To The Ends Of The Earth Blog

Once Saved Always Saved?

2026-10-21T12:53:58.518-07:00

The “once saved always saved” teaching is popular and widespread in American Christianity. But is it true? This is the idea that once a person comes to faith and accepts Jesus as Lord, he is eternally saved, no matter what may happen later in life.

And there certainly are many passages that talk about the eternal security of the believer. Perhaps the most popular is found in Romans: “For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor authorities nor present things nor those about to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Messiah Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39). But what if a person later turns away from this wonderful love of God?

To answer this question, we must understand what salvation actually is. The New Testament word for salvation (from the root sodzo) means deliverance from danger: from shipwreck (Acts 27:20), from illness (Matt. 9:22), from death (Matt. 27:42), etc. But the main theological meaning is deliverance from the wrath to come: “Much more then, having now been made righteous by his blood, we will be saved from the wrath of God through him” (Rom. 5:9). Being made right with God now, by the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice, is what leads to that future salvation.

But how do we get this righteousness that leads to salvation? “But for the one who is not working, but having faith in the one making the ungodly righteous, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). Righteousness is attained through faith. This is why the Bible speaks of being “saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8). This is often spoken of as something we experience now, because as Hebrew puts it: “But faith is the [present] reality of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). Faith is the reality we currently experience that points to this coming salvation.

So even when salvation is spoken of as a present reality, as it often is (“for by grace you have been saved,” Eph. 2:8; also Rom. 8:24-25, etc.), that present reality is pointing directly to a future salvation. And the connection between the two is faith. As Peter puts it: “...who by the power of God are being protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed at the end time” (1 Pet. 1:5). Our salvation will be revealed at the end. And until then, our faith, empowered by God, is what protects and keeps us for that coming salvation. Here we see the vital necessity of faith in keeping us for that future day of salvation.

Some, tragically, assume they are in a right relationship of faith even when they are not. Jesus addresses this directly in Matt. 7:23: “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; get away from me, you who are practicing lawlessness.’” But what about those who are in a right relationship? Is this a guarantee of future salvation? Or is faith something that must be nurtured and maintained?

In 1 Corinthians, Paul says: “through which [gospel] you also are saved by that word that I preached to you if you hold fast, unless you had faith in vain” (1 Cor. 15:2). Paul says that they had in fact “had faith” (or “believed”) in the past, which as we have seen is the basis of salvation. He also says that they currently “are saved” if they continue in that faith. But that salvation can be threatened if they don’t “hold fast” to the gospel. This implies a slipping away from their initial faith. Paul is clearly teaching here that salvation is something that can be lost.

Jesus put it this way: “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Holding fast or enduring is essential to maintaining that right relationship that leads to salvation. Salvation requires an ongoing commitment on our part. This statement would be completely unnecessary if salvation was the result of a moment of conviction, after which salvation could never be lost under any circumstances.

Paul expressed the same idea: “See, then, the goodness and severity of God: on those who have fallen, severity, but on you, the goodness of God—if you continue in his goodness; if not, you, too, will be cut off” (Rom. 11:22). This statement would make no sense if it were impossible for a believer to turn away from God’s goodness and be cut off.

A similar passage is in Colossians: “But now he has reconciled you with his fleshly body through death, in order to present you holy and without blemish and blameless before him, if you also remain in the faith, established and steadfast, and not moving away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard” (Col. 1:22-23). This is a message written to believers who have already been “reconciled” to God and are “in the faith.” But remaining in the faith is not a given. He says “if you also remain in the faith” and are “not moving away from the hope of the gospel.” If it’s not possible to turn away from the faith and leave behind the reconciliation we have with God through Jesus, these words make no sense.

The writer of Hebrews expresses a similar sentiment: “But Messiah was faithful as a son over his house; whose house we are, if we hold on to the boldness and the proud boast of our hope” (Heb. 3:6). Here again, he’s clearly speaking to believers who are already members of the household of God. But that membership in God’s house requires us to hold on to the hope of the gospel, and not abandon it.

Later he continues, “For it’s impossible for those who, having once been enlightened, and having tasted the heavenly gift, and having become partakers of a holy Spirit, and having tasted the good word of God and the powers of a coming age, and having turned away, to restore them again to repentance, as they are crucifying again to themselves the Son of God and putting him to shame” (Heb. 6:4-6). Surely those who have been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and partaken of the Holy Spirit are believers. But here he clearly says that they can turn away from the faith and from the repentance by which they could be saved.

Jesus also said: “Anyone who approves of me before people, the Son of Man will approve of him before the angels of God; the one who has denied me before people will be denied before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8-9). We know that Peter committed this sin (Matt. 26:72), but he repented and was forgiven (Matt. 26:75). What if he had not repented?

Paul says much the same thing, though directed more clearly at believers: “If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, that one will also deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12). We must endure in faith to the end. But if we don’t, and we turn and deny Jesus, we will not reign with him. These verses are not talking about a season of doubt or struggle. They imply a point of decision that has led to a public denial of Jesus: flipping from belief to non-belief, denying the faith by which salvation is made possible.

If this is true, that maintaining our faith until the end is something that we must do, does this turn salvation into a salvation by works? This is a common criticism by those who maintain the “one saved always saved” point of view. But the Biblical debate over salvation by works refers to “works of the Law,” in other words, the requirements of the Mosaic Law: “For we consider a man to be made righteous by faith, apart from works of the Law” (Rom 3:28, 3:20; Gal. 2:16, 3:2, etc.). Faith, this teaches, is not a work of the Law. But it is a type of work: a work of faith. “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you have faith in the one that that one [God] has sent’” (John 6:29). Works of the Law can make no one righteous. But the work of faith is necessary for salvation.

THE REQUIREMENT OF OBEDIENCE

Faith is not the only requirement of the New Covenant. As Jesus put it: “But why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but don’t do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). Or as John puts it: “By this we know that we have come to know him: if we obey his commands” (1 John 2:3). A covenant relationship has requirements for all parties involved: otherwise, it wouldn’t be a covenant, which simply means an agreement or contract. One essential part of our covenant with God is forgiveness: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive sins for us and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). But is it possible for a believer to sin so much or so deliberately that it is in effect a denial of God? As Paul put it: “They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny him” (Titus 1:16). This verse could also certainly apply to those who were never true believers to begin with.

But what about this verse in 1 Timothy: “But if anyone does not provide for his own (family), and especially (his own) household, he has denied the faith and is worse than a non-believer” (1 Tim. 5:8). Paul doesn’t say that this is a person who never believed to begin with. To be “worse than a non-believer” implies that this is a believer, but by his actions he has denied the faith.

