some things, so we can be disciplined in interpreting. Some of it you may agree with immediately, some of it grudgingly. I can quote scripture and verse to defend that each is essential, but I’ll save that for going over teachings themselves.

1)   If God exists, he is independent of us believing in him and what we want to believe. We are subject to reality. It is not subject to us. Best to determine what is real, apart from what we personally wish to be true.

2)   The Bible is the only source for Truth. Don’t come to it hoping it will defend what you want. Figure out what it says. Read the book. Let it interpret itself.

3)   Scripture explains itself. It really does. Much of the hardest, critical teachings come with paragraphs and chapters to teach it clearly.

4)   The basic, most important articles of faith are simple and easy to understand.

5)   The basic, most important articles of faith do not change with time – what is true yesterday is true today. There is a faith, once for all time, delivered to the Saints.

6)   The Bible means what it says, so just be diligent to find out what it says. Little interpretation is needed. Most translations don’t give too different meanings.

7)   Knowing many verses is NOT as critical as knowing even one well

8)   Real “doctrine”, by definition, is not built on single verses – it is repeated over and over

9)      Having a personal explanation for why two verses appear to contradict isn’t really proof, especially if you conclude one verse doesn’t mean what it says.

10)   Lack of an explanation for the same doesn’t mean you have read either verse wrongly. It just means you don’t understand it. Don’t re-interpret a verse because you don’t see how it works.

The following is from the notes I took to India and added to as conversations went on.

Some points about the Kingdom and the End Times

The 1000 years

How often do you hear about Christ’s Millennial Reign? It is drilled into our heads from birth (if we grew up among Brethren). That important, bracketed section of the Divine Plan of the Ages Chart, before you get to the Eternal State (“The Ages to Come”). As I wrote earlier, it is one of those two pillars of what you preach. Unbelievers are to be saved also. When and where are they resurrected? Into the 1000 years.

Where do you get this idea of the 1000 years in Scripture? You have lots of scriptures that talk about a coming kingdom. But it would be normally difficult not to see this as references for the Eternal State if you didn’t already know that there is a 1000 year kingdom that comes before it. Given what you see in Dan 12 and John 5 it would be difficult to say that the resurrections of believers to life and unbelievers to judgment doesn’t in fact happen at precisely the same time.

And that comes from one place in scripture, Rev 20. It is the only place that not only gives a clear (albeit short) picture of the 1000 years but places it in context with an order of resurrections. Rev 20 is it.

And since the 1000 years is part of every good Bible Student’s Gospel presentation, you need to get this one passage right.

Enough people have been thoroughly conditioned to regard Revelations as a difficult book of symbols that many of you probably haven’t taken a look at the chapter beyond verifying a few proof texts. Yes, you know about Satan being bound. You know about the temptation after the 1000 years. You know about the judgment time for unbelievers, and you know how to argue that judgment means a time of judging (not condemnation) and that the Lake of Fire isn’t an eternal torment, etc.

Any good Bible Student has also been trained to bring up the spurious verse fragment: “and the rest of the dead lived not until the 1000 years were ended” which should end all suggestions that the second resurrection doesn’t happen during the 1000 years. Fine. I agree. The verse is likely added centuries later. Trouble is, it’s still right.

The problem isn’t in the chapter. The problem is the chapter. Read it slowly. Write down on paper each event as it happens.

You get the following: 1) Satan is bound, separated from the world, 2) the first resurrection for the Saints occurs, before the 1000 years, 3) the Saints reign over the world for 1000 years, 4) at the end of it, Satan is released to tempt the world, gather an army, lose and go into the Lake of Fire, 5) Hades and the Sea give up their dead, who are judged by books “according to their deeds”, 6) those not in the single book of life go into the Lake of Fire.

Forget the Lake of Fire for a second. Forget what exactly judging is. Two points, two MONUMENTAL points, should stand out:

1)      The second resurrection happens AFTER the 1000 years. Therefore, the 1000 years is not for resurrected unbelievers.

2)      If people are resurrected after the 1000 years, and judged according to what they have done, they cannot be judged for what they did during the 1000 years. If this is simply a “time of judging”, it’s still after the 1000 years. Even if you’re right about the other part, that unbelievers get a second chance, you’re in uncharted time. They won’t be tempted and tested by Satan because Satan is already gone from the picture. You’ve spent your life trying to understand the 1000 years. Now you’ve got some strange length of time after it, but before the Eternal State. It is simply NOT ON THE DIVINE PLAN OF THE AGES.

So not just the timing, but the nature of how a second resurrection may go are dramatically altered from what you’ve been taught.

At this point, you have a number of arguments, none of them terribly good. The best one was given me by my father. You have two verses that serve as parentheses, jumping ahead briefly to describe something in advance of the narrative. V3 describes Satan bound, and then interjects that after, he will be released for a short time. The other, is spurious. Because v3 “looks ahead”, jumping out of the time sequence, my father suggests it is proper to read the other paragraphs as happening about the same time. The first resurrection and second resurrection happen about the time of the 1000 years.

I don’t find this at all satisfying, firstly because you would never, ever read any other book this way. Everyone recognizes a parentheses in a narrative. Secondly, it’s a parentheses because it doesn’t interrupt the flow of the sequence grammatically. It gives you a brief glimpse of Satan being released after the 1000 years, and then the next event is the first resurrection, explicitly stated to happen before the 1000 years so the Saints can live and reign with Christ 1000 years. The next item in the narrative starts with “when the 1000 years are completed”. Rev 20 contains many words which lock down a sequence of events. The 1000 years separates cleanly the two resurrections.

The second category of arguments is one of shock. It goes: “if the 1000 years aren’t for unbelievers, then who are the nations?” And because, if I’m right, and you don’t have an immediate answer, you are justified in taking this as reason to think I’m wrong. But if this is your argument, you’ve lost the main one. If I don’t know “who are the nations?”, it doesn’t mean I got the verse wrong. It just means I have a question.

That was one of many questions that erupted in my mind years ago. I think I have answers now. But all that is irrelevant. Scripture means what it says. If the 1000 years come between resurrections, you have to admit that this may be a serious problem.

Christ’s Coming

Christ’s return is supposed to be OBVIOUS when He comes (Matt 25). And this happens after Armageddon (what you see as the apokalypsos). There has always been some invisible presence and working with His people, principally via the Holy Spirit. But nothing happened in 1874 or after. We are warned not to pay attention to anyone who says Christ has come because it will be obvious when it happens. It’s a point that I won’t spend much time on. Email if you want a more in-depth argument. It may surprise you that a large part of Protestants agree somewhat with you, that Christ will return unseen and rapture his Saints to heaven, and after a short time come back with an army in Glory.

I’m pretty sure they’re wrong on this too. The only coming is that final coming. I’ve looked at their version of the rapture as well as Russell’s. There’s no rapture before the worst part of the tribulation. Every scripture that talks about us being transformed, taken up to Christ, all the time frame elements occur at the sounding of a trumpet, with the voice of archangel or angels, with an army of angels, with Christ in blazing glory, with judgment for those doing evil, etc. This is the timeframe and details around the first resurrection. Clearly there are holy people in heaven prior to the 1000 years. But that’s for another discussion.

See for yourself: Dan 12:1-2, Matt 24, Mark 13:21, Acts 1:11, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4:13-18, 2 Thess 1:4-10

Some points about a Universal Atonement

Let me ask one question that will tell you most everything about the nature of what one believes:

“If God saved no one, could he still be glorified?”

The answer I hear most often among the Brethren is “no”. It betrays that one has a view of human sinfulness and God’s holiness that is in conflict with scripture. To really appreciate the difference between salvation by grace or by justice you must be able to honestly answer “yes” to this question. Without it you’re singing “Amazing Grace” flat.

The idea is that all human beings, believers in Christ and unbelievers, being atoned for equally by Christ, are guaranteed a resurrection. The only caveat is that, any having already accepted the one sacrifice of Christ for their sin (i.e. believers), if they sin in a particularly spectacular way, they are not resurrected and remain forever dead (Second Death, for Christians). From Adolph Hitler to Mother Teresa, considered to be in the world, they come back in the 1000 year Kingdom for a second (or first real) chance, without exception.

These Kingdom roles for even the worst of people are wishful thinking to soften the blow of possibly considering seemingly nice people in hell. Better to save everyone and excuse God never exacting just punishment on pure evil. We see people who are nice to other people, nicer than us perhaps. How can we condemn them? But God didn’t give us the job of condemning; only reaching out. And it’s not about person-to-person but person-to-God relationship. A man can do all manner of good to his fellow human so long as God keeps His rules to Himself. Remember David, who confessing the matter of Uriah the Hittite, lamented that his sin was against God alone? Ultimately, whatever our sins do or do not look like before men, they are before God exposed, unvarnished, and an evidence of dislike of Him.

The problem with saying everyone is thusly saved and guaranteed a resurrection is that if it can be at all shown that some people, who are NOT properly Christians, do not get a resurrection but are punished for their sins, then it all falls apart. For a rule without exceptions, if you find even one exception, the rule is wrong.

Take a look at 2 Thess 1:

³ We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater; ⁴ therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your ^[a]perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. ⁵ This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. ^6 [b]For after all it is only just ^[c]for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, ⁷ and to give relief to you who are afflicted ^[d]and to us as well ^[e]when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with ^[f]His mighty angels in flaming fire,⁸ dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. ⁹ These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, ¹⁰ when He comes to beglorified ^[g]in His ^[h]saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed. 

Firstly, God is just by paying back affliction to those who are (now, currently, in this life) afflicting the church. He deals out retribution to those who a) don’t know God and b) don’t obey the gospel of Jesus. This is retribution for actions in the present life. Similarly, those afflicted now are promised relied.

Secondly, the timeframe is “when Jesus is revealed from heaven with angels in flaming fire” and “when He comes to be glorified in His Saints on that day”. This is after Armageddon when Christ returns with an army of angels (end of Rev 19), before the 1000 years.

Thirdly, the punishment is an eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord. Don’t bother debating the word destruction. Just remember that this is eternal, everlasting or forever. This is a state that doesn’t change. If they are punished, there’s no coming back for another chance.

So we have people who are not Christians persecuting Christians, who are condemned to retribution in the form of a forever destruction based on them not knowing God or obeying Jesus in this current life. The conclusion is that some unbelievers are not covered by Christ’s blood and will never come back.

I guarantee: this is not the only exception. It is however unpleasantly clear.

Here’s another that more of you may be familiar with: Rev 14:9-11

⁹ Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,¹⁰ he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed ^[f]in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and ^[g]brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. ¹¹ And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and ^[h]whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Again, forget what “torment” could mean. Call it tested, called it a Judges period, whatever you want. Based on anyone worshipping the beast and his image, and receiving a mark of association, God’s anger and his wrath are set on the person. They will be punished. The effects of that punishment will be seen forever. And it says there is no rest, day and night (another indication of forever). The conclusion is, these people aren’t coming back. They do not improve their relationship with God. Again this passage highlights sin before the 1000 years.

However you want to mute and neuter the horrific descriptions in this passage, one faces the inescapable conclusion that based on things done in this life, some will undergo serious and retributive punishment.

Understand something:

Rev 6: 9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

Deut 32:35 ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.’

Rom 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but [p]leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Having been saved by God’s love, from God’s justice, by grace through faith in Jesus, we don’t seek revenge or even our own justice. We know God’s justice is coming. No one in his right mind really wants the justice of God, for ourselves or for others. So we forgive little because we’ve been forgiven much; we love, because He first loved us. But our call to love and sacrifice and endure in suffering does not mean that the King in Heaven will do the same forever.

Read 1 Pet 3.

³ Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, ⁴ and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? Forever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” ⁵ For ^[a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,⁶ through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. ⁷ But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

⁸ But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. ⁹ The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and [b]its works will be [c]burned up.

11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

God is not mocked. One reaps what he sows. And C.S. Lewis, alluding to God, aptly put it “he is not a tame lion.” We should not treat him as such.

Some points about the Two Resurrections

Read Dan 12:1-2 and John 5:20-30

“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. ² Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting^[a] contempt.

²⁰ For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. ²¹ For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. ²² For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, ²³ so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

²⁴ “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

²⁵ Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. ²⁶ For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; ²⁷ and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is ^[f]the Son of Man. ²⁸ Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, ²⁹ and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

³⁰ “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

The Daniel passage doesn’t tell us if deeds alone determine whether one wakes to everlasting life or shame and contempt. Like Rev 20, it conditions being rescued on being written in the book (certainly the Book of Life). Both groups of resurrected come from the same group of the dead, which means people who die in this life. The resurrections are also compared in that one receives eternal life, the other eternal shame and contempt. Since the fates are eternal, they can’t be changed. If “Eternal contempt” isn’t in fact forever, than is eternal life certainly forever? If both are forever… See the problem?

If this is a resurrection of unbelievers during the 1000 years, then their fate is everlasting shame and contempt. Qualify it as you want, but unbelievers happily resurrected to a second chance sounds very different than “forever shame and contempt”, especially if these unbelievers repent and stick with God in the Kingdom.

If we’re talking about the results of people sinning during the 1000 years who go back to Satan, then you’re breaking the comparison in Daniel of everyone sleeping in the dust of the ground. Because those getting eternal life aren’t sleeping in the ground at the same time as those who sin, and they aren’t resurrected at the same time.

Jesus does more damage to this, because John 5 is in the context of him executing judgment. Jesus states that he is given the right to judge, and that whoever believes in him doesn’t come to judgment (this is a condition applying to this current life in which Jesus is speaking). Only those who hear are promised anything described as life. Life is contrasted with judgment, and judgment is the result of evil. So this isn’t some period of judging, it’s a proclaimed judgment (an evaluation of the right and wrong of actions) conditioned on what one has done. Those who did good go to life; those who did evil to a resurrection of judgment. They are all resurrected from the same pool of “all in their tombs”. What people have done, in this life, determines which kind of resurrection they get.