We see the same logic in 2 Peter: “For if they, having escaped from the defiling deeds of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus the Messiah, but having again been entangled by these things are overcome, this latter situation is worse for them than the former” (2 Pet. 2:20). If they had never been true believers to begin with, how could they be in a worse situation than that? It’s only if they had genuinely escaped the world by knowing Jesus and then turned back to “the defiling deeds of the world” that it could be worse. “For it would have been better for them not to have known the Way of righteousness than having known it to turn back from the holy commandment that was delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:21). Notice that Peter reproaches them for turning back “from the holy commandment,” that is, Jesus’ instruction to avoid “defiling deeds.” Yes, we cannot be saved by good deeds of the Law. But our evil deeds can accumulate to such a degree that they are in fact a denial of the faith.

As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Similarly, in Galatians 5:21, speaking to believers, he lists a set of serious sins and concludes: “...of which I warn you in advance, just as I have warned you before, that those doing such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

There is a lifestyle that must be the goal of all believers: “Pursue peace with all, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). This holiness isn’t presented as an option. Rather, it’s a required goal for all true believers. This doesn’t mean that believers are immediately cut off because of a moment of sin. Our covenant with God through the blood of Jesus provides a remedy for sin. But we must take advantage of this provision in our covenant by repenting and turning back to God. The problem is when a heart is hardened, and there is no more desire to repent. This isn’t only a danger for those who overtly turn away from God and publicly reject their former faith. It’s also a danger for believers who secretly stop fighting against sin.

THE SIN OF THE UPLIFTED HAND

So where is the line we must not cross? In the Old Covenant, it was the sin of the uplifted hand, in other words, intentional sin. “And the soul that does anything with an uplifted hand [defiantly], from the native (Israelites) or from the (Gentile) strangers, he is blaspheming the LORD; and that soul will be cut off from among his people, for he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment. That soul will be completely cut off; his iniquity will be on him” (Num. 15:30-31). For this kind of intentional, defiant disobedience, no sacrifice was available.

This same standard is also applied in the New Covenant: “For should we willingly continue to sin after our reception of the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a zealous fire about to consume his adversaries. Anyone having rejected the Law of Moses dies without mercy on (the testimony of) two or three witnesses. How much worse a punishment do you think he will be worthy of who has trampled on the son of God and considered the blood of the covenant unclean by which he was made holy, and insults the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:26-29). This is the same standard we saw in the Old Covenant: willful, intentional disobedience to God.

So what’s the answer? Yes, sin can accumulate to the point where no sacrifice is available. Where is that point exactly? The key phrase here is “willingly continue to sin.” This is not someone struggling with sin and who later repents. This is someone who has given up the fight and is perfectly happy to continue in sin without any meaningful attempt to repent and change. This is very dangerous. And if we don’t warn sinners like these to repent, we become responsible for misleading them. As God said to Ezekiel:

“And when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does wrong, and I set a stumbling block before him, he will die, for you did not warn him. He will die in his sin, and his righteousness that he did will not be remembered. And his blood I will require from your hand” (Ezek. 3:20).

The “once saved always saved” teaching provides false assurance for those who turn away from faith or who willingly continue in sin. It claims that they can never lose their salvation, while the Bible directly teaches that they can. This is dangerous not just for that person, but also, as Ezekiel warns us, for those who fail to warn sinners because of this false teaching. How much better to warn believers of the dangers of sin and unbelief, so they can repent and be restored! As God also said to Ezekiel:

“And if you warned him—the righteous—that the righteous should not sin, and he did not sin, he will live, for he was warned, and you have delivered your soul” (Ezek. 3:21).

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

Copyright © 2026 by To The Ends Of The Earth Ministries

www.totheends.com

What’s the Difference between Paradise and Heaven?

2026-03-17T11:48:00.000-07:00

Today, most people think of paradise and heaven as one and the same. But originally they referred to two completely different places. How different? In the original languages of the Bible, heaven (or “the heavens”) referred to the atmosphere and everything above it. So we have the “birds of the heavens”(Gen. 1:26, etc.),* “the stars of the heavens” (Gen. 26:4, etc. ), “the angels of the heavens” (Matt. 24:36), and “the God of the heavens” (Gen. 24:7).

* Sometimes translated the “birds of the sky.” But the original Hebrew word used is heavens (shamayim).

Paradise, on the other hand, referred to an earthly garden: the Garden of Eden. This came from the ancient Greek translation of the Bible, where “Garden of Eden” is translated “Paradise.”* The word “paradise” comes from the Old Persian pairi-daeza, which came to mean an enclosed garden, in other words, a garden enclosed by a wall.

* The ancient Greek translation of the Bible, also known as the Septuagint or LXX, was completed before the time of Jesus. It was influential in the early Church, being quoted even in the New Testament.

But by New Testament times, “Garden of Eden” (Gan Eden or Paradise) was also used as the name of the spiritual place where the souls of the righteous went after death. This is still the case in Judaism today. It was often described as a garden-like environment, as it also is in Islam. But this, too, was a different place than the presence of God in heaven.

The difference between heaven and paradise can be seen in the New Testament. When Jesus was on the cross, he said to one of the thieves that were being crucified with him, “Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). But three days later, after he arose from the dead, he said to Mary Magdalene, “I am not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17). And he didn’t ascend until forty days later (Acts 1:9). This shows that paradise, where Jesus’ soul went immediately after death, is a different place than the immediate presence of the Father God in heaven.

At that time, many understood this spiritual paradise to be the “good” side of Hades (or Sheol), where all souls went after death.* This is the implication of Peter’s message: “[David] spoke about the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was neither abandoned to Hades nor did his flesh experience decay” (Acts 2:31). In other words, Jesus’ spirit went to the paradise in Hades, but he didn’t stay there, but was raised up again.**

* Hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol.

** This is the basis of the line in the Apostles’ Creed that Jesus “descended into Hades.” This phrase, sometimes translated “he descended into hell,” actually means that Jesus descended to the good side of Hades, and has nothing to do with the place of eternal punishment of the wicked (Gehenna).

In fact, Jesus taught directly that those who believe in him would remain in Hades until the resurrection: “I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). In other words, those who believe in him will not be held in Hades forever, but will break out of those gates in the resurrection.

According to Josephus, this multi-purpose view of Hades was also shared by the Pharisees:

They also believe that souls have an immortal strength in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or wickedly in this life; and these [the wicked] are to be displayed publicly in an eternal prison, but those [the righteous] will have the relief of returning to life. (Antiquities 18:14)*

* According to Josephus, the Pharisees taught that only the righteous will experience the resurrection (Wars 2:163).

That Paradise and Hades were spatially close to each other can be seen in Jesus’ parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31). The soul of the rich man, suffering in the bad part of Hades, calls out to Lazarus, who is on the other, good side, also known as the “bosom of Abraham,” another common name for Paradise (Luke 16:23-24). But despite being in these two different locations, they are close enough to have a conversation.

This Hades (or Sheol) was generally pictured in the Old Testament as down in the underworld somewhere, an idea shared with many ancient cultures, including ancient Rome and Greece. But over the years, the recognition that Hades (or Sheol) was a spiritual and not a physical place led to some uncertainty about where exactly it was located. Some began to put it in some distant place on the surface of the earth (1 Enoch 32). Others felt it was more appropriate, as a spiritual place, to locate it in one of the lower heavens, specifically in the third heaven (2 Enoch 8, 3 Baruch 4).

This last view seems to have been the understanding of the apostle Paul. When he spoke of a vision of paradise, he placed it in the third heaven: “I know a man in Messiah more than fourteen years ago, whether in the body or out of the body I don’t know, God knows, such a one was snatched up to the third heaven… He was snatched up into paradise and he heard inexpressible words which it is not permitted for a man to speak” (2 Cor. 12:2,4). Though many assume that Paul is talking about the highest heaven here, it’s important to note that he doesn’t say that this paradise was in the presence of the Father God.*

* This heavenly paradise is known as the “upper Garden of Eden” or upper paradise in modern Judaism. In later years, some began to teach that the Paradise of Adam and Eve had been moved up to the third heaven, and would eventually be restored to the earth.

To reconcile these different ideas about the location of paradise, the Church developed a teaching called the Harrowing of Hades. The idea is that when Jesus’ soul was in the underworldly paradise—the “good side” of Hades—after his death and before his resurrection, he preached the gospel to the righteous souls that were there. These accepted the gospel and went with him when he ascended into heaven. So according to this teaching, Jesus moved paradise from earth to heaven. But even so, this new heavenly paradise was long understood to be different than the direct presence of God in the highest heaven. It wasn’t until 1336 that the formerly novel idea that souls see God immediately after death was made a Church doctrine.*

* Before this decision was made, Pope John XXII (1244-1334) maintained the older teaching that souls will not see the Father God until after the general resurrection and Final Judgment. Rather they await the resurrection in the presence of Jesus: “having the eager desire to depart [this life] and to be with Messiah” (Phil. 1:23, also 2 Cor. 5:8). Support for this idea was found in the souls kept “under the altar” until the return of Jesus (Rev. 6:9). This is similar to the Jewish idea of a heavenly Treasury of Souls (Otzar HaNeshamot or Guf).

The Harrowing of Hades teaching, though, is not the only way to understand the location of Paradise. Another approach is to assume that a spiritual place like Paradise is not located in any particular physical place at all, or at least not of the kind we can currently understand. And so talking about it as being under the earth or up in heaven is only an aid to visualization, not a meaningful description of its location.

But wherever it’s located, paradise as it currently exists is only temporary. It will be emptied at the time of the “resurrection of the righteous,” also known as the “first resurrection” (Luke 14:14, Rev. 20:5-6). This is the resurrection that will take place at Jesus’ return, when the dead in Messiah will rise first: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of a chief messenger and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Messiah will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16).

Then, after a blessed time with Messiah on the earth, a new paradise will appear—or perhaps it will be the old one in a new guise. This will be in the New Jerusalem, which is also described as “the paradise of God,” where the “tree of life” will be located, just like in the original Garden of Eden (compare Rev. 2:7 with Rev. 22:2,14,19). In this way, paradise will finally be restored to mankind after all the troubles and tribulation created by our sin. But even here, this paradise on the “new earth” will be distinct from the “new heavens” above (Isa. 65:17,22; 2 Pet. 3:13, Rev. 21:1).

For more on this topic, check out my blog post on “Hell, Hades, and Gehenna: A List of Verses” or my post on Can the Gospel be Preached to the Dead? (The “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Pet. 3:18-20).

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

Copyright © 2026 by To The Ends Of The Earth Ministries

www.totheends.com

If Jacob and Moses saw God, how can Jesus say that no one has seen God? (Q&A)

2026-02-21T11:09:00.000-08:00

Q: In Genesis 32:30, Jacob says, “I have seen God face to face.” Moses, too, saw God “face to face” (Exo. 33:11). So how can Jesus say that that “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18)?

A: That’s a great question. It’s the same kind of question that the New Testament was written to answer. How is it possible that people had actually seen God (“And they saw the God of Israel,” Exo. 24:10), but also that he could never be seen (“No man can see me and live,” Exo. 33:20)? And what can it possibly mean, for example, that the “LORD” (YHWH) stood there with Moses (in Exo. 34:5) while the “LORD” (YHWH) passed by (or over) him (in Exo. 34:6)? Passages like these are mind-bending to say the least. They led to all kinds of speculation in Israel about the nature and identity of God, including the “two powers in heaven” idea that the later rabbis rejected.

The first verse that you mention, John 1:18, begins to unlock the New Testament’s answer: “No one has ever seen God; an only begotten God, the one who is in the bosom of [or beside] the Father, that one has made him known.” The New Testament’s answer is that there are two distinct identities in heaven: (1) the God no one has ever seen (or the God “who is in secret” as Jesus put it in Matt. 6:6), and (2) a begotten God, also known as the Son of God, who has revealed this hidden Father. Early Christians understood this to mean that when the Bible speaks about people seeing God, it’s referring to the begotten God, God the Son. So when Adam or Abraham or Moses or any of the others saw God, they were actually seeing the Son of God, also referred to at times as the Messenger (or Angel) of the Lord. So for example, when the “captain of the Lord’s army” (Josh. 5:14) speaks as the “LORD” (YHWH) to Joshua (Josh. 6:2), this was the Son of God appearing as the Messenger of the Lord. Or when Ezekiel saw someone with the appearance of a man seated on the throne of the chariot of God (Eze. 1:26), who then speaks as the LORD (YHWH; Eze. 2:4), this too was the Son of God (compare Eze. 1:28 with Heb. 1:3). This was who Moses and the elders of Israel saw on Mt. Sinai (Exo. 24:10).