Since Jesus is speaking of the same pool of dead being resurrected differently, there is no hope mentioned for anyone who (supposedly) could do good after being resurrected to judgment (a period of judging). If Jesus actually atoned for all of the sins of everyone, then one’s deeds alone shouldn’t be the determining factor as to resurrections (because the father sees all men through Jesus). It should be a matter simply of faith, whether one believed now or not.

Jesus says it’s an issue of doing good or evil. This is in the larger context of the Jews persecuting Jesus for doing good things on the Sabbath (5:16). Indeed in 5:45, Jesus predicts Moses accusing the people for not accepting him now, when the law was written to anticipate Him.

There is nothing in this chapter that describes any prolonged period of Judging (as in the Judges day). It’s all about the consequences of believing or not, doing good or evil.

If Jesus and Daniel are describing the same conditional resurrections (this seems reasonable), then Jesus is in effect proclaiming that those who do good, who are written in the book of life, receive forever life. Those who do evil, who are not written in the book of life, receive forever shame and contempt and judgment for their deeds. Rev 20 says the same thing.

John 3: 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

Finally, Heb 9:

²⁷ And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, ²⁸ so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

There’s no second chance promised for those who don’t believe. There’s just one life. Salvation is for those who eagerly await Him.

The Old Testament Tabernacle Israel
is not a picture of the larger World

The idea being that, if Israel pictures the world, sacrifices for Israel are meant to show a larger sacrifice for the whole world.

Here’s a radical thought: what if Israel is a picture of… Israel? God institutes sacrifices to save the people of Israel, which are pictures of… God making one great sacrifice of His Son for the people of Israel. Only we find out from Paul in Romans 9, Romans 11, Galatians 3 and much of Hebrews, that Israel is considered by faith not blood. (Especially the beginning of Romans 9).

I’ve never heard a Bible Student complaining that its not fair that God saves humans but not angels. You only complain if all humans aren’t saved. But in Heb 2:16, the writer states that God doesn’t help angels but helps… the children of Abraham. And in that context, v17, Christ makes a propitiation for the sins of the people (a reference to Israel as “the people”).

In Romans 11 (end) we understand that God hasn’t cancelled his promises to Israel, but Jews by blood have been hardened in their hearts until all the Gentiles come in… and so all Israel will be saved.

We. Are. Israel. Jews plus Gentiles and then Jews again. God saves Israel. The Church is atoned for by Jesus under the umbrella of atoning for… Israel.

Lastly, Gal 3:6-14

^6 [j]Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. ⁷ Therefore,^[k]be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. ⁸ The Scripture, foreseeing that God ^[l]would justify the ^[m]Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” ⁹ So then those who are of faith are blessed with ^[n]Abraham, the believer.

¹⁰ For as many as are of the works of ^[o]the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” ¹¹ Now that no one is justified ^[p]by ^[q]the Law before God is evident; for, “^[r]The righteous man shall live by faith.” ^12 [s]However, the Law is not ^[t]of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live ^[u]by them.” ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a^[v]tree”— ¹⁴ in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might ^[w]come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

In v8, justifying the Gentiles by faith is seen as fulfilling the promise to Abraham of blessing the nations. And then immediately in v9, it concludes that those who are in faith are blessed in Abraham. In V10, you’re either under Law and unjustified, or as in Habakuk, righteous living by faith. Note that by mentioning the Law not justifying we are certainly restricting the focus of this passage to the present life. As the Brethren teach, in the 1000 years, people would be able to keep the Law. Thus, there is no mention of, nor allowance for, unbelievers coming to faith in another life later.

V13 Christ redeemed us. V14 the blessing of Abraham comes to the Gentiles so “we” can receive the promise.

Nothing about the world. It’s all about those with faith in Christ.

One concludes that blessing all the nations or families of the world doesn’t mean that every member of every nation or family who ever lived is resurrected. If even a handful from each are blessed, the promise works. Demanding that this applies to everyone who ever lived is not from the scriptures and Gal 3 shows that this is not necessary to fulfill Abraham’s promise.

Finally, 2 Pet 2:4-9:

⁴ For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; ⁵ and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a ^[a]preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; ⁶ and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; ⁷ and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men ⁸ (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), ⁹ then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from ^[b]temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,

The same way God punished evil in the past, for angels and people, preserving only a tiny handful, Peter says the God is perfectly capable of doing the same again, rescuing those who are godly, and even holding the unrighteous in an ongoing condition of punishment until the day of judgment.

The pattern has always been of God saving a few, destroying the majority because of wickedness, and then the few grow large, many sin, they are punished while a small remnant is saved. The idea of a general salvation is foreign to scripture. How many times does the writer of Hebrews tell us not to sin against God, reminding us each of how the Israelites disobeyed after being saved from Egypt and God swore that they would never enter His rest?

Similarly, Heb 2:2-3a:

² For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,³ how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

This is frightening, depressing stuff. And you need to know this. Lest we do trivialize or neglect so great a salvation after all. Lest we are sworn never to enter his rest as warned in Heb 3 and 4.

Some Points about the Ransom

I’ve read the same verses you have. Among them:

John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world” and “God did not send his Son to judge the world but so it might be saved through Him”

1 John 2:2 “he is the propitiation for our sins… also for the whole world”

Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 Jesus gives his life as a ransom for many

1 Tim 2:4-6 God desires all men to be saved… and “the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be demonstrated at the proper time.”

I actually was hoping for more verses off the top of my head.

John 3:16-17 isn’t in fact a good example. Because in vv:18-21, Jesus reveals to Nicodemus that although he came to save the world, not to condemn it, nonetheless it is already condemned in that the world (past tense) didn’t receive the light when it came, because it hates the light because its (their) deeds were evil and they fear their deeds will be exposed. For this reason, Martin Luther called this the “gospel in summary” packaging a lot of theology into a short paragraph.

Passages like John 2:2 are harder in that they sounds like the whole world. I accept with small reluctance the argument that says “look who John is speaking to, a Jewish audience” where “whole world” likely refers to Gentile Christians. Makes sense logically and accords with many other verses, but isolating the verse I admit it’s harder to prove that this isn’t a statement of general good. Even so, keep in mind that “whole world” grammatically doesn’t necessarily demand “every human who ever lived” either. Normally it would at most mean “everyone living now”.

Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 specifically mention a ransom, but they are ambiguous in saying a “ransom for many”. So it works for both sides.

1 Tim 2:4-6 in isolation this is probably the best one for the Brethren, at first reading suggesting that the “ransom for all” will be truly revealed to be such after the passage of time.

Lastly, you have 1 Cor 15:22 “as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive”. On the surface, that sounds pretty convincing. But you have to strip it of context. And “as in Adam all die” has to be rendered in one’s mind “as by Adam all die, so by Christ…” or “as by being in Adam all die, so by being in Christ…” Apparently the Greek doesn’t support this. “In” basically just means “in”, with the word order less interesting than in English. “In Adam all… in Christ all” is essentially “all in Adam… all in Christ”.

The context further shows that 1) Paul is talking to believers about 2) the resurrection as it pertains specifically to the faith of believers. 3) The immediate result in vv. 23-24 is that Christ first is resurrected, then those who belong to Christ, then the destruction of the nations. 4) The following verses detail how Christians are to live, believing in the resurrection, and 5) the description of the resurrection is one that only applies to a heavenly resurrection of believers.

Since 1 Cor 15:22 is taken as the principle ransom passage of choice, getting closest to comparing a universal work of Christ’s to Adam’s, a detailed analysis I think undercuts it to be used for anything except describing a ransom for Christians. It doesn’t explicitly say everyone else isn’t saved, though v24 comes close to this, but it can’t be used to defend that everyone is saved. Admitting that to others on a Bible Student youth email board solicited a lot of angry responses; and that while I still yet clung to the hope of a universal salvation. I should have been more discrete. But I understand, because you need this passage to say what it doesn’t. That Christ effectively ransomed everyone. And it’s the best one there.

What you lack is the smoking gun passage which should say that Christ died for everyone therefore by his sacrifice everyone is resurrected and redeemed from death. You don’t have that.

Instead, you have myriad passages like 1 Pet 3:18 (so he might bring us to God), Rom 5:6-10 (for us), Is 53 (bore our griefs, sorrows), 1 Pet 2:24 (bore our sins) that apply the sacrifice to a select people, His people.

Lastly, I won’t say much more on it, but for those saying that the Church has a part in the sin offering… I think this is a gross misapplication of the concept of the body of Christ and the tabernacle sacrifices. Everyone falls over themselves to say we don’t have any merit in the sacrifice though a redemptive role is assigned to the Church in the 1000 years, but all Scripture says is that the Church lives and reigns with Him, that one becomes a priest and a king. All offerings and sacrifices remain entirely and exclusively Christ’s work.

Some points about the 144,0000 and Great Company

Another teaching constantly referred to is the idea that the Church proper is numbered at 144,000. Some, uncomfortable with such an explicit and small number wonder if this is a number that is symbolic rather than a “literal” counting.

Understand, that for such an oft-repeated understanding of the Church, there are only two places where the 144,000 are mentioned. Rev 7 and 14. That’s it. Not a lot to build what is treated as a central tenet of faith.

First, why is it believed to be the church? Largely two reasons, maybe three. In Rev 14, the 144,000 learn a new song that only they know. Which sounds like something exclusive to people of God. Also, the argument is constantly made that the list of tribes in Rev 7 that comprise the 144,000 is missing Dan, a tribe that early on appears to have not pursued their target inheritance in Canaan, opting to conquer easier areas. Because they’re a tribe of Israel, but they are not in the final list, this suggests the 144,000 can’t be blood Jews. Lastly, perhaps more tenuously, the 144,000 are said to be sealed, which brings to mind 2 Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30, and 2 Tim 2:19 which describe God putting a seal (to guarantee) on his people.

The question isn’t whether these people are part of the Church, but whether they are all of it, or at the least the most honored part of it.

I assert that the 144,000 are Jews, literal, blood of Abraham Jews. Great pains are taken to number 12,000 from each tribe. That should be significant. So should any number given, period. We assume significance unless told it’s not significant.

We already know from Rom 11 that Israel is to be hardened until the full number of the Gentiles is in, and then presumably favor returns to blood Israel, so all Israel is saved. It shouldn’t be a surprise that after Rev 7, really all attention is turned back to Israel.

What about the tribes? Following this argument a decade ago, I went through and compiled every list of tribes in the Bible (Gen 49, Num 1, Num 2, Num 13, Num 34, Josh 21:5, 1 Chron 12, 1 Chron 27, and Rev 7). Would it surprise you to find that 1) no single list is identical to another, 2) three of the lists name 13 tribes (including Levi) while one list only has ten, and 3) the order of tribes listed is different in each list? Dan does not appear in the Revelations list, but Asher doesn’t appear in another, while Gad is missing three times and Reuben twice. So Dan being missing isn’t conclusive, especially since, despite possibly conquering the wrong territory, Dan is included in every list up until Rev 7. We just don’t know why he is missing. For what Ephraim did, I’m more surprised if one tribe is missing, it’s not Ephraim.

What about the sealing? The sealing of the Church is a guarantee of salvation. The sealing for the 144,000 is here a sealing for physical protection, to keep away that harm fated for the world. Presumably the 144,000 are also sealed for salvation. These are a different kinds of sealing for different purposes so they don’t explicitly equate the 144,000 with the Church.

As for the new song, look it up. Yes, you have a song that is exclusive to a people, but even in Rev 5:9, the new song seems tied with going through a particular experience to be saved by God. Elsewhere in Scripture, although one may argue that the Church gets a new song, new songs are not particular to the church. This also cannot be argued conclusively one way or another.

Do the math. 144,000 is not many. Even the JWs recognized this as a problem because if the 144,000 is developed over the last 2,000 years only, the odds of being part of that number are small. But unlike the JWs, most Bible Students still aspire to be part of the 144,000 and consider relegation to the Great Company to be a lesser reward for poorer service. For the JWs, they declared the 144,000 complete, which meant that there were no 144,000 left as leaders of the church and people started leaving. So they cracked the door open again. Russell came up with an idea of crowns lost by someone being “picked up” by another, a possible inference from Rev 3:11. Ephesus was threatened with Jesus plucking their entire lampstand (church) right out of its place among the seven.

Roughly, 144,000 over 2,000 years translates to about 72 people per year becoming part of the class. That’s still a tiny number across the whole world. Over a period of 40 years, that’s about 3,000 brethren. Bible Student numbers are widely recognized as dwindling. If, across the world today, there are 10,000 to 20,000 Brethren, that’s not a lot. Remember that in Acts 2:41 3,000 people were added after one sermon and in Acts 4:4 another 5,000 then. How many Christians died as martyrs before the Romans in the decades following? How many, in the early days of the apostles and their disciples, with the original teaching, would have eaten into that 144,000 leaving less spots for those that came later? How many Bible Students went to the prisons in Romania under Ceacescu, to the Soviet Gulags and to the German camps?

No one ever mentioned any race for a crown except against yourself and your own sin (Rom 9:24-27). In 1 Cor 9:27 Paul isn’t worried about actually losing the race, but being counted as not having been in it in the first place (disqualified).

This is why the JWs stress the Great Company so often. They know the odds are minute that you can be part of the 144,000. The Brethren, if they thought about it, should arrive at the same conclusions. The 144,000, if the Church and a literal number, should be catastrophically depressing, being that we are called to be part of something when the odds are infinitesimally small that we will be part of it.

But understand that we have one hope and one calling (Eph 4:4). It is the same calling to all (Rom 12:1, Eph 4:1-6, 2 Tim 2:15). We are not called to different classes nor are we offered any expectation of winding up in them.

Note one more thing with the 144,000 in Rev 7 being sealed. The destruction of the world has already begun happening but is paused so that protection be given to them. They all appear together. This is a little strange since according to the Brethren they are being born and dying off – the number of people would never appear together at the same time in the same place. This must be excused as symbolism. But there is no reason from the text alone to say that the 144,000 are not in fact all being viewed and sealed together. This is another reason to affirm that, yes, these are 144,000 Jews that exist on the earth at a particular point of time. They are being specifically sent out INTO the Tribulation.

Lastly, when introduced in Rev 7, the 144,000 appear to be on earth at the time they are sealed. They aren’t in heaven until Rev 14.

Not next, that the Great Company is describing as coming OUT OF the Tribulation and are in heaven already. This is a good reason to believe that these are not two groups that exist side by side. Indeed, the Brethren often teach that the 144,000 are rescued in the Tribulation while the Great Company are left for a time. But here, it’s the opposite. The Great Company are coming out, while the 144,000 are sealed and sent in!

Why are they considered an inferior class of people? They are said to have washed their robes in the blood of the lamb, while in Rev 14 the 144,000 are said to have kept their robes white. But this, in itself, is not a distinction. There’s no reason to think these are the same robes. But it’s the same picture. In Rev 22:14, those who wash their robes are blessed and given the right to eat of the tree of life.

On one hand, you have dirty robes of sin, you wash them white in the blood of the lamb. On the other hand, you have dirty robes and are given new white robes. Two different ways to describe the same act of justification. Nothing bad is ever said of the Great Company and to suggest that they sinned and are inferior to the 144,000 is a horrible and unjustified slander of people God praises. It is a perversion of scripture. They appear in heaven in Rev 7 before the throne. They serve continually in the temple and God spreads his tabernacle over them. Any other Christian group would take it as a matter of pride to be part of them.

One possible scripture to suggest an inferior spiritual class references Ez 44 where Levites who sinned are allowed to serve in the temple with heavy restrictions. But the sin there is very particular: that they led and taught the people to serve idols. Does anyone really believe that is the sin of people in the Great Company?

The 144,000 and Great Company are almost certainly parts of the Church. They have different roles to play. That’s all.

If we are called by Christ, we are going to be part of this Great Company from every tribe, tongue and nation.

Oh, and by the way, Abraham is going to heaven. In Hebrews 11 it spells out that his hope and those of others in the Old Testament was a heavenly city. The only reason anyone thinks they wake up on Earth is because of misreading Matt 11:11 where Jesus says that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven/God is greater than John the Baptist. Nevermind that Jesus equates the Kingdom of Heaven with the well known “Bosom of Abraham” elsewhere in Matthew.

(Hat tip to my cousin, Cher-El Hagensick, who showed me this at the dinner table, thinking I’d find it interesting. I still do.)

But Matt 11:11 is particular about the grammar. Among men, none is greater than John. This is John, human, modern John the Baptist. But the least in the Kingdom of heaven (a future condition) is greater than John is now. The wording is critical. It is comparing heavenly resurrected people with dying great prophets. It says nothing about how John will be after he is resurrected. Pay careful attention to the wording and it’s clear.

Some points about Consecration and Who is Saved

You don’t consecrate yourself

How many times did we ask “are you consecrated?” “when did you consecrate?” answering “I’m consecrated” and “I consecrated on” and “after my consecration” each time referencing a day and hour in our control. Even our very vocabulary was messed up.

A quick survey of the word “consecrate” in Scripture will turn up something interesting. 1) Holy beings or people consecrate unholy ones, 2) groups of people can consecrate one another (presumably after the pattern of the first point), and things can be consecrated by the people, who are counted holy by the mediation of their priests. In 1 Sam 16, Samuel instructed Jesse and his sons to consecrate themselves, and then he proceeded to consecrate them.

This is the pattern: the person or thing that is unholy doesn’t consecrate itself. The person or thing that is holy consecrates the unholy person or thing thereby making it holy. As in Rom 9, God takes the same ugly lump of clay to make vessels for holy and common use. Not by him who works, but by God who calls.

Consecrate is a transitive verb. Grammatically, it requires an object. You didn’t consecrate. If you are consecrated you didn’t do it. God did. Instead we put the emphasis on our decisions and actions. This is entirely un-biblical. Our wording betrays how we actually think about our role compared with God’s.

For all the animus against Catholics, this is in fact one of a few ideas that comes close: that you may be baptized or consecrated early (the human decision), and that at some later point God confirms your inclusion into His covenant (God's response to your choice). I still hear some mention about confirming a consecration.

On the other hand, you have Acts 13:48 “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed”.

Consecration is not an act of our will any more than our keeping our consecration – we are chosen by God, maintained by God, and guaranteed by God (John 6, Rom 8:28, Eph 1:4, Phil 1:6, 1 John 4:19, Jude 25)

Second Death

Fear of falling away is Biblically abhorrent because it gives credit for our perseverance to ourselves and removes God from all but a supporting and validating role. In Eph 2, we see that even faith itself is the gift of God, to remake us to do the work that God had already prepared for us to do. As for the last group of verses, don’t we trust that, as with Phil 1:6 God will bring to completion that good work He began in us?

Who do we trust? Ourselves. Be honest, right now. You’re going to fail. You’ve failed. You’re hopeless. Therein lies our freedom: an honest admission before Christ, a confession of despair and a plea for help, the same Christ who has bought for us his righteousness, traded for our sins, borne 2000 years ago on the cross.

From Martin Luther:

“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!”

For any of you who are afraid of somehow committing the sin against the Spirit (because few really know what it is), don’t be afraid.

I have a simmering bitterness and anger towards those who spoke of Second Death, so that silly young people of my generation concluded that it would be safer to not consecrate than to take a risk and end up in Second Death. I get that the people who spoke to us probably were sincere and well meaning. But the net effect of such a horrible teaching is that children thought it safer to keep their distance from God; to remain what Romans declares to be an enemy of God, still lost in your sin.

Second Death is a threat for those who deny the power of the Holy Spirit in confirming the obvious about Jesus: that He is sent by God. It has nothing to do with a believer. Heb 6 references those who should be solid believers, even teachers of the faith, but don’t even know the basics of Jewish hand washings (let alone baptisms) and may trash even the familiarity with God they’ve been given.

Go back to Matt 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:10. This is in the context of the Pharisees arguing that Jesus was casting out demons by Satans power, and so he is from Satan. And Jesus uses profound and clear logic to show that it makes no sense, both because no one works against himself just to prove a point, and Jesus couldn’t work against Satan unless he were stronger than he. The crowds understood plainly that He is the Son of David. The sin unto death is one that true, blood bought Christians do not and cannot commit. Because they have the Holy Spirit, without which we cannot even confess Jesus (1 John 4:2).

Who can lay a charge against God’s elect? Paul asks in Rom 8? It is has already been paid for in full.

Falling away isn’t an accident. 1 John 2:19. Leaving, habitually sinning is a revelation and clarification of the true desires and motives of a person. If you truly believe in Christ and His sacrifice for you, it’s all God’s work. You’re along for the ride. Your goodness is a labor of freedom and love for your God. The same Father who “dragged you to His Son”, wills that the Son will lose none but raise him up on the last day. John 6. One Pastor said “love God alone, and do whatever you want”. Because God has taken out your heart of stone and given you a heart of flesh, one that responds to Him, and yearns for Him.

If you leave, it won’t be with too much sadness. You’ll be following your heart too. Except it never was really changed.

For any that react strongly against the idea that God chooses first, and that this relegates us to mindless robots, I think only the proud and those ignorant of the depths of their own sinfulness can maintain this with a straight face. I know myself, and it’s with no regret that I want this life to be God’s work entirely. Therein lies my hope. Paul saw all his goodness as garbage. So do I.

If you think this is matter of cheap grace, that it excuses sin, see above. Anyway, Paul addressed this. We know we got this right because the natural incredulity of man is to then wonder “shall we go on sinning so grace may increase”? No, we died to sin. We don’t go on living in it.

The Brethren sing Amazing Grace as beautifully as any, and use the word liberally. I am however convinced that, for most, they don’t really know grace fully, starting with their unorthodox notions of “when did you consecrate?” or which for many years I was horribly guilty as well.

Yet the proper language of consecration is in fact preserved in every baptismal service: Do you recognize that you are a sinner? Do you accept Christ as your Savior who paid the price for your sins? Have you repented of your sins and turned to follow Christ?

Jeff Mezera subtly snuck these questions into a larger, impassioned conversation with me about consecration (which I was miserably overcomplicating). And then he paused so I could understand what I had answered. He was spot on in digging to the heart of that matter. Months later I was baptized. I confess that it was many more years before I really appreciated the elegance of these absolutely profound questions.

For any young people delaying consecration until they have a better knowledge of the Volumes or whatnot, all you need to know is locked up in the meat of these questions.

Some points about the

Historicity of the Bible Student beliefs

The actual Gospel is fairly simple and it comes even in a few uncomfortable variants. From the prophets to John to Jesus through the Apostles, the classic formula has been “repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” No surprise since God is calling all men everywhere to repentance. Paul preached self-control and the judgment to Felix and his illegitimate new wife, who got scared. John the Baptist sneeringly asked the Pharisees observing him “who warned you to flee from the coming wrath.” Another happier one is: believe that Christ is Lord and be saved.

But the Bible Student gospel formula is often very different from those above. Salvation is so general that having faith is emphasized for consecrating to an elite position. One doesn’t frighten with words of coming judgment. Felix would have been quite contented among any public meeting put on by the Brethren. Just wait for the Kingdom and you’ll figure it out…

In 2 Cor 3:4-10 we learn something strange. That there is a ministry of condemnation, in the context of the Law and the Old Covenant, which brought actual glory to God, but compared to the glory of a ministry of reconciliation it is hardly any glory at all. But the one, more glorious, depended on the first. The Law was necessary to teach the utter failure of men to keep it, so that they would know their need for a redemption from God. The perversion was believing they could keep it.

All this talk about dispensations, saved by faith in Christ, saved under the Law. No man was ever saved under the Jewish law. You can confirm that easily reading the first 3 chapters of Romans.

Where Paul set out to preach where Christ was not known (Rom 15:20) and Thomas who doubted is reputed to have gone to India to start its oldest churches, Russell’s mission was to the existing churches. As another wonderful cousin of mine gleefully sang at Christmastime, your message is “No-Hell, No-Hell”. And the 1000 years.

And you focus on the existing Christianized people because they have the background to understand your words and newer ideas, and because the mission is now one of a Harvest of the “in-name-only” mainstream of Church-ianity. In the end times, you’re supposed to be calling people out of Babylon.

And to be perfectly fair, among Protestant churches, we are generally every bit (and more) as superficial and spiritually lazy as you make us out to be. A Laodicean disgrace, at least in the Americas, with a handful of bright exceptions here and there which are making their own calls out of Babylon. Except they do it by a return to orthodox doctrine, with the aim of converting churched unbelievers to Christ, rather than proclaiming the secret and hidden things in the Bible to people they assume to be basic believers in God.

Russell changed the mission field with his concept of the Harvest. Christ commanded us to go to the nations, the Brethren target the churches. Paul went where Christ is not taught, while by and large even in the more pagan parts of the world, Bible Students flourish by assimilating nascent believers (even in India, very few come from Hindus; most are descendents of older Brethren). Even in the Protestant Reformation, the mission field was correctly identified with Catholic lands as well as pagan.

For the Brethren, the ideal converts are poorly taught Catholics, superficial Protestants and disaffected Jehovah Witnesses.

Public debates are rare and largely unheard-of. There’s no attempt to confront the corrosive general culture where it stands. Instead the Brethren operate around the fringes where they are rarely noticed.

Even Catholics crossed the world with schools and hospitals.

The gospel is very different. So is the mission field.

And many of the heroes don’t make much sense.

The older you can assert your doctrine is, even to the apostles, the more legitimacy you have. It’s understandable, claiming that “light is increasing” since the Dark Ages, that some of your fore-fathers may not have seen eye to eye. Others are puzzling.

Widely accepted that there are seven human messengers to the churches (Rev 1-3) where churches represent time periods of development for the larger Christian Church age, many lists have emerged as to what person best fits the message for a given age.

Luther appears on nearly every list. This isn’t surprising given how huge an impact he had on Protestantism. But he despised the adult-baptising Anabaptists, anyone who came close to denying the Trinity, and was a committed believer in hell. Excluding the death sentence, Luther supported the persecution and banishment of Anabaptists as well as fellow reformers who disagreed on the nature of the Lord’s Supper. It’s hard to claim someone as a hero of the faith who would have been rabidly against you as well as denying (from a Protestant side) nearly every tenet of your current faith.

Polycarp, appearing on other lists, reputed to be a disciple of the Apostle John taught that Jesus was God and an eternal hell of fire awaited unbelievers. It’s not until you get a few centuries later with Origen that any notion of unbelievers being saved too comes about. If the Apostles believed in Two Salvations, their immediate students, and those after, didn’t.

When that’s your gospel, it’s hard to find heroes for a list of seven messengers.

Some points on the

Simplicity of Bible Student beliefs

1)      To properly understand the Bible Student gospel, you need to have a solid grasp of prophecy, particularly of Revelations and the two resurrections. If you’ve gotten that wrong, this whole idea of a second salvation which is the heart of the Bible Student gospel, is destroyed. This flies in the face of a gospel being simple, since simple people don’t read Revelations or understand prophecy. Even among the Bible Students, there are admitted very few who claim solid understanding of prophecy. Everyone else takes their word for it, wanting those things to be true.