Though this answer to the problem may seem to mean that there are two gods, as some Christian heretics understood it (notably the Gnostics), orthodox Christians were always careful to explain that this Son of God was not a different God. As Jesus put it, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). How exactly the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are one God has been the subject of lots of speculation ever since. But this all grew from pre-Christian speculation in Israel, based on the Hebrew scriptures, that there was some kind of complexity or plurality within the one true God.

For more on this topic, be sure to check out the article about Jesus on our website with its links to several specific teachings on the different appearances of the Son of God in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament): https://www.totheends.com/jesus.html

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

Copyright © 2026 by To The Ends Of The Earth Ministries

Originally posted on Quora in 2017

www.totheends.com

Is the Rapture a Biblical Teaching? The Surprising Jewish Roots of the Rapture in the Greek Old Testament

2025-03-19T01:56:00.000-07:00

Is the rapture Biblical? That depends on what you mean by “rapture.” Many Christians have heard of the rapture of the Left Behind series of books and movies. This is the idea that there will be a secret, first coming of Messiah in which he catches up the believers into heaven. Only after that, after a “seven-year tribulation period,” will he return in his second, public coming. This teaching is quite popular right now in conservative churches. But the idea of a secret rapture is quite recent, dating back only to the 1800’s.* What did Christians believe before that?

* This is part of the theological system known as dispensationalism. Many dispensationalists teach not only this one, but two or even three raptures. For a critique of dispensationalism, see my book: The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 says: “For the Lord himself with a shout, with the voice of an archangel and with the sound of a trumpet of God, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Messiah will rise first; then we, the living who remain, at the same time together with them will be snatched up [rapiemur] in the clouds in order to meet the Lord in the air: and in this way we will always be together with the Lord.”

The word “rapture” comes from the Latin for “will be snatched up” (rapiemur) in this passage.* This idea of the “catching away” or “snatching up” of believers is therefore a fully Biblical teaching. The language is also quite clear: we will meet the Lord in the air amidst the clouds of the sky as he descends from heaven. There is, however, no mention of it being a secret event or that we will disappear into heaven with Jesus. Rather it plainly states that we will meet him “in the air.”

* Latin was the language of the official Bible translation used in Western Christianity for more than a thousand years (the Latin Vulgate).

So why is this idea so unfamiliar in traditional Christian churches? This is because of the many debates about the end times that have taken place throughout Church history. Beginning in the 5th century AD or so, traditional churches rejected the idea of a separate, first resurrection of believers (the “first resurrection” of Rev. 20:5-6). This was because of their rejection of a future Millennium or Messianic Kingdom in which Jesus will reign on the earth (Rev. 20:1-6).* As a result, they came to understand 1 Thessalonians 4 as a general resurrection of all the dead.** This would then be followed immediately by the Final Judgment.

* This was in part due to the rise of anti-Semitism in the Church. A future Millennium in which Jesus would reign from Jerusalem was seen as “too Jewish.” However, this Messianic Kingdom on earth is the subject of many Old and New Testament prophecies and is still taught in traditional Judaism today. For more on the Church’s rejection of the Millennium, see our teaching, “Neglected Issues in the Debate About the Millennium.”

** Despite the fact that 1 Thessalonians only mentions the “dead in Messiah” rising up at that time (1 Thess. 4:16).

So what did the Church believe before that, before the Millennium teaching was rejected? Some claim that the “catching away” of believers is mentioned only in 1 Thessalonians, and so is subject to interpretation. But there is a very similar passage in Revelation 11, when the two witnesses ascend “up into the sky in the cloud” (Rev. 11:12).* The similarity is even closer if we recognize that these two witnesses represent the entire Church: a popular interpretation that many Christians have held over the centuries.** But this, too, is not a secret event. It says that “their enemies watched them” as they ascended (Rev. 11:12).

* The word for sky used here (ouranos) generally refers to that which is above, translated “sky” or “heaven” according to the context. While this verse is often translated “up into the heaven,” the mention of clouds indicates that this is the “first heaven,” the lowest of the heavens, which refers to the air around us. The Hebrew Bible always speaks of a plurality of heavens, which include the atmosphere around us, the starry heavens above, and the heaven above that in which God dwells.

** This is an example of corporate personality: when a person or persons are used to represent a group of people. Other examples in the Bible are Adam representing mankind, Israel representing the nation of Israel, and the body of Messiah representing the Church.

There are many examples of people being “caught up” in the Bible: from Enoch (“for God took him,” Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5), to Elijah (who “ascended the heavens in the storm-wind,” 2 Kings 2:11), to Paul (who “was snatched up to the third heaven,” 2 Cor. 12:2). Paul’s experience of being “snatched up” is described using the same Greek verb as in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (arpadzo). This same verb is also used of Philip’s experience in Acts 8:39, when “the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away” (Acts 8:40). Lot and his family had a similar experience when they were “set down” or “lowered down” (yanichuhu) outside of Sodom after being taken out by the hand by angels (Gen. 19:16).* The clear implication is that the angels flew them out of the city. So the idea of people being “caught up” by God or by angels is not strange to the Bible.

* For more on Lot’s experience with angels, see our teaching “Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Lot’s experience with angels helps us better understand Jesus’ own description of his return: “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land will beat their breasts [in mourning], and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:30-31). This passage doesn’t mention directly being caught up in the clouds. But if angels come to take us somewhere, I don’t think we’ll be walking. And if they gather us to Jesus, who will be up in “the clouds,” it’s a fair assumption that we will be in the clouds with him, just as 1 Thessalonians teaches.

But where did Jesus and the apostles get this idea of meeting Jesus in the air? It wasn’t their practice to introduce new doctrines, but rather to base their teachings firmly on the Old Testament. One of their sources was a passage in Isaiah that also mentions the blowing of a loud trumpet and the “gathering up” or “picking up” of God’s people: “And you will be picked up one by one, sons of Israel. And it will be in that day that a signal will be blown with a great trumpet, and those perishing in the land of Assyria will come, and those scattered in the land of Egypt, and they will bow down [in worship] to the LORD in the holy mountain in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 27:12-13). At first glance, this may not seem to have anything to do with a resurrection. But a few verses earlier, a strange passage is found, here translated literally: “Your dead will live, my corpse, they will rise. Wake up and shout for joy, you who dwell in the dust” (Isaiah 26:19). The verse is difficult, but it’s clearly talking about resurrection. And this is how the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (also known as the LXX), understands this entire section.* It translates Isaiah 27:13: “And it will be in that day, they will blow the great trumpet, and those who have perished in the country of Assyria and those who have perished in Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 27:13 LXX). According to this translation, when the trumpet blows, the dead will be raised, and they will come to worship in Jerusalem. This is a good example of the close relationship between the Septuagint and the teaching of the New Testament.