2)      Russell admits candidly that his doctrine can’t easily be seen reading the Bible alone, even while he is trying to promote his Volumes. In The Watchtower (9-15-1910, p298, Reprints, p.4685) Russell wrote the following about his books:

 “Not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.”

Some points on Sheol, Hades and Gehenna

From previous conversations, it doesn’t appear as critical that one believe in an eternal, fiery punishment or an instant annihilation than if you understand the unbelievers around you aren’t coming back and you need to talk to them about Christ’s sacrifice. Today is the day of salvation (yes I know, many change this to “a day of salvation” but if that were true it really takes away from the larger point the apostle is trying to make).

Still less important is what you believe happens between Death and the resurrection before the Lake of Fire. It took a long time for me to accept that it’s sleeping but more than that as well.

Look, you know your Bibles. Hell and the Trinity are perhaps the teachings you know how to combat the best. Whether judgment means judgment, punishment, torment or time of Judging; whether eternal/everlasting/forever means that or “ages”; no arguments would have convinced me. What made the difference was a steady erosion of a lot of the teachings against which I had less hardening, many of which I wasn’t even aware brought controversy. Eventually there developed a nagging feeling that this wasn’t something I could ignore.

So I’m not going to make too many arguments here. It wouldn’t have worked on me anyway. But if you get the point about there being One Salavation, and if you lose your blanket trust in the Volumes for the core teachings, then very likely the rest is going to be on the table soon anyway. You can’t put the lid back on such a bottle.

Which Hell? Hades is not Gehenna

One point to make early is that an enormous amount of damage has been done by trying to translate these three words (and a fourth, Tartarus) as simply “hell”. It opens up doors for people to look at the contradictions between one hell and another and rule out the whole thing entirely. On the other hand, things probably would have been simpler to simply leave the words un-translated, which would force people to figure out what each word meant from the context, instead of trying to read their own ideas into the Bible’s use of the word hell. Sheol and Hades are the same thing. We know this because when the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek they used Hades instead of Sheol. Pretty easy. Hades is not Gehenna. We know this because in Rev 20 Hades gives back its dead, and then somehow is in turn cast into Gehenna. Good people and bad people in some places seem to go to Hades (albeit more comfortable or uncomfortable parts) from which they are resurrected. Gehenna is said to have been prepared for Satan and his angels (Matt 25:41). Anyone who goes in never comes out. Unlike Hades and Sheol, attributes of everlasting, eternal, forever, day-and-night, etc. continuation of punishment are ascribed to it.

Incidentally, in 2 Pet 2:4, an equivalent Sheol-Hades for angels is described, called Tartarus. They are held in chains for later judgment. Sheol-Hades and Tartarus both feed into the same Gehenna, which was intended principally for Satan and his angels, but into which also go human and other enemies of God including the “beast” and “false prophet” of Revelations (whatever and whoever those exactly are).

Gehenna as a Trash Pit

Apparently (as we were taught) when Jesus spoke about Gehenna he was looking at the Hinnom Valley to the South of Jerusalem. It was a trash pit in those days, and perhaps as some of the trash pits I saw in India, you would find the remains or rotting matter crawling with maggot worms, flies everywhere, and where new refuse was dumped, a low putrid fire hanging onto the blackened contours of the land. When the fuel was gone a fire here would simmer out, still smoking. Others would have been lit elsewhere.

So, when Jesus spoke about Gehenna, he had this in mind, that trash would go into this ugly place until it was consumed or nothing of it was left that was consumable.

So the mainstream churches got it wrong: it’s a place of total consummation and not a picture of some future, forever-continuing punishment. One tells this explanation matter-of-factly time and time again until it becomes drilled into the mind how this is so.

Except that when a Jew of Jesus’ day looked at the Hinnom Valley, there was a lot of other baggage that most don’t get (unless they pick up their Bibles and really study it).

The question isn’t whether the Valley of Ben Hinnom (Sons of Hinnom) was a trash pit, but why?

Here’s the rest:

Is 30:33 For Topheth has long been ready, Indeed, it has been prepared for the king. He has made it deep and large, A pyre of fire with plenty of wood; The breath of the Lord, like a torrent of brimstone, sets it afire.

Isa 66:24 “Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” (QUOTED IN MARK 9:42-48)

2 Kings 23: 10 He also defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire for Molech.

2 Chron 28: 3 Moreover, he burned incense in the valley of Ben-hinnom and burned his sons in fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had driven out before the sons of Israel.

2 Chron 33:6 He made his sons pass through the fire in the valley of Ben-hinnom; and he practiced witchcraft, used divination, practiced sorcery and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger.

Jer 7: 31 They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind. 32 “Therefore, behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when it will no longer be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of the Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place. 33 The dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the earth; and no one will frighten them away. 34 Then I will make to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for the land will become a ruin.

Jer 19 (whole chapter)

19 Thus says the Lord, “Go and buy a potter’s earthenware jar, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the senior priests. 2 Then go out to the valley of Ben-hinnom, which is by the entrance of the potsherd gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you, 3 and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Behold I am about to bring a calamity upon this place, at which the ears of everyone that hears of it will tingle. 4 Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; 6 therefore, behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the valley of Slaughter. 7 I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I will give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. 8 I will also make this city a desolation and an object of hissing; everyone who passes by it will be astonished and hiss because of all its disasters. 9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them.”’

10 “Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you 11 and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Just so will I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot again be repaired; and they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place for burial. 12 This is how I will treat this place and its inhabitants,” declares the Lord, “so as to make this city like Topheth. 13 The houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah will be defiled like the place Topheth, because of all the houses on whose rooftops they burned [f]sacrifices to all the heavenly host and poured out drink offerings to other gods.”’”

14 Then Jeremiah came from Topheth, where the Lord had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the Lord’s house and said to all the people: 15 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I am about to bring on this city and all its towns the entire calamity that I have declared against it, because they have stiffened their necks so as not to heed My words.’”

Jer 32: 35 They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

It’s thought that the word Tophet derives from drum beating used to drown the cries of people, even children, who were put into the fire.

The Valley that Jesus would have seen meant something to the Jews, a place of human fire sacrifices for centuries, finally defiled by Josiah, King Mannasseh’s grandson. Because of the evil, however, God promised to defile people in this place, to pile the bodies high as a sign of his own defiling of Jerusalem and his country. It would be called at some time distant “the Valley of Slaughter”. Because of the people burned in the fire then, God would burn his enemies there. What was left of the bodies would be left as rotting carcasses (remember that Jews buried their dead) in the open air for the birds and animals to pick at.

When you say Gehenna was only a trash pit, you’ve missed a lot of history. In fact, there are no worse places of such evil reputation God might have picked to picture an eternal Lake of Fire than an earthly Gehenna.

From the Wikipedia page on Gehenna (I didn’t know this) it’s possible that the very idea of the Hinnom Valley having perpetual fire to consume dead bodies and trash may have come from a rabbi around 1200 AD. Josephus and other historians don’t mention it, nor does the archaeology apparently support perpetual fires. At any rate, that would be an enormous amount of fuel to keep a trash pit burning. We don’t even do that. But you can read the same things I just read on the Wiki page.

Incidentally, Jewish folklore has for a long while suggested that there is a gate leading down to a molten Lake of Fire from the physical valley. In the 1^st Century AD there appear to have been two separate traditions about Gehenna both coming from the idea of child sacrifice and God’s judgement on Israel. The first interprets Gehenna spiritually as a place of divine afterlife punishment while the other used it as a symbol for God’s historical judgment of Israel. The Mishnah (3^rd Century) seems to describe Gehenna more like a purgatory, a place for purifying and removing sins before transition to another state of life.

Body and Soul

We were also taught, from appropriate passages that when the breath of God enters a new body, it becomes a living soul. Logically, then, should that breath leave it ceases to be a living soul? This accords with our modern sense of the concept of death, which is the absence of life. Certainly it is looking at a physical body.

As to the question of does something outlast the body? The following two verses I found very compelling:

Matt 10:26 “Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).

Luke 12:1 Under these circumstances, after so many thousands of people had gathered together that they were stepping on one another, He began saying to His disciples first of all, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. 3 Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops. 4 “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell (Gehenna); yes, I tell you, fear Him!

They’re nearly identical these verses. Three critical observations appear. Firstly, there is something that men are powerless to destroy that God can. Secondly, destroying the soul is far worse than destroying the body. And thirdly, God destroys both body and soul in a place called Gehenna. Therefore Jesus concludes that our greater fear is towards God. Incidentally, this also suggests that Hades is not the appropriate place for destroying a soul, fortifying the distinction between Hades and Gehenna.

My father’s is an appropriate response given what he believes. He envisions this “soul”, as mentioned, more along the lines of a blueprint. Technically, killing the body kills the soul. But only God can recreate you according to who you were. So God not re-creating you in resurrection… To be fair, I haven’t heard better. At least he’s encountered these verses and been troubled enough to generate an explanation.

Here the scriptures specifically state that there is something that God specifically destroys that man cannot. And he destroys it in a specific place.

Some points about the Covenants

As I wrote earlier, fulfilling the Abraham Covenant requires the salvation of believers from among the Gentiles as well as Jews. All the families are blessed, all the nations too, because of their being included in the plan of salvation. But this isn’t the same as every individual who ever lived being saved. Gal 3 and much of Hebrews very well explains how Abraham’s Promise was adequately fulfilled in the salvation of the Saints. In some verses it doesn’t exclude another salvation later, but the problem is it doesn’t demand it either.

One of the things that has bugged for years is how we viewed the Law and Grace Covenants.

Most of you have heard the argument that Abraham had three “wives”, Hagar, Sarah and Keturah. Hagar represents the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses (if you keep the law, you will be blessed; don’t keep it, you are cursed), Sarah a Grace or Promise Covenant (to save people who failed to keep the old) and Keturah is the New Covenant, under which the unbelieving world will be “developed” during the Millennial, 1000-year reign of Christ.

First, where does this come from? Gal 4:21-31 lays it out that Hagar and Sarah, who bore children, represent two covenants, one yielding slave children (because the mother Hagar was a slave) and the other free descendants (Sarah being a free woman). Hagar is said to be Mt Sinai in Arabia (where Moses got the law) which corresponds to Jerusalem (the Jews were defined by keeping the Law). Sarah, however, is compared to a “Jerusalem above”, one which is free.

Hagar is definitely the law here, and the law enslaves. We don’t have information on exactly what the Sarah covenant is, only that it produces children who are free.

The following scriptures discuss a new covenant made with Israel and believers: Jer 31:27-38; Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:1,6; Heb 8:7-13, Heb 9:1-15, Heb 12:24. We learn from Jeremiah that a New Covenant is made that restores Israel to the land forever, where God puts his law in their hearts, and Israel will be His people and everyone will personally know God. From Luke, we have Jesus establishing this New Covenant at the Lord’s supper, by his blood (sacrifice). Paul quotes the same in 1 Cor 11:25.

In 2 Cor 3 we have a comparison between a lesser ministry of condemnation from the Law Covenant (which taught us about our inability to keep it and need of a savior) and a New Covenant of reconciliation and that we are to be ministers (teachers) of it. Paul alludes even to the life of believers as evidences of his own ministry of this New Covenant written on tablets of human hearts not stone (an allusion perhaps to Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26 where God replaces hearts of stone with those of flesh). Heb 8 quotes Jeremiah, and finishes by saying the new covenant entirely replaces the old, which is obsolete and ready to disappear. Heb 9 compares the covenant and temple on earth with the greater ones in heaven. Heb 9:15 specifically (among many others) shows that the new covenant is there for those who God calls to receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Nevertheless, we also have scriptures (Gen 25:1-4, 1 Chron 1:32-33) which describe Abraham’s wife that followed Sarah.

In the spirit of always looking for “new light” and hidden insights, quite a few Brethren (in my old circles most of them) take the Gal 4 scripture and argue that it means each wife represents a covenant. Therefore Keturah is a covenant as well, and under her covenant the unbelieving world is brought back to God in the 1000 years. Isaac is thus a child of promise. His descendents may then bless Keturah’s many.

So she is the Keturah covenant. Amazingly, the Brethren name her the New Covenant. Sarah is the Grace Covenant, or they use the phrase “Sarah feature of the Old Covenant)”. Because there are only two main covenants. If Sarah isn’t the New Covenant, then she is part of the old.

This is garbage of the highest order. You cannot go beyond what scripture says. Cursed is he who adds to or takes away one word. Keturah isn’t a major player in Abraham’s life, despite having many children. He also had many concubines it says. What covenants are they?

Gal 4 is clear that Sarah’s covenant replaces Hagar’s and is superior because it produces free children rather than enslaved. All the features of Gal 4 appear in the other scriptures.

And how on earth do you label a superior covenant the brings life a “feature” of the old covenant? And how does anyone argue that Israel was developed under an Old Covenant while the church under Grace? The Old Covenant killed! No one was justified under it. And James says that Abraham was justified by works produced by faith, and Paul straight-out says Abraham was justified by faith. No one EVER was developed under the Old Covenant. It has ALWAYS been Grace. The prophets looked forward to a sacrifice on the Cross while we look back. But the same sacrifice covers everyone who belongs to God.

Those weird strange New Covenant brethren that many classes seem to tolerate but are somewhat ostracized? They got it right! Well, they still think the New Covenant also applies to an unbelieving world that isn’t coming back, but for Bible Students, that’s pretty good, standing against the mainstream on such an issue.

For years in the L.A. class we had Dick and Vanetta Simon (the sister of Nannette Nekora). They were New Covenant brethren, very sweet, very quiet people. I knew they were different. They were always around, always welcomed with us, but I never felt they were quite part of the class. It upsets me now, but there was also that wonderful day when, as my eyes were opening finally, I sat down with them at a lunch table after Sunday study. Dick wasn’t able to say much back then. They were both getting old. And I could look them in the eye with an ecstatic joy and tell them they were right! I am thrilled no end that I got to do that one time before I left L.A. It was for me apology and admiration and affirmation rolled into one.

How good that felt! I don’t suppose they got that a lot. How stupid, that they were out of the mainstream, and yet they were right! On what should be such an amazingly basic point! Don’t add to scripture where it isn’t written. Keturah isn’t a Covenant!

The church is under the New Covenant. It is one of Grace. It is one that frees us from the bondage of law and sin and demanded punishment.

Some points on the Trinity

Ugh. The Trinity was the last teaching to fall. I was quite hardened against it. Likely so are you. It’s ridiculous, an acceptance of something that can’t possibly make sense. Maybe I can inject some doubt. If you want a good listing of Old Testament Scriptures, I recommend an eye-opening book below. I read that during my trip to India. Christians rely on the New Testament for their Trinitarian arguments, and wonder why Judaism is so rabidly monotheistic? Apparently the story may be somewhat more complex. Jehovah talking to Jehovah? The Angel the Lord both delivers the message from Jehovah and calls Himself Jehovah at the same time? There’s a surprising number of these passages. It may be that orthodox Judaism has moved a little of their own from scriptures. Anyway, worth a read.

But I don’t like the Trinity. I much prefer the simplicity of what I grew up with in the Bible Students. Easy to make sense of. There’s a Father, and then Jesus is a created being. One being and one being, separate. This three persons, one essence thing… at least I feel better than no pastor I’ve run across says any differently, that it’s miserable to understand. But that’s not the question. The question is, does scripture teach it?

For the Bible Students, I consider the Trinity, despite being a ready trigger for a bombardment of scriptures from Brethren and Jehovah Witnesses alike, to be something of a sideshow. That is, take a Trinitarian, convince him today that Jesus isn’t God, and he stops praying to Jesus tomorrow. But a Bible Student who never prays to Jesus, even if he affirms Jesus as properly God, he has no framework to begin praying. This is a learned behavior. Even I after ten years find it hard to pray to Jesus. Of course, the models are primarily there for praying to the Father in heaven through Jesus. So even if miraculously I could convince you, it won’t impact your life greatly. Not yet.

And there’s so much explaining that then needs to come into play because it is not an easy thing to wrap your mind around.

But, here’s some food for thought anyway.

First clarification, to ward off unhelpful questions.

I remember an elder decades ago delivering a spreadsheet to the Los Angeles youth detailing common Trinitarian arguments and Bible Student responses. Simpler versions of these arguments have been used throughout my life.

When Jesus prays to the Father in Gethsemane, is he talking to himself if He is God? And everyone nods thoughtfully and says “you’ve got a point. This can’t be true…” There are lots of variants on this kind of argument.

Most people haven’t done their homework if they use it.

There are three main groups of thought to consider. There’s the Arian view (named after your hero Arias): the Father is God. Jesus is not God. What he is and what the Holy Spirit (also not God) is depends on your particular flavor of Arianism (as it did even in Arius’ day). There’s the Unitarian or Modalist view: the Father is Jesus is the Holy Spirit. One God who displays himself as one of his three faces or “modes”.

Then there’s the Trinity, which is in effect the hard-to-sustain middle ground.

In this view, the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. They operate independently. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are also God, and they operate together, of the same mind, perfectly unified. The famous (infamous to you) Nicene creed separated Arians from others on the basis of one word: whether the Father and Son are homo-ousios, that is, of the same essence and essential nature of being. You and I are both humans, no problem. But being God means omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and other qualities that are non-transitive. That means no one else can have them by definition. Does Jesus have the same essential nature as God?

And Bible Students keep saying Jesus inherited the Divine Nature when He was resurrected, but is still not properly God. What on earth does that mean? You use the words but miss something fundamental. By having the Divine Nature you are saying He has the same nature as God. The words you so freely use are clear, though you use them with different meanings.

If Jesus actually has the same essential nature as God, he and the Father are both Omnipotent.  That doesn’t work. If you’re both Omnipotent, can you stop the other? Then one isn’t Omnipotent. But… it only works if the Two agree in EVERYTHING. If Jesus is given glory that properly belongs to the Father, is that blasphemy? Not if it’s impossible to glorify one without glorifying the other. However, in this model, there must be no possibility of wills conflicting. The only way to beings can forever be omnipotent is if they always act together towards the same end in the same manner. No two humans ever did this.

Trinitarians are not Arians nor Unitarians. They attempt to occupy a Biblical position with respect to scriptures that is much harder than either position to comprehend rationally. We simply don’t have any paradigm for how two or three can be both one and separate at the same time. But we take that position, attempting to be faithful to the scriptures.

Bible Students can combat Unitarians all they like. Arias actually started out going after the Modalists in North Africa. He was so successful in arguing that the Father and Son were distinct that he took that back to the Alexandrian church and attacked everyone who also affirmed that they were unified. Keep in mind, that the early questions in the church (even alluded to in scripture) were as often “was Jesus fully human” as well as “was Jesus fully God”?

Before you go after Trinitarians, make sure you’re not confusing them with Unitarians. Remember, we use the same arguments against Unitarians you do. But against Trinitarians they make no sense and betray your unfamiliarity with the matter. That doesn’t help you in the long run.

Oh, finally, while I think there is strong evidence on the deity and certainly the person-hood of the Holy Spirit (who is not simply an influence or power of the Father), I’m going to focus on Jesus’ deity. If you admit Jesus’ deity, it’s not as conceptually difficult to accept that a Binitarian God may be in fact a Trinitarian God.

Jesus is properly God/Jehovah

Jesus says so.

First, when he teaches us to baptize in Matt 28:19, we are taught to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To their credit, the Brethren retain this formula unlike others. But if the Father has a name as an individual, and so does the Son, what does that say of putting the Holy Spirit in the same group? The implication is that the Holy Spirit is also an individual with a name. Otherwise it’s two named persons and a simple power which is really just the first person all over again. Interestingly we all baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It’s the same single name, to cover three individuals.

Not a hard and fast proof, but something to consider.

How many times did people bow before angels and were told to get up because they’re not God? Yet Jesus doesn’t seem to correct any such activity.

In John 8:58 Jesus utters the strange statement that “before Abraham was, I am” in response to them asking if He felt He was greater than their father, Abraham. I’m still considering the argument that the “I am” here is certainly a Greek version of the Hebrew “YHWH” or “Yahweh/Jehovah” meaning (I AM that I AM). But the stranger conclusion from that is what he said was tantamount to blasphemy, for which stoning is prescribed. Somehow the Pharisees picked up on something that we apparently miss today. And Jesus didn’t correct them. Saying “I am”, not even “I was”, was in effect taking something that belongs only to God.

In John 5:18, Jesus has said that God is His Father. And the Pharisees bizarrely draw the conclusion that by saying God is His Father, he is making Himself out to be equal with God. And Jesus doesn’t correct them here either.

These are truly bizarre inferences that defy that rules of today’s English grammar and word definitions. Unless the Pharisees knew something we have forgotten. Unless what Jesus meant is exactly what they understood, that he was using for Himself language reserved only for God.

We need to pay attention. Because otherwise this makes no sense.

Lastly, and again not hard and fast proof, but Jesus’ name “Immanuel” translates literally to “God with us”. Maybe it is simply God’s work manifested in Jesus up to the cross. Or maybe, as happened in the past (including with Abraham), Jehovah of Hosts was properly stepping out onto the human field.

John says so.

Here’s a bit of a tricky one. Peter Knapp argued the only way a solid Bible Student can on this one.

In Isaiah 6, Isaiah sees the Lord sitting on the throne in the temple. In verses 1, 8 and 11 it’s Lord, which is Adonai (oddly enough a plural word used for a singular God; we see the same with “Elohim”). We have in verses 3, 6 and 12 “LORD”, which is Jehovah in the Hebrew. So we’re pretty clear that this is Jehovah God. Also pay attention to the curse where Jehovah tells the people their eyes and ears don’t work, and he closes them further so that they can’t see or hear and turn and be healed. It’s a judgment on disobedient Israel.

Now skip to John 12:40-41. Look at the context where John applies this to the miserable response of people in Jesus’ day. It’s pretty clear we’re quoting Is 6. John is talking about Jesus hiding himself from the multitude to fulfill this verse, so the people wouldn’t believe. Later on, John is recounting in v42 that many of the rulers believed in him (Jesus) despite the unbelief of the Pharisees. And it’s more verses on Jesus. But in vv.40-41, John says, referring to Isaiah, that Isaiah said these things and saw His glory. Who is the He? Grammatically you have two choices, either Isaiah or Jesus. That’s it. All other He’s in the context are of Jesus.

Peter Knapp (because the translations have it that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory including the one I showed him) reading very carefully thoughtfully, caught me on this and suggested that the “He” in this verse could well be the Father. For an Arian, you have to say this. Otherwise Isaiah saw Jehovah/Jesus and thus Jesus can be properly called Jehovah as well. To their credit, some of the Indian brethren I met don’t have a problem with this.

Grammatically, however, we don’t go through paragraphs of talking about He (Jesus) only to quote a verse in order to apply it to Jesus fulfilling prophecy, where the “He” refers to another person not already mentioned, and then every “He” after is again referring to Jesus.

But for my conversations, Peter was the first to make that argument – and it made me pause a while, considering if he wasn’t in fact right – and I think it’s the only possible defense, even though it doesn’t work well grammatically.

Jesus is properly called Jehovah. Which isn’t strange. Moses was only allowed to see the “backside” of the Lord when he passed by on Sinai lest he die. Jesus affirms that no one has seen God at any time, but he later tells his disciples that if they have seen Him they have seen the Father. But in Gen 18, when Abraham entertains the angels before two go off and destroy Sodom, one of the angels speaks as if he is Jehovah, using that very name. This isn’t the only time. But it is clear that the Angel/Messenger of the Lord (because that’s really what the word is) gets to use the name Jehovah as His own name. Something to consider: that there’s a deeper relationship between the Messenger of Jehovah and the Father than you have been accustomed to hearing. There’s a lot of verses that reveal this even in the Old Testament. No man has seen Jehovah. Seeing Jesus is the same as seeing Jehovah. Moses was protected from seeing Jehovah. Abraham served cakes to Jehovah. And Jehovah walked with Adam in the shade of the trees in Eden.

John 1:1. Everyone has been trained to argue “a God.” I’ve read my share of textual analysis. I, of course, disagree with the Brethren. If you want by far the very best analysis from your Arian perspective, go talk to my Father. I love him. Naturally I disagree with him here. But I also find that what he has written and studied is probably the best on John 1:1. And even my friends in seminary didn’t expect the depth of what he knows about this verse when they spoke to him. So, for “a god”, talk to my dad.

I don’t fight the battle here, though. Not worth it. No, the battle is fought two verses down, in John 1:3. The castle walls aren’t normally so thick here and everyone is usually guarding the first verse.

3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

See the problem? Everything that was made was made by him. Ok, so far so good. Every good Bible Student agrees that Jesus (like wisdom in the Psalms – a dubious association here) was a master workman in God’s hands creating the universe. But the phrase “everything” is a little uncomfortable. It can’t mean “everything including God” because no one made God, but at the same time it can’t include Jesus either because one cannot make himself.

Ok fine.

But then the scripture turns around and iterates the same thought in the negative just to ensure clarity. Nothing that was made, was made without him.

Now that is a little more disconcerting. Because Jesus is supposed to be the first created being, even the Archangel Michael. But here it’s saying that nothing created was made apart from Him.

So we do the little mental shuffle and instinctively add the following to the verse when we read it: “and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (except Himself).”

But that’s not what it says. If you accept the verse as is, then you are left with the nagging affirmation that Jesus is NOT a created being.

And back in John 1:1 you appreciate the sense that other translations bring out that “in the beginning, the Word was already existing, and the Word was with God and what God was the Word was.”

Paul says so

Paul the (presumed) writer of Hebrews, uses the first chapter of Heb 1 persistently to demonstrate that Jesus is not an angel. Particularly v5:

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me”? 6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.”

If the Brethren are right, I’m pretty sure that Jesus was an angel, or brought lower than the angels at the point where God says “today I have become your Father, and you my Son.” Jesus didn’t have His divine nature yet. And when God brings his firstborn into the world, all the angels worship Him? He is worshiped before being elevated following His sacrifice?

You don’t worship angels.

And Paul is using this to prove He is not an angel? God is supposed to have never said this to an angel?

Unless, of course, He’s not. And never was.

What about Jesus being raised above all angels, given a name that is higher than all others? God made Him even greater, gave Him the Divine Nature?

In Eph 4:8-10 Paul writes:

8 Therefore it says, “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men.” 9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

The only way we are to properly understand Jesus ascending is in the context of Him descending. This puts a different spin on this entirely.

Three more verses for consideration:

Col 2: 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

Phil 2: 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Here knowing more Greek than I do would help immensely. Concordances don’t help enough. Certainly they’re worth looking at. Jeff Mezera gave me the James White (Trinitarian) and Greg Stafford (JW) debate on the Trinity and they both took these verses apart. They beg explaining if you’re an Arian, and at least on the surface lend credence to the Trinitarian arguments. My impressions from the debates are that the Greek is still more so convincing. But Stafford acquitted himself well. Unfortunately, it appears that in learning to debate outside Christians he took positions that made the Watchtower uncomfortable and he’s on his own now.

Again to be fair, the problem is reconciling Jesus appearing to be equal with God with verses showing his subordination. Jesus appears to know things he shouldn’t on earth and yet he learns. This is part of a paradox swallowed to accept scripture at face value.