* Why is the Septuagint important? Modern scroll discoveries have shown that many of the minor differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text or MT) are based on different Hebrew source texts. This means that in many cases, the Septuagint may provide a more accurate understanding of the original. This was certainly the understanding of the apostles, who often quote from the Septuagint in the New Testament. There are many reasons to value the Septuagint. Its translation of the five books of Moses was completed about 250 years before the time of Jesus. This was done with the approval of the high priest in Jerusalem and under the authority of King Ptolemy II of Egypt. The rest of the Old Testament was finished in the next 150 years or so. The Septuagint was officially received by the Jewish community in Egypt, and celebrated with an annual feast (Philo, Life of Moses 2.41-42). Since few early Christians understood Hebrew, the Septuagint served as the Old Testament for Christians for hundreds of years. It’s still considered authoritative today by Orthodox churches (Eastern Orthodox). The Septuagint only fell out of favor with Jewish religious leaders after the time of Jesus because it so closely supported the Christian message.

Jesus had this same passage in mind when he described how God’s people would be “picked up one by one,” as Isaiah put it (Isa. 27:12). In Matthew, he said, “Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and one will be left behind. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken along and one will be left behind” (Matt. 24:40-41). In many translations, it’s hard to tell whether it’s better to be taken along or left behind. But the range of meaning of the words used here makes it clear: “taken along” (paralambano) also indicates “accepted” and “received,” while “left behind” (aphiemi) implies “sent off” or “abandoned.” Those “taken along” are those that will be caught up when the trumpet is blown and when the dead in Messiah are raised.

But while Isaiah mentions a great trumpet, the resurrection, and being caught up, he makes no mention of meeting Messiah in the clouds. Where does that come from? It’s from Daniel 7:13: “I was looking in visions of the night, and look: with the clouds [anani] of the heavens, one like a son of man was coming, and he reached the Ancient of Days and they brought him near before him.” This coming of Messiah on the clouds was so well known that the rabbis considered Anani to be one of the names of the Messiah (Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Toldot 20:1; Midrash Tanchuma, Toldot 14:2).

But what about the believers meeting Jesus in the clouds? For this, we have to turn once again to the Septuagint (the LXX). This same verse reads: “I was looking in a vision of the night, and look: on the clouds of heaven, as a son of man he was appearing, and as an Ancient of Days he was coming, and those serving him were coming to him” (Daniel 7:13 LXX). Here, the Son of Man is not being presented to the Ancient of Days (the Father God), rather he is coming “as an Ancient of Days,” in other words, he is coming as God. And who comes out to meet him in the clouds? “Those serving him were coming to him”—coming, that is, to meet him in the clouds (Daniel 7:13 LXX). These are the believers being caught up to meet Jesus.

The rabbis were not unfamiliar with this idea of being caught up to the clouds in the time of the Messianic Kingdom. “Rav Nachman said, ‘What has been is what will be’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Just as the Lord took Israel out of Egypt with glorious clouds and carried them, as it is said (in Exodus 19:4), ‘I bore you on eagles’ wings,’ so he will do for them [in the future], as it is said (in Isaiah 60:8), ‘Who are these that fly like a cloud?’” (Midrash on Psalms 48:5, also Yalkut Shimoni on Nach [Isaiah] 503; similarly Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Tzav 16:1 and Sanh. 92b).

But what is the point of meeting Jesus in the air like this? This reflects the ancient custom of going out to meet a victorious conqueror as he drew near to a city and then accompanying him as he entered the city in triumph. This is just what the people did with Jesus when he entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (Matt. 21:7-9). But this time, it will be on a much grander scale. As Zechariah puts it, again turning to the Septuagint: “And the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones will be with him” (Zech. 14:5 LXX).*

* As also in Rev. 19:8,14.

So is the rapture a Biblical teaching? Yes, if we understand it in the original sense, as referring to the one and only return of Jesus. But this is taught not only in one passage of the Bible. This catching away and others like it are mentioned in several different places. And the catching away when Jesus returns, the greatest of them all, is firmly based on Old Testament prophecy. Thanks to the Septuagint, we can gain a lot more insight into how Jesus and the disciples understood this important coming event. It is, as Paul describes it, “the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and savior, Messiah Jesus” (Titus 2:13). “Maranatha!” (“Come, Lord Jesus,” 1 Cor. 16:22).

More Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Rich Young Ruler (Matt. 19)

2024-12-30T20:37:00.000-08:00

The rich young ruler asked Jesus: “What good deed must I do to have eternal life?” Jesus answered, “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:16-17). But...wait! Was Jesus really telling him that eternal life comes by obeying the Law of Moses? It may sound that way at first. But by the end of the conversation, Jesus was talking about discipleship: “Come follow me” (Matt. 19:21). So then why does he tell the man to obey the commandments? A common interpretation is that Jesus points to the Law as a reminder of our inability to keep its commands. But to this, the man responds: “I have kept all these things” (Matt. 19:20). And Jesus never contradicts him.

This young man wasn’t the only one to claim he had fully obeyed the Law of Moses. The parents of John the Baptist, for example, were “both righteous in God’s sight, walking blameless in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). They had fully obeyed the Law’s commands. The apostle Paul, too, before his salvation, says he was “blameless according to the righteousness that is in the Law” (Phil. 3:6). And there were many others. Obeying the Law was not impossible, as some incorrectly teach.*

* Being fully obedient to the Law didn’t mean you never sinned. Unintentional sins or minor offenses could be atoned for by offering a sacrifice in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. But it did mean that you had avoided intentional sins, for which no offering was available (Num. 15:27-31).

But the young man knew that his obedience to the Law had not saved him. So he continued, “What am I still lacking?” (Matt. 19:20). Even perfect obedience to the Law doesn’t bring salvation. Why not? Because there is no promise of eternal life in the Law of Moses.

So then what are the promises of the Law of Moses? Having many children, having abundant crops, living in the land of Israel, having a long life, having victory over enemies, and many others (Deut. 28:1-14). But these are all promises for this present life. Eternal life isn’t one of them. For that, you have to go beyond the Law. And that’s what Jesus was helping the young man to see.

At first, the young ruler assumed that all he needed was some good deed, a mitzvah as it’s called in Hebrew: “What good deed must I do to have eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16). This idea came naturally to someone living under the Law of Moses. The good deed of honoring your parents, for example, gets you the reward of long life: “that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you” (Exo. 20:12).