Lastly, would you agree with me, that if what one believes is legitimately Christian doctrine, we should be able to use whole-heartedly every phrase used in Scripture, especially by the Apostles who taught us about Christ? Would it be a problem if one couldn’t speak the same words in Scripture without falling over themselves in clarification and justification that no Apostle or prophet was burdened with?

Here are questions I posed to the Brethren in Coimbatore, to Br. JB and others.

“Can you ever say to Jesus’ face ‘My Lord and my God’”?

“Can you ever call Jesus ‘Our Great God and Savior’”?

“Can you ever pray to Jesus?”

Many of you might sense the trap that is coming. But even with some inclination, the Brethren in Coimbatore soberly and emphatically answered “No” to each of these questions. Because, theologically speaking, if Jesus is anything but God, these things are terrifically inappropriate.

The trap is that Thomas, upon recognizing Jesus, exclaimed “My Lord and my God”. And Jesus didn’t correct but appears to affirm his conclusion and bless those who, not having seen, believe.

Paul to Titus refers to the appearing of “our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” Since we don’t properly expect that God in any other person than Christ Jesus is going to appear, the whole statement is about Christ Jesus.

Finally, Stephen, while being stoned, looks up to heaven and cries “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” This is perhaps the first and best known of any prayer directly to Jesus. He saw a vision of Jesus on God’s right hand in heaven during his trial after having antagonized the Sanhedrin. Perhaps he was still seeing Jesus when he uttered those final words.

But understand this: if you have a hard time reciting the exact same words that apostles and prophets did, you’re probably on the wrong side of a theological divide. If you can’t just read scripture without qualifying every last word to defend your existing beliefs, there’s a problem.

Also, just for homework, Jesus appears to be afforded many of the same names given to God “Alpha and Omega”, “beginning and the end”, “first and the last”, “Jehovah”, “Lord Almighty” etc. Take a look at Rev 1:7-8, 11 and Rev 22:13 for starters. Apparently that makes Jesus the Lord God, the Almighty.

There’s only one way that works.

Oh, lastly, John 14:16 and 15:26. Jesus is leaving the disciples but He promises to send a replacement for them, named the “Comforter” or “Advocate” or “Helper” or in the Greek parakleto. The words “he” are used liberally to describe Him. The world can’t accept Him, doesn’t know Him, you know Him, He lives with you and will be in you. He will testify about Jesus. He goes out from the Father.

In other places we learn that the Father sends Jesus, but both Father and Son send the Spirit.

And Rom 8. The Spirit testifies alongside our spirit. It acts. It makes you sons, and not slaves. It gives life. It knows our weaknesses and it groans as we wait for our adoption. It helps us in our weakness. And when we lose the words to pray it intercedes for us with words to deep to be uttered. And it even has a mind.

He or “it” is called the Spirit of God. But he or it appears to do work, makes decisions, sympathizes, speaks. One problem with saying “its just a power” is that, if this power of God lives in us, then we are justified in simply shortening it to “the Father” lives in us. Power, influence, these are not material things that you can put here or there. It takes mental gymnastics to justify that position grammatically. Power and influence are felt here or there, but they are located properly with the owner of power and influence.

“In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” would otherwise simply be “in the name of the Father, Son, and Father” again. I hear not even the Jehovah Witnesses are brave enough to be so intellectually honest as to change their formula for baptism.

Some scattered points

Memorials

The last Memorial I was at was with the Columbus Bible Students. It was excruciating. Not nearly as initially strange as the one in Kraków where Brethren didn’t even greet or speak to each other upon coming together. But bad, because I had changed too much to not want to claw my way out each moment. (For the record, Columbus was a very loving group of brethren to have met with.)

Understand that Memorials across the world are generally solemn affairs. To my memory there was a lot of contemplating Christ’s death. And you think carefully of your own death in Christ. What horrors Christ endured. What you have sacrificed. It is a time for total and public solemnity and gravity. I remember the older (Californian) Larry Davis gave a sermon that nearly brought me to tears, thinking about Christ’s death. And Bob Carnegie just read scripture, as only someone who teaches presentation can, stressing the words, pausing so the effect sank in, letting scripture alone tell the story. These things were profoundly moving. It made Memorial a time to take seriously.

But there is truly a joy that is lost in all this gravity. And there is a real joy that is generally missing from Bible Student congregations outside of Passover time. You are on this consecrated path, this hard slog against your sin and selfishness, wanting to be closer to God. Memorial is a time to remember that. But the Christian outside has a deeper connection to this ritual. He remembers with some terror his previous life of sin, and with foreboding his powerful ongoing inclinations towards expressing antipathy to God in action, and he then remembers a sacrifice for sin that places him squarely in the Most Holy of Holies in the Temple, before God Almighty, who looks at him with intense probing scrutiny and instead sees the bright spotless white robe of perfect life, that is his by Christ’s death.

The Church is the population of the Delivered. Christ died. We died. I hate to say it but to our wretched lives, big deal! Because we can no longer look at Christ’s death as an isolated event but always through the lens of what it bought us. And it bought us life. And as miserable as Christ’s ordeal was, it bought us life that we didn’t have, couldn’t get and in no way had any claim to. “But God…” so many verses begin.

You go to these yearly affairs somberly. I went to Columbus among grave faces and inside I wanted to scream out “this… saved… me!” And how can not want to exult? Far more than anything they did, I think it was just my mind’s rebellion feeling that this was only to be a solemn occasion.

At Hope Bible Church, my church, it’s a solemn time, but it’s a time of joy and praise too. Because we remember. And we know. We have that whole picture. You can’t see Christ’s death and know what He did, without joy as well. Or else you don’t really understand the death at all.

1 Cor 11:25-33

Paul rebukes the Corinthians, recalling the Lord’s Table. Richer people apparently were gorging themselves at the common meals while poorer people looked on, humiliated, with nothing to eat and grew angry. Both were wrong. Let the poor eat at home so the food is not a distraction. Let the rich binge at home. You are supposed to eat and drink, remembering Christ, with reverence, proclaiming the Lord’s death until He comes.

This probably isn’t a yearly affair, interestingly enough. Paul accuses their meetings of doing more harm than good. These communions were therefore attached to meetings.

And then in vv. 25-26 you have that phrase twice “as often as you do it”. I looked up the wording in a Diaglott 15 years ago. There’s apparently a little word "ean" there that invariably indicates uncertainty. It doesn’t translate fully but modifies the "hosakis" "as often as". In English, then, “as often as you do it”, really means “as often as you do it”. Whenever. Because this isn’t another Passover. Christ didn’t Christian-ify the Jewish Passover, though He is in fact Our Passover. In fact it appears that even Paul kept many of the Jewish feasts (including Pentecost) while saying you shouldn’t judge people for not adhering to feasts and traditions and new moons, etc. Possibly, Paul in Acts 18 was trying to keep the Passover in Jerusalem but wasn’t able, and so celebrated it and the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread in Philippi.

The Lord’s Supper is something different. Every time you sit down at your table, especially with brethren, you are to eat and drink remembering and proclaiming Christ’s death. Until He comes again.

Do it yearly, do it daily. The issue is your heart and whenever you do this. And so the Corinthians were rebuked for eating and drinking to their own harm and condemnation.

For all those brethren obsessed with getting the exact right date for Memorial, you’re almost certainly missing the point. It really is “as often as you do it.”

And if there is no joy in your ceremonies to temper this affected face of solemnity, your heart is possibly as dead as the ceremony appears.

I am so grateful to my own elders and pastor to have something to sing joyfully about at our Lord’s Table.

Roads to Damascus

Ever notice how you rarely hear any conversion stories among the Brethren from a terrible life to a holy one? It’s all in the head – my doctrine changed, and now I’m a Bible Student. One much-loved elder who taught and sang long ago at the Chicago winter seminars had enough youthful exploits and changes that many of us young people remembered and cherished vividly. There were others. They were encouragements to us that our own life would be radically altered as well. Another reminder of how much I owe to the Brethren I grew up with. But in my recollection it was rare to hear such things. Something you don’t expect.

You do find it a lot at my church. Because sinners are doing what they are called to do “repent, for God’s Kingdom is coming soon.”

There’s something wrong in a religion where the same good people in it were probably just as nice before they came. The teaching changes, but there’s nothing new in the heart. Or the teaching simply has no power over the heart.

The Nature of Evil

How many times have brethren told me that so-and-so would have an easier time in the Kingdom because they were nicer people? We see on the outside. God knows the heart. Even thieves can go out of their way to be sweet to children.

And how many times do we sanctimoniously hear that Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin will have a hard time coming back in the Kingdom? Because they have been accustomed to doing more evil in daily life?

Never mind that this suggests you’ll have people resurrected, presumably cleaned already of their sins, continuing to sin (less and less) through the Kingdom without any reasonable sacrifice for those sins? Or does God just overlook the Kingdom sins? And if so, why didn’t he just overlook the past ones, if justice doesn’t demand punishment. Or is where the church and its partnership in the sin offering come in?

I hear this more from the Americans than the Brethren in India. People who’ve been exposed to real horrors in life tend to look at evil more soberly, with more understanding as to how deep and cruel it can be.

And there is a perfectly natural desire that those who do the worst evil shouldn’t escape punishment in death. It’s pretty clear that Hitler and Stalin weren’t repaid for their evil in this life. Our hearts naturally cry out for justice.

Of course, when it comes to the common sins we all do, we expect God to be gentle with us. After all, we’re only human.

I’m convinced the Brethren don’t have a solid grasp on the nature of evil. And too many, for all practical purposes, barely believe real evil exists. The Christadelphians got rid of Satan entirely.

If you went through the Holocaust, and even if you can forgive the guards around you personally, you have a God-given conscience that looks forward to justice.

That isn’t from our evil nature. That is from God.

“Vengeance is mine” (not ours). But this is so because “I will repay”.

As humans we cry out for justice to prevail. As sinners we want anything but. That is the nature of our internal struggles. Justice for them. Not for us.

You have to be an expert on Prophecy and Symbolism

Else why are there so many books like Frank Shallieu’s “Keys to Revelations”, or Streeters commentaries, or Great Pyramid studies in so many Brethren’s libraries. Even the young people succumb to such eclectic collections in their own apartments.

How many times did I reference Revelations in this writing? It’s because your doctrine is tied up wholly in books that most people admit they don’t understand. To preach the 1000 years you have to read Revelations?

I just have to read Romans. Or any other book of the Bible. Or all together. Pick a place and start.

So much for God choosing the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. You have to wise to get the hidden truths. So much for a gospel of fishermen and a tax collector.

The Great Pyramid

I don’t even know if this an issue anymore. Decades ago people still talked about it. Quite a few libraries have the John and Morton Edgar books on the Great Pyramid. But upon my first visit to India, I found many brethren uninterested in the subject expressing it to those who were. After my return it seemed there were fewer and fewer conversations to be had.

Nevertheless, it remains a legacy of my (and our) upbringing.

In the late 1800s, Sir Flinders Petrie conducted an investigation of the Great Pyramid producing diagrams and measurements in incredible detail, many of which remain the basis even for modern analysis. John and Morton Edgar, I believe Bible Students, noted a possible connection in the measurements to the dates and chronologies the Russell was examining, and a possible mapping of the internal structure to the Divine Plan of the Ages. This they documented in their books, now in many Brethren’s libraries. This was, then, the Divine Plan in Stone. And we all learned about it in our Sunday Schools, it being another correlation for the legitimacy of our own gospel.

Is 19:19 is the only tie-back to the scripture, where God prophecies that he will build his altar in the midst of Egypt. It sounded plausible. Now, not so much. First, by the time Isaiah made this prophecy, the Great Pyramid was ancient not only to the Hebrews but to even many of the oldest Pharaohs by their own account. Secondly, Isaiah’s context is in Egypt capitulating to a massive Judean conquest, such that many great cities will speak the Canaanite language and swear allegiance to the Israelite God. An altar to God will be placed in the middle of Egypt (a sign of absolute cultural dominance for a gods-obsessed pagan culture) and a pillar at the border. Which apparently will be a sign, not to the Jews, but to the Egyptians for favor and healing. Isaiah further describes a highway between Egypt and the then-hated now blessed Assyria, with free flow of traffic (via Israel) such that God will say “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.” That’s a rather astonishing and beautiful prophecy as I read it. And this is definitely for another time to come. Egypt to Israel to Iraq will be a blessed land worshipping God. Thus, Is 19:19 has nothing to do with any event in the past anyway.

Another problem is that archaeology outpaced the writings of the Edgar brothers. Back then, they noted air shafts leading from the King’s and Queen’s chamber to the exterior of the pyramid. These symbolized the supposed tomb chambers being fit for life not death. The Queen’s chamber air shafts were also hidden and blocked from the interior, and only figured out by someone wondering if the King’s chamber shafts had duplicates.

In the 1990s, a German named Gantenbrink, while installing air circulation fans in the King’s chamber, took his special robot and attempted to probe the Queen’s chamber shaft to the surface. But both air shafts stopped far short of the pyramid sides at stone blocks now called “Gantenbrink’s doors”. Another robot mission was sent a decade later which drilled through at least one of the doors, pushed a camera through to the space beyond, and found a second such block was installed some distanced farther up the shaft. There were strange hieroglyphics, and even the remains of metal pins stuck through the Gantenbrink doors on both sides. There may be something further beyond the second “doors”. We don’t really know what this means. And it doesn’t torpedo everything the Edgars wrote, but it may be wise to allow for further scholarship. The Queen’s chamber air shafts were not for air, at least.