But for this young man to understand, Jesus had to take him beyond the Law. “Why are you asking me about what is good? One alone is good” (Matt. 19:17). Or as Mark and Luke record it, “No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19). Paul expresses the same idea by quoting the Psalms: “Not one is righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10 quoting Psalm 14:3). Even our righteous deeds are “filthy rags” in God’s sight (Isa. 64:6 KJV).* Some claim that Jesus’ response is proof that he isn’t God. But he is instead pointing to a contradiction in the man’s request. Since we are not good in God’s sight, it’s impossible for us to do good. Even our obedience to God is tainted.

* The literal meaning in Hebrew is even more graphic: “All our righteous deeds are as the [unclean] clothes of a menstruating woman” (Isa. 64:6).

That’s when Jesus mentions obeying the commandments: “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). Notice carefully, though, that he only mentions “life” and not “eternal life.” This was a common Jewish teaching: that obeying the commandments brings life. It comes from Leviticus 18:5: “And you will keep my statutes and my judgments [the Law] which if a man will do them, he will live by them.” Paul mentions this same teaching in Romans 10:5: “For Moses writes of the righteousness that comes from law, ‘The man who has done these things will live by them.’” In other words, he will live and not die as a result of disobedience. But this promise of life concerns only this present life, not eternal life. And that’s exactly what Jesus is helping the young man to see: that eternal life is not one of the rewards given for obedience to the Law.

The commandments that Jesus goes on to mention are some of the most important commandments in the Law: “You will not commit murder, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal, you will not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and you will love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:18-19). These are things that every Jewish person knew from childhood (Luke 18:21). And they expected that obedience to these commandments would bring them life. But the young man wanted something more. And that’s why he asked, “What do I still lack?”

This young ruler wasn’t the only Jewish person to realize the limits of the Law of Moses. Today, too, Jewish people who accept Jesus know that the commandments they’ve been observing all their lives did not and cannot bring eternal life. For that something else is needed. And that’s why Jesus goes on to say, “If you want to be perfect [perfected or complete in the sense of reaching the goal, teleios]...come, follow me” (Matt. 19:21). Eternal life cannot be found in the Law. It can only be found by following Jesus.

But this is no easy calling. The full verse says, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in the heavens; and come, follow me” (Matt. 19:21). It wasn’t just the rich young ruler that Jesus said this to. He says it to everyone: “Any of you that doesn’t give up [or leave behind, apotassetai] all his own possessions cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33, also Luke 12:33). Jesus was leading the rich young man into a completely new kind of life: life in the Messiah. This is the only path to eternal life. Unfortunately, the young man wasn’t willing to accept the challenge. “He went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property” (Matt. 19:22).

This young ruler wasn’t the only one to turn away because of wealth. As Jesus went on to explain: “Amen I say to you, it’s difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt. 19:23). How difficult? “It’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matt. 19:24). Can a camel go through the eye of a needle? Obviously not. Many have tried to evade Jesus’ clear meaning by claiming that there was a special gate in Jerusalem called the “Eye of the Needle.” Since this was a small gate, they say, the camels had to kneel down to get through. But this is a made-up story. Today we know a lot about the gates of Jerusalem, especially in the time of Jesus. And as my archeology professor puts it: no such gate has ever been found or even mentioned.

No, Jesus was referring to the eye of an actual needle. And his point, very clearly, was that it’s impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God—at least not without a miracle. As he went on to say, “For men, this is impossible. But for God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).

But not all have turned away from Jesus’ challenge. After the rich young ruler walked away, Peter said, “We have left everything and followed you” (Matt. 19:27). And in response Jesus promised, “Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for my name’s sake will receive a hundredfold [now “in this time” according to Mark and Luke] and inherit eternal life [“in the age to come” according to Mark and Luke]” (Matt. 19:29). These are promises that go far beyond anything found in the Law of Moses. And they’re available to everyone who dares to accept Jesus’ calling: “Come, follow me” (Matt. 19:21).

More Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

When Was Daniel’s 70th Week Fulfilled? (Q&A)

2024-10-17T02:17:00.000-07:00

The following question is from one of our recent seminars on the Book of Revelation. The question assumes that the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 will take place in the future. This teaching is popular in conservative churches. This is, however, a relatively recent teaching, first appearing the 19th century. Before that, Christians taught that the 70th week of Daniel had already been fulfilled. And they had good evidence to back it up, as mentioned in the answer below. The original series of three questions and answers has been consolidated to make for easier reading.

Q: I heard the teacher say that Daniel’s seventy sevens [the seventy weeks in Dan. 9:24-27] have been completed. Could you please clarify the following questions:

1) Starting from 445 BC with Ezra, regardless of what major events followed, it doesn’t fit with the 490 years [the seventy weeks]. How is it calculated that it has already been completed?

2) Who is the person mentioned in Daniel 9:27 that makes a covenant with the many? Which covenant is this, and when was it signed? What does the last seven [the 70th week], which is divided into [two sections of] 3.5 years, refer to?

3) The purpose of these seventy sevens (Daniel 9:24) relates to Israel’s future, concerning the complete removal of sin, atonement for wickedness, the establishment of eternal righteousness, the sealing of vision and prophecy, and the events leading to Jesus’ establishment of His millennial kingdom. Early Jewish Christians were still expecting this day. Therefore, the last seven should refer to the final judgment at the second coming of the Lord, because the appearance of the righteous seven years after the Messiah’s death did not happen, and the destruction of Jerusalem also does not fit within the seven-year period (it happened 37 years later). Interpreting this allegorically seems far-fetched. So, should this refer to a future seven-year period, ending with the final judgment of sin and Christ’s reign of righteousness? I just can't agree that the purpose of the 70 sevens [the seventy weeks in Dan. 9] was achieved at that time; at least prophecy was not closed at that time. Isn’t the Book of Revelation a prophecy? Could the teacher comment and provide some references? Thank you. –Theresa

A: “And you will know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed ruler [Messiah the prince] there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks” (Dan. 9:25).

1) The “word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (in Dan. 9:25) was issued in the seventh year of the Persian king Artaxerxes I (458-57 BC). This was in the time of Nehemiah, when Artaxerxes gave Nehemiah written permission to rebuild the city: “And I said to the king [Artaxerxes], ‘If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor before you, send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ tombs, that I may rebuild it.’.... And I said to the king, ‘If it please the king, let letters be given to me for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah.’... And the king gave them to me” (Neh. 2:5-8).

Then there were sixty-nine weeks of years (483 years) “until Messiah the prince” (Dan. 9:25) in about AD 25-26. This is when Jesus was revealed at his baptism (John 1:31).

“And after the sixty-two weeks, Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing” refers to the crucifixion of Jesus in AD 30 (Dan. 9:26).

“The people of the coming ruler will destroy the city [Jerusalem] and the holy place [the Temple]” (in Dan. 9:26) was fulfilled when the Romans destroyed the city and the Temple in AD 70. This was also in fulfillment of many of the prophecies of Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem.... Look, your House [the Temple] is being left to you desolate” (Matt. 23:37-38). “For the days will come on you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground...” (Luke 19:42-44, also Luke 21:20-24, etc.).

2) “And he will confirm a covenant for the many for one week, and for half the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering; and on the pinnacle of abominations [the Temple according to the LXX] will be one that makes desolate, even until its destruction; and when it [the desolation] is cut off, it [destruction] will pour out on the one causing desolation” (Dan. 9:27)

Dan. 9:27 actually begins with “And he will confirm a covenant” (higbir in Hebrew). This is not the Hebrew word for making a covenant, which is to “cut” a covenant (karat in Hebrew). Instead, this refers to applying a covenant that is already in force.

So then what “covenant” is being confirmed here? The “covenant” (berit in Hebrew) mentioned here is a word used only of covenants with God. This means that the “he” who confirms the covenant in Dan. 9:27 is God.

So which of God’s covenants is he enforcing here, that brings the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple? It is God’s covenant with Israel—the Law of Moses—in which he warned over and over that they would be punished for disobedience. This punishment was prophesied by Moses himself (Deut. 28:49-68, 32:23-27). These prophecies don’t only concern the first time that Israel was exiled, by the Babylonians, but also a second time after that. This can be seen in Deut. 28:64: “The LORD will scatter you among all peoples.” During the Babylonian exile, they were scattered to only one or at most a couple of nations. Only after the wars with Rome were they scattered literally to all nations.

Isaiah also says clearly that they would be regathered a “second time” (Isa. 11:11). This means, of course, that they would be scattered a second time (Isa. 11:11). This happened as a result of the Roman destruction. This prophecy in Isaiah is directly connected with the Messiah both by Christians and by Jews: “Then it will come about in that day that the nations [i.e. the Gentiles] will resort to the root of Jesse [the Messiah], who will stand as a signal for the peoples” (Isa. 11:10). But during this same time of the salvation for the Gentiles, Paul says that a “partial hardening has happened to Israel,” a hardening that continues to our own day, but which one day will come to an end (Rom. 11:25-26).

This period in which the covenant is “confirmed” by God is one week, which in the context of Daniel’s prophecy implies seven years. This matches exactly the length of the Jewish Revolt against Rome (AD 67-73). God (“he”) is also the one who put an end to the sacrifices in the Temple “in the middle of the week” (Dan. 9:27). This is when the daily sacrifice (the perpetual sacrifice) in the Temple was discontinued. Josephus notes the exact day on which the daily sacrifices were stopped (the 17th of Tammuz), which is exactly three and a half years after the start of the war against Rome (Wars 6.2.1 sec. 94). These sacrifices have now been replaced by the blood of Jesus.

3) “Seventy weeks are determined concerning your people and concerning your holy city to fulfill the rebellion and to destroy sin and to atone for iniquity and to bring in eternal righteousness and to seal up vision and prophet and to anoint the Holy of Holies” (Dan. 9:24).

Dan. 9:24 begins by referring to the “rebellion” of Jerusalem (“your holy city”) that took place from Daniel’s time right up until the time of Jesus. This rebellion was most clearly manifested by the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus in that city. The destruction of “sin” and atonement “for iniquity” took place by the death of Messiah Jesus on the cross. This atonement has already taken place, and can only take place once. As Hebrews reminds us, Messiah died “once” for sin (Heb. 9:28). This is what brought in “eternal righteousness” for all those who believe in him. There is no mention here of ending vision and prophecy. It says only to “seal up vision and prophet,” that is, to confirm the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament by their fulfillment. God, in other words, has set his seal of approval on these prophecies by bringing them to pass.

Notice that the verse mentioned above in Hebrews (Heb. 9:28) also says that “he [Jesus] will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await him.” This contradicts the interpretation you mention (of Dan. 9:24) that Jesus will deal with sin at his return.

Yes, early Jewish Christians were expecting the Millennium, but they didn’t connect this passage in Daniel with that time, except for the last phrase in Dan. 9:27: “And when it [the desolation] is cut off” i.e. after Jerusalem has been restored, as is happening right now in the Middle East, “it [destruction] will pour out on the one causing desolation.” This refers to the destruction of the worldly political system descended from Rome (and tracing back to Babel) that will be destroyed by Jesus at his return (see Revelation 18).

The idea of putting the 70th week of Daniel far in the future from Jesus’ day is not indicated anywhere in these verses. It doesn’t say “and after many days” or anything like that. Rather it’s presented as being in close sequence with the preceding 69 weeks. This is how it was clearly understood by everyone in the early Church as well as by many among the Jewish people.

Josephus (1st cent. AD), the Jewish historian, who lived in the time of the apostles, said that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel: “Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them” (Antiquities 10.11.7 sec. 276).

Tertullian (3rd cent. AD) gives a detailed computation of the fulfillment of the 70 weeks, which he says were completed when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem: “And thus, in the day of their [the Romans’] storming [of Jerusalem], the Jews fulfilled the 70 weeks predicted in Daniel” (An Answer to the Jews, chap. 8).

Clement of Alexandria (3rd cent. AD) agreed: “And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet [Daniel] said” (speaking of the 70 weeks; Stromata 1.21).

Eusebius (4th cent.), the famous church historian, said that the desolation of the Temple is the abomination of desolation (mentioned in Dan. 11:31, 12:11, the “abomination of desolations” in the LXX of Dan. 9:27): “…and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very Temple of God, so celebrated of old…described in the history written by Josephus” (Church History 3.5)

In fact, Cyril of Jerusalem (4th cent.) said that those who say the abomination of desolation is still to come are among the false messiahs prophesied in the Bible (First Catechetical Lecture 4.15). In other words, he considered it a dangerous false teaching.

The idea of moving the 70th week far into the future as taught today only appeared with the Darbyites in the 19th century. This idea was widely rejected at first. But when teaching about the end times became less popular in other churches, this dispensational teaching continued to be promoted, primarily among the Baptists. As a result, most Christians today have never heard the traditional teaching of the Early Church. But this traditional teaching is a much better match to the Bible and to the events of history.