Beyond that a French architect named Houdin, after careful analysis, suggests that there may be evidence for several passages not previously found. Critically, which accords with another “big-stone” structure elsewhere, a squared spiral interior ramp may have been used for the construction based on slight tilted but parallel shadowing visible on the exterior. This accords with the findings of earlier sonography that suggests areas of lower density (i.e. chambers) leading around the pyramid and up on the inside. A broken in corner 2/3 of the way up the pyramid exposes a larger than expected empty space, in roughly the location where two ascending passages would connect. Other possible passages include one on the far end of the King’s chamber, mirroring the existing entrance. The squared stone block that might mark an entrance is free from bearing any load from the upper blocks. It may be a plug to a passage. Finally, above the pyramid’s original entrance, the roofed stone blocks don’t appear to take any weight off of the descending passage far below, but may be the exposed roof of another chamber close to the surface.

Other engineering explanations have been modeled and tested regarding the lower passages having a hydro-mechanical function. May be nothing. May be something. It tickles my imagination at least.

These are things yet to be tested, that sound like reasonable hypotheses. More research will be done. If Is 19:19 isn’t talking about the Great Pyramid, it’s probably wisest to wait on linking it to the Bible as a Witness in Stone.

Russell misunderstood some things, including Predestination

I started reading the Fifth Volume again in India. I didn’t get much past the first chapter. To his credit, Russell does seem to understand the two positions on the atonement. And then, as he likes to do, he outlines a middle ground that he thinks is the proper reconciliation of the two and proceeds forward in the guise of an expert to solve the old expert’s problems.

Trouble is, I’m pretty sure most places, the deeper he goes, the more out of his depth he is.

Classic point, when I was first investigating predestination (which Brethren don’t believe, though I knew a couple who came pretty close), I wanted to know what Russell wrote. Because I still held him in high regard.

So, on to Reprints 486, Page 7, regarding “Foreknowledge and Predestination”. And Russell outlines the general divide in the Protestant Church between those who think God knows in advance who will come, and so calls them, and those who think God determines before, calls them, and they unswervingly respond.

Russell loves to use the word “harmony”. He is finding the harmony lost on prior generations. And then at the last he steps back and asserts that we don’t want to be dogmatic. He is simply, reasonably offering the solution for consideration. At the least, it’s hard not to like his style. Hard to be offended even in disagreement.

He then goes on to harmonize foreknowledge and predestination by essentially redefining predestination as foreknowledge. In Modern Days, the eminent Norman Geisler does the same thing. It’s a common problem.

Predestination may not be a great issue since no Bible Student would mourn if God predestined the church, and allowed free will to reign over the world in the 1000 years. As long as everyone is saved somehow, not a big deal.

Many brethren take a common approach in suggesting that groups of people are predestined (Russell here stated that it was the systems and arrangements that were predestined), but the individuals within them can determine themselves. That is, there’s 144,000 but it’s your choice whether to be part of it and stay part of it.

Rom 9 is often cited. But there’s the logical problem that how can you ensure a group of people do anything if you don’t have complete control over the environment including every last human in it? If free will is so critical, why couldn’t Stalin stamp out more Christians and keep them from the Church? Is God simply a better chess player? Is that the basis of our unconditional trust in His promises?

Anyway, even in Romans 9, Paul states that God chose an individual (Jacob) and hated another (Esau). He hardened Pharaoh. And Paul handles the natural charge as to whether God is fair. If God only arranges classes, no one worries if it’s fair since the classes are presumably open to all.

In Rom 8:29, those God foreknows, he also predestines. Same group.

God has to tamper with either the desires of other people as well as limit through that natural world what any man is able to do. Even if he leaves a Christians’ will completely free, he tampers with everyone else to ensure the Christian has the ability to do what God wants and that everything God has predicted comes true.

It’s in fact a plain mess. It doesn’t work when you break the argument down. If we trust in God’s promises to us, God has to be sovereign over every last thing and thought that happens in Creation. Otherwise there’s always the risk of God being surprised and unprepared and having to scramble. Some brethren, to defend to the death our “free will” in choosing Christ, accept that God doesn’t entirely know everything that will happen in the future. That’s called Open Theism.

It’s a logical, necessary position. Those that say it aren’t trying to be heretical. They are absolutely intellectually honest in adopting this position.

They are also, however, wrong.

I understand my sin enough to know I don’t feel particularly free. Certainly everything I want to do, every action, I am constantly constrained by my ability or my environment. I’m definitely not sovereign over my life. I am not going anywhere if the guards at my workplace say so.

But I have trouble even keeping a straight, holy train of thought. Even my thoughts are hijacked. And the best, nicest things I want to do… I always get the next thought as to how people are going to like me for it or what will I gain? So much for pure altruism and love of God for motivations. I’m not selfless enough to be altruistic and I don’t love God enough to not do something partly for myself.

So God, go ahead, rip out this heart of stone. I don’t care. Get rid of it. Now. It’s killing me. I have produced nothing of real value my entire life. I might have a hard time wondering if my neighbor deserves an eternal punishment, but for my part I deserve hell for everything I do, and even more which I’ve conveniently forgotten. Speaking honestly and for myself, I have no problem with hell for myself. I’m probably the only one I can say that about with confidence.

Give me a heart of flesh that can respond to you. I don’t care. My supposed “free will” doesn’t feel particularly free. And I’m not any happier because of it. And I have a bad feeling where my life will end up. If the others are right and it makes me into a robot, I don’t care, just do it.

I’d rather be a slave to you than free on my own.

Or more poetically: “better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked.” (Ps 84:10)

So go ahead God. Save me despite myself. Save me if you have to fight me tooth and nail to do it. Save me if you have to destroy everything I’ve ever dreamed, wanted or built. Override every decision and thought if you need to. Make me into something that’s useful for you, finally, after being useless.

The funny thing is, I feel more free now than I ever did before in my life.

I guess that’s the point of being a slave to Christ. Dead men don’t tend to ask for anything, let alone to be given life.

Eph 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Tentative Justification (Updated)

Granted, this appears to be a minority viewpoint now. It may be still worth discussion because it is entertained at all, and even if people aren't comfortable with accepting an idea that isn't even alluded to in scripture, because of the general theology regarding justification (including at least two justifications, one to life, another to standing before God?) a problem is created which this potential teaching is meant to solve, and which not believing in this solution doesn't quite fix either.

I got to speak with a cousin of mine about some issues frequently debated among the brethren. He reminded me of "tentative justification". It's been too long. I asked if this was a justification that applied between when someone consecrates and God "accepts their consecration", recalling a question my dad had fielded from someone who -- panicked -- claimed to have consecrated and was baptized, without really understanding what it meant. To which my dad replied that in such cases it amounted to a simple bath, and not even a good one.

Technically, since a distinction is made between the time one decides to consecrate themselves and when God accepts this as valid, a temporary and tentative justification would apply to this intermediate time as well.

But the term itself means this:

Knowing that God cannot "deal" with a human tainted by sin (because of His holiness), and that God applies the blood of Christ in justification only to those who are now consecrated (later extended to the whole world after resurrection), how can God "call" people to him who will consecrate, but haven't yet? And how can God call to himself people who will consider consecration, but ultimately won't?

And so you have this evolved notion of a "tentative justification", that Christ's sacrifice is temporarily advanced to a person (who would normally wait until after unbelievers are resurrected) while they are considering consecration. It is withdrawn (and held for later) if the person does not consecrate. It is made permanent if the person consecrates. If that person then continues sinning, now we have sins staining the white robe given by Christ, and there is no further sacrifice for sins. That person goes into Second Death.

Apparently, Russell taught this. Rutherford later abandoned it.

It's hard to know where to start.

Firstly, this is (like so many teachings) a teaching that naturally evolves from the underlying theology. That is, it's like finding an engine. As you try to understand how it works, based on your understanding, it's missing a part. You create the part, and then it should work. Of course, you won't know until it runs later but it makes sense. You didn't find the part with the engine, but rather supplied it. You defend it as necessary. Many brethren argue that it's not necessary, understanding that it's an artificial complexity not found in scripture. But technically, the problem remains if their underlying assumptions are correct, that justification is applied at different times (now for Saints, later for unbelievers upon resurrection).

Catholic Purgatory is an example of what I mean. The Catholics believe that they accrue a store of sins in their life. The merits (righteous works) of Jesus, Mary and the Saints (those who did more good than they themselves needed) are stored in a great "Treasury of Merit" in heaven, and are applied to you through various rituals called sacraments (mass, baptism, communion, marriage, etc.). Those who do enough good works and who have enough good works transferred to them, will die and go straight to heaven. Those who don't..., well, since they're Catholic they ought to have a route to heaven, but we understand they don't have enough good works to balance their sins, so they have to go somewhere where it takes time to balance out the sins. This is a place of purging, or Purgatory.

The Catholic Church got into trouble attempting to sell these transfers from the Treasury of Merit to reduce the Purgatory time of both living and dead people. Martin Luther rightly argued that if the Pope has this power at all, why not simply release everyone from Purgatory as an act of love and kindness rather than sell it?

Purgatory is not Biblical but invented to solve problems in a system that has good works needed to balance out sins in life. Of course, if you were wrong about the good works vs. sin model in the first place...

Scripture says Christ died once for all. It argues that Christ's one sacrifice is sufficient to catapult a sinner into heaven. It defends that no human ever had any good works of his own, and that the work is and was entirely God's. There is no Treasury of Merit in heaven, the Saints received Christ's sacrifice same as everyone and contributed nothing to themselves or anyone else. In fact, every Christian is a Saint. No priest ever had the power to transfer good works from one to another person.

You see a hundred errors in assumptions or conclusion as to how God works creates a problem where finally you have to invent something that's completely not in the Bible in order to solve it.

But what if you didn't understand how the engine works? What if it works perfectly by itself, and doesn't need anything?

Tentative Justification is the brethren's equivalent of a Purgatory solution.

The reality is that Christ died on the cross, and His sacrifice is sufficient for everyone God deals with. As per John 6 and Rom 8, God doesn't call idly, but effectively. He calls, you come. You unfailingly want to come. God can do it because your justification was applied before you were born, on a cut tree outside ancient Jerusalem.

The brethren assume a universal justification is needed to resurrect everyone who doesn't yet believe, so you apply justification now for some, and later for all. But doesn't God know who will live and die already? Can't he have just decreed that these people who would live are justified, and these are not who won't?

This is a poor solution offered in much of Christianity. But it makes brethren uncomfortable because now God doesn't do the same for everyone fairly and equally, which leads to the question of whether God is giving a fair shot, even in the fair shot kingdom. And if Adolph Hitler in the Kingdom, decided he preferred Satan, and he wasn't in fact justified, then how was he raised at all with other unbelievers?

By this logic, if God really knows what's in people's hearts, why even resurrect unbelievers who won't repent?

Now you have insight why some universal salvation people stick to their guns, insisting that exactly everyone must repent in the end. If they're all resurrected, Christ's effort can't be wasted.

Brethren step back from this because they can read at least the middle of Rev 20 where some people apparently do go back to Satan when he is released.

Tentative Justification isn't biblical on so many levels. People thought themselves into a corner, not understanding scripture, and then imagined a solution. You make yourself appear smart, fathoming the complexity of doctrines. But the complexity itself was your own creation.

The reality is, God knows exactly what's in the heart of man, what they will do. He doesn't need to see proof (like we do) in outside action because he searches the hearts and knows them. Every man is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). The only people that repent, do so to show that God is working in them (John 3:21). But they've already been justified. Christ somehow dies for the whole world, but that death is applied specifically for those redeemed, who are bought specially. If the blood can be wasted on those who won't come back, then it is not as effective and all-sufficient (needing no outside contribution) as scripture says it is in redeeming us.

God isn't dealing personally and intensely with those He hasn't already set His sights on bringing. And those He has do come, every last one.

Scripture says that God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45) and in Heb 7 it warns that the rain falls land that yields crop (good works) becomes blessed by God, but that which does not is to be burned.

God loves the world. He is calling all men to repentance. But He loves some particularly, and has determined that they be His. Those he foreknew, and predestined, called and justified, and glorified (written past tense, as if a done deal) (Rom 8:29). Justification is not tentative. If applied at all, it is sufficient and complete, covering our sins from yesterday and tomorrow, up until the time a man sins no more. It is not applied the same way for everyone. God knows the hearts. He does not need an empirical trial of watching people in a controlled, Satan-less, environment, to know exactly who were are and what we will do.

To understand why God picks and choose, you have to first understand just how deep and thorough our sin is, which prevents us even under the best of situations, from truly turning to God. We have to admit our helplessness. This is not a popular idea. It is stubbornly resisted. We all want to think ourselves as free to choose good or evil, and not slaves to sin. Yet, it takes even a redeeming act of God to understand our deadness in sin.

To talk about any application of Justification as "Tentative" is to reduce who God is, what He has done, while attempting to magnify ourselves and minimize our sin. It's just wrong.

Concluding (Updated)

Having returned from India, I had the chance to speak with a few of the Brethren. It's a surprise how many of these verses mentioned above are in fact discussed in their studies and conventions, including Rev 20. As I said, it is terribly easy for me to forget how things were. The difficulty is that these verses are so easily dismissed as "not a problem". Where I am now, whenever I read such verses, they read so perfectly clearly and uncomplicated such that it becomes impossible to continue believing as I did.

Look, clarity in writing depends entirely on the writer, not the reader. Some readers will never get it, but a good writer should be comprehensible by nearly everyone who can read at all.

So did God intend to write clearly or not? ("All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 1 Tim 3:16) Is the hard part supposed to be figuring out what is meant, or believing it to the point of changing one's life? This is where the world fails. Jesus came to bring Light into the world and was rejected because people loved their sin. It's not that they misunderstood the message. They got it, and didn't want it. They don't believe, so they suppress the truth (as per Rom 1). But even in creation, God claims to have made His attributes, including power and justice, obvious so that people are without excuse.