There are many other problems with dispensational teaching. These include the false idea that Jews and Gentiles have different plans of salvation. This directly contradicts the New Testament. As Peter put it, speaking to Jewish people, “And salvation is in no one else [other than Jesus], nor is there any other name given among men under heaven by which we must be saved.” Jesus is the only way to salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. I would advise doing a search on the internet for “problems with dispensationalism,” or “dangers of dispensationalism,” etc. to become more familiar with these concerns.

I hope this answers your questions.

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

Copyright © 2024 by To The Ends Of The Earth Ministries

www.totheends.com

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11

2024-10-13T21:28:00.000-07:00

Who are the two witnesses of Revelation 11? They shoot fire from their mouths, they stop rain from falling, they turn water into blood, they even strike the earth with plagues (Rev. 11:5-6). But despite their great powers, the two witnesses are eventually killed by a horrible, beastly enemy, and then lie dead and unburied for three and a half days (Rev. 11:7-9). Yet after the three and a half days, they raise from the dead and ascend into heaven (Rev. 11:11-12). This is gripping reading, but what does it mean? Who are the two witnesses?

The description of the two witnesses is so symbolically rich, it’s difficult to interpret. This has led to many different interpretations throughout Church history. The earliest that we know of is that they represent two literal individuals.¹ This dates back to some of the most well-known early Christian writers, including Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Augustine.² But what two individuals are they? Enoch and Elijah were the first to be proposed. Others mentioned Moses and Elijah. Still others suggested Elijah and Jeremiah, or Peter and Paul among others.

Another early interpretation is that they represent two groups of people rather than two individuals. They are, in other words, an example of corporate identity or corporate personality. Many other examples can be seen in the Bible: the man Israel is identified with Israel the nation, the Messiah Jesus is identified with the Body of Messiah. But if so, what group or groups do they represent?

The Church itself was an early proposal (Tyconius³), as was a remnant of the Church in the final generation. Other suggestions include Israel and the Church, Jews and Gentiles (Oecumenius), and the two branches of the church as originally understood: Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus (Primasius of Hadrumetum⁴). This identification with the Church or with some part of the Church grew in popularity among Protestants after the Reformation.

Other, even more symbolic interpretations identified the two witnesses with the Word and the Spirit, the Old and New Testaments, the Law and the Gospel, and the Law and the Prophets, among others.⁵

This incredible diversity shows the difficulty Christians have had in interpreting not only this one chapter of Revelation, but the entire book. No one method of interpretation has been able to win over a majority in the Church. Most have resorted to ad hoc interpretations of individual images or sections. But occasionally, interpreters have decided to draw on similar images found elsewhere in the Bible, using these Biblical references to shed light on the meaning of the passage. This approach has the advantage of relying on the authority of the Bible, rather than being based on private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). But no one we know of in the past used this method consistently throughout the Book of Revelation. Would it work for the whole book? What if we decided to rely solely on the Bible to help us interpret the images of Revelation? This is what I call the Parallel Method: letting the Bible interpret the Bible. This is the method used in our book, The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John.

How does it work? Let’s use Revelation 11 as a case study to test this method. The chapter begins with an instruction to measure the “sanctuary of God and the altar [of sacrifice] and those who are worshipping in it” (Rev. 11:1). Since the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem lay in ruins by the time John was writing, this couldn’t refer to that physical sanctuary.⁶ So what sanctuary is it? Let’s use the Bible to find the answer: As Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 3:16, “Do you not know that you are a Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”⁷ The same idea is repeated in 1 Pet. 2:5: “And you yourselves, as living stones, are being built up, a spiritual House [i.e. a Temple] into a holy priesthood.” These two verses fulfill the requirement of the Parallel Method: we must have at least two witnesses from other parts of the Bible. As the Bible teaches: “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter will be established” (2 Cor. 13:1, also Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, 1 Tim. 5:19, Heb. 10:28). This may sound random at first. But there is almost always only one set of parallels for each image in Revelation. By applying these parallels, we learn that the “sanctuary” in Revelation 11 is the Church.

The next verse mentions a “court which is outside of the sanctuary” (Rev. 11:2). In the physical Temple in Jerusalem, the court outside the court of the sanctuary was the court of Israel. John is told, literally in Greek, to “throw out” this outer court. The reason for this is that “the nations [i.e. the Gentiles]...will trample the holy city for forty-two months.” Does this sound like anything else in the Bible? In Luke 21:23-24, Jesus prophesied: “There will be great distress in the land [of Israel] and wrath to this people [Israel], and they will...be led captive into all the nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations until the times of the nations are fulfilled.” Another parallel can be found in Dan. 8:13: “How long will...the sanctuary and the host be a place of trampling?” Both prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem. From this we learn that Revelation 11:2 is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. This took place exactly as Jesus prophesied forty years later, in AD 70. It even assigns a period of time to this trampling: forty-two months. In an idealistic calendar of 30 days in a month, this is a total of 1,260 days.

Historically, Jerusalem was ruled (or “trampled”) by Gentile nations from the time of its destruction in AD 70 until the restoration of the State of Israel in 1948. This tells us that whatever the exact meaning of the 42 months may be, it refers to a period of time that lasted more than 1,000 years.⁸

The next verse is where we’re introduced to the “two witnesses” (Rev. 11:3). Their ministry is given the same amount of time as the trampling of Jerusalem: 1,260 days. But since this indicates a long period of time, more than 1,000 years, how could they be two individual human beings? They must instead represent a group of people. But what group of people are they? They’re called witnesses (martusin in Greek), a word often used of the disciples of Jesus. As Jesus himself said, “You will be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8, also Luke 24:48 etc.). Since many of the witnesses of Jesus have been killed for their testimony, the Greek word used for witness here (martus) soon came to mean a martyr: someone who died for Jesus. The “sackcloth” they’re wearing is also a sign of the difficult life they lead, a reminder of the challenges Christians have had in many parts of the world from the time of Jesus right up until today.

More evidence comes in the next verse. Here the witnesses are identified as “two olive trees” and “two lampstands.” Earlier in Revelation, seven lampstands are used to represent seven churches in what is today western Turkey (Rev. 1:4,11,20). But why are there only two lampstands here?

The image of two olive trees appears in Zechariah 4 in association with a single lampstand (Zech. 4:2-6). The connection was clear in Bible days. Olive trees were the source of the oil (olive oil) used to keep lamps lit. This single lampstand was a symbol of Israel, as the rabbis also interpret it (Song of Songs Rab. 4:17, etc.). Why then does Revelation have two lampstands?

Two olive trees are mentioned by Paul in Romans 11. We often think of this passage as talking about a single tree. But in Greek, Paul mentions two different trees