Like an oyster with its pearl, the simple teachings of the scripture, being an annoyance, are coated over and over until they are unrecognizable, but entirely palatable. We re-invent God, taming Him, as someone we might be comfortable with.

I keep assuming that all I should need to do is present these verses and people will read them, and sit back thoughtfully, perhaps even worriedly.

Instead, I tend to get largely unworried faces. You've got the more liberal reaction where one assumes that "all roads lead to Rome" and that we simply have a different approach to scripture. When my views started to shift and I began telling people, one old friend called me up to find out if this was true. The conversation ended essentially in a shouting match, with the other finally hanging up. See, this at least I expected. A part of me was mildly touched that the other cared that much about the matter for it to be so bitter.

When I told some of my European friends, they were surprised that I expected hard criticism from them. Not a big deal. I have my views, they have theirs. Time will tell...

A part of me has wished for it to matter deeply, but for me to engage with people with whom the scriptures matter enough to pay attention to them, and not to whitewash them or find loopholes in the manner I've found.

On the other side you get the more measured reaction which assumes I've misunderstood everything off-the-bat. Here, the mind is so wed to Russell's basic theology that these scriptures can't possibly mean what they are saying. Other scriptures are always needed to clarify the one we're reading. In effect, the starting point is the Volumes (at least the ideas in them, whether or not you even read the books) and only then do you go to the Scriptures. Everyone says scriptures are the starting point, but in practice that's not true.

"If God really is cruel enough to send people to hell, I'd rather stand up with those people and go myself, than worship such a God." Anyone ever heard this? I got this twice from people I respected. We assume Hell is an act of evil on God's part and set our conditions that if Hell is real, God must be evil. God is love. But he's also just. And holy. He created us. We don't dictate terms of worship to Him. If we get our idea of God being love from Scripture, we ought to allow Scripture to define exactly it is how God's love and justice play out. And maybe we will find out how God is loving and how Hell is justice, and not the caricature of evil we make it out to be. Anyone who insists before-hand that God be who they want Him to be, or else, doesn't know God.

Another friend, perhaps in youthful naivite, insisted that our starting point from understanding Scripture is "1) There is God, 2) The Bible perfectly explains God, and 3) Any salvation must be saving everybody." This friend was smarter than most, but she captured perfectly Russell's approach. God can't be fair in condemning some to hell, therefore He didn't, so let's go back to the Bible and find how he didn't. You start with your own theology, and then go to the Scriptures. Which is why, most passages in the Volumes say what they say, and then have their handful of verse references at the end in parentheses.

We have to address this way of thinking before any scriptures may be brought up that cause problems.

For example: again, back to Rev 20, which is a pretty simple narrative. In fact, the Revelation, for all its details, reads quite straightforwardly as well. I talk about it, and one brother defends his view that each numbered seal and trumpet and bowl happen at the same time. So if the chapters for the seals overlay those with bowls and trumps, then even Rev 20 can be sandwiched over the rest in the same way. And he then takes me to Joshua for proof, where the Israelites marched six days around the city once, blowing trumpets, and then seven times on the last day.

Joshua getting up early, you see, represents Christ standing up to take His people to the promise lend. Yes, I know, this sounds like a reasonable parallel. But as soon as you take that parallel to be true, drawing conclusions from it so as to re-interpret something else that is written, you've elevated the parallel that you made to the level of something in scripture that explicitly says Joshua is a pattern for the Tribulation. The Bible doesn't say that. Your inference should have stopped at "Joshua might be a parallel of Christ in this instance." You do this with a book where you know the consequences of not being disciplined are severe. "Cursed is he who adds to or takes away from these words", and here one is, essentially inserting words into things. Imagine what might happen if you get before God's throne, and (what if?) you've been wrong. And you tell God it wasn't clear. And God asks you plainly that "didn't I write it down so that it could be clear?"

What if it already is that clear?

Because whether one believes it or not, nearly everybody in the Protestant world knows about hell. Where do you supposed they got that from? Are you going to trot out the tired argument that every bad teaching comes from Papal Rome? Before the Catholic church was a huge institution, the immediate disciples of the apostles at the least taught "One Salvation" and most of them the same hell you hear about today.

So Joshua: six days marching once around Jericho, then seven times the next day? At the least, if the connection to Rev is right, then this only suggest that maybe seven bowls happen at the time of the last seal (as some commentators do), but not one bowl per seal per trumpet. And do we then go back more into Joshua's life and find parallels for everything that happened? From Egypt, then Moses and the Law, then Moses' death... do these have parallels in the end times? Parallels are generally limited. Some aspects of Joshua parallel Christ, but not everything. Some aspects of Israel parallel the Church but not everything. The safest thing is to admit speculation as to parallels and not draw too many conclusions, unless Scripture says "this is a parallel."

Anyway, the problem is there's nothing in Revelation that demands we must compare this to Jericho. You can read it as a straightforward narrative without any immediate problem in reading. There's just no reason to force an outside book to interpret it.

We need disciplined thinking. We need people who are willing to take the risk, and stand on an explicit text of scripture, without wandering off. And if this verse says something, then this is what it means, and you take it on faith that this is so.

How many times did we mock those Christians who insist on taking a literal reading of scripture? Do you know what "literal" means? It doesn't mean that if you fall into God's hands, God actually has real human hands like us. No, everyone can recognize anthropomorphism, used to teach something about God using imagery we're familiar with. We know how to read poetry as poetry, symbolism, figurative speech, etc. We know that narrative and history doesn't read as poetry and different rules apply. You know already how to read a history book and a poetry book. Being literal is using language the way normal people do. Who in their right mind would not read the Bible literally? God used normal language, used normal men with their cultures and language, to write a book He tells us time and time again is meant to be read, understood and done. Ezra read the Torah, and people repented. They didn't spend days debating what was meant. They did it. Why? Because it was clear what God expected. They took it literally. Why shouldn't we?

These resultant conversations have been almost entirely depressing and frustrating. It's like I can feel my mind unable to follow the old arguments. I feel a certain twisting. I feel a breakdown in logic. I have an easier time talking with worldly coworkers about faith than with Brethren. If we talk about a verse, suddenly, I'm dragged all over scripture as they try to show how this verse impacts this other one, which in turn impacts another. It's sloppy thinking. It's like fathoming 1000s of lines of computer code, when the code sitting in front of me is a couple of short commands long. I don't understand how that mindset works. The only thing I feel from those conversations is the burning desire of the other to continue believing the way they do, despite all. How can I even debate that? Those other minds won't sit still or even follow simple hypotheticals such as: "let's assume that unbelievers don't come back and that they go into punishment for what they've done", followed by "how can/why should I assume that?" I can easily admit the possibility, for the sake or argument, that you are right. Then I can test it by scripture. If I'm wrong, I can change again -- after all, I did it once before. But if you can't admit even the possibility there's no way to let the scriptures be the ultimate decider on this issue.

I hear this a lot:

"Time will tell who is right". Yes, yes it will. But with so much at stake, why would you wait? Rather they don't believe much is at stake. They're not wrong, so there's no reason to explore or entertain another side just to verify. Look, if I'm wrong and you're right, outstanding for the world! If I've apostatized so much that I'm in your Second Death, but the world is OK, then I still don't feel bad. But if you're going out to the world, preaching a Kingdom that they will never see because they naturally don't want to repent and accept the Light which entered the World, and God knows it and Christ will hold them accountable...

What if there were people who got before God and claimed that you, who claimed to know God, told them they would come back in peace? What if, in all your witnessing you wanted so much to be liked and tell this good news, and these people die having remained in their delusion?

Can you imagine what's at stake? If you're preaching a false Gospel what are the chances that in your heart you've still believed the true one? Have none of these verses even hinted at this possibility to you? Isn't it at least worth considering and figuring out?

I get the "loving" proclamations from many Brethren, even family, that I am simply young and passionate, but inexperienced; that maybe after I've lived a while I'll understand. But understand what? It's the same book, today and tomorrow. Why should it change if I change? Will I read differently? Or really, are you simply admitting that your subjective experience in life is the ultimate decider of your Truth?

In arguing scripture you have to make convincing arguments why this verse should be interpreted this way or that. Too often, I keep hearing "yes, but we understand this..." If the verse is saying something different, and if you are unable to properly argue a different meaning from that verse and its context alone, then there's a logical probability that your understanding is wrong.

How many times have I heard Brethren lately look at someone who was obstinate or flagrantly sinful. And they say, this person will get his due in the Kingdom. This is beyond thinking they will have a "hard time" reworking old habits. Here, these Brethren actually do think there is some consequence for earlier sin. This is somewhat stranger because, among this group, there are no mandated consequences for each sin for all sinners. God can teach and discipline you to alter your behavior, but the result of any sin, is the same: death. Plain and simple. There's no more retribution or punishment after that. So justification becomes very simple: you are redeemed back to life. Yet some expect bad people will actually have some punishment for past sins.

Really? If justification is necessary to bring someone back to a resurrection, then what could God possibly have left against a sinner coming back in the kingdom for what already happened? They're justified, made right in God's eyes. They may not be sanctified but there is NO justice due if you're really justified. Understand, if Christ's sacrifices cancels the death sentence in Adam, such that an unbeliever is resurrected, at least concerning his past sins, he is spotless before God when he takes his breath. Wanting Stalin and Hitler and others to have a hard time is still our conscience struggling to hope for some justice, while denying an ultimate finale of justice. It's just not logical. Either their sins are washed away as they are resurrected, or they're not, and they're still dead in their sins awaiting condemnation. You can't have this salvation cake and eat your justice too.

As sinners, no one in his right mind should ever want there to be a real Hell. But if it's there, God I want to know! Wouldn't you? Letting me know about the cliff I am happily running over is the most loving thing God can do, short of yanking me back from it. Why are we so wed to what we want to believe? Yes, I know, that's almost a stupid question. That's human nature. We so often see only what we want to. God says it to, that we're blind, that Satan blinds us, that we blind ourselves, that He even blinds us after we blind ourselves to Him so that we can't see Him. This is not really the excusable blindness Brethren keep talking about, that some are blinded because its not the right time to repent.

Unfortunately, beyond this, the teachings are all tied together. I can't talk about one salvation, without some Bible Student interjecting points about "why are unbelievers resurrected at all" if they aren't saved? Because for them, the whole package makes sense, and if one point is jeopardized, then that doesn't fly with the package. Which is why if you can seriously doubt one doctrine, I expect it all falls. But you have to be able to look at one Scripture in isolation. You have let go your doctrinal package just long enough to examine a single teaching. You have to take the risk. Otherwise, you believe regardless of Scripture. Can your conscience live with that?

Take the risk. If your belief is really supported by scripture, then you won't encounter problem verses. You should have nothing to lose.

Research the scholarly opinions on this verse and that. You decide who is right by the weight of their arguments. Don't go with your gut feelings. You're a sinner and have an in-built bias to not want God to be just. Admit that and you can attempt to be impartial and critical. Don't reach for verses outside the immediate context unless you absolutely can't get any sense from your reading. Don't let your understanding of this verse depend on the larger theology you hold. If you don't like something, admit that you don't like it, but don't outright discard something because you don't like it. That's honesty in reading.

The reality is, one salvation depends on the atonement, which depends on a truly Divine Savior, which is predicated on Human total sinfulness, which necessitates God dragging people to salvation by His will, not ours. That's also a package. It's a different package. It makes perfect sense to me, but it took years to understand it, to have all of my thousands of questions, of problem scriptures, answered.

The difference is, I can look at nearly any random verse in the Bible, especially the New Testament, and I get the same picture in fairly simple words. You can't. You have to try to look at "all the verses together" and figure out the harmony in them that will defend what you already need to believe.

I believe it's that simple. Which is why my conversations are almost universally depressing with Bible Students. Their minds just won't go that far. Every scripture has a loophole, explained by something far outside the normal context. You naturally wouldn't do that with any other book but you think it's natural to do so with this One.

Ask a Hindu, or a Muslim, or even an Atheist -- it's better if they DON'T believe the Bible is right -- what this particular section of verses is intended to mean. They believe the Bible is wrong, period, so they have no inherent bias towards one or another interpretation of a verse. Ask them what they get from these verses above. They'll tell you what it says, and in most cases, it's plain. They don't have the Holy Spirit, they won't believe (likely), but they can at least read clearly.

Please. Do this. All you need is to read one verse assuming it means what it says, but to have the discipline to not try to wiggle out of it if it says differently then what you believe. If you can exercise this discipline, in the face of the threat to your whole package of teaching, you may just be able to see how elegantly and simply and clearly written scripture is.

You don't need every single book, chapter and verse to get the Gospel. It's stamped plainly on everything. Men and women have been often brought to God through the most rudimentary knowledge of scripture if you are willing to just let the book speak for itself. Unlike the Ethiopian eunuch who only had his Tanakh, we have a wealth of explanation already from the apostles. They meant to be clear.

Respectfully yours in Christ,

David Parkinson

Recommended Reading

John Macarthur, Jr – The Gospel According to Jesus

Robert Morey – Death and the Afterlife

John Metzger – The Tri-unity of God is Jewish

As for the last two, they read more like textbooks, going through each and every relevant verse in excruciating and relentless analytical detail. I had to read them in sections, surrendering to points rather than agreeing in many points. Indeed, I got through the first half of Morey’s book dealing with hell and took a year before I was brave enough to return to the second half discussing the question of whether a soul sleeps or is conscious after physical death. He made his case on both points. I can’t say I was terribly happy at the time on either. Understanding that there is a hell when you’ve assured others patiently that there wasn’t, is a terrifically nauseating realization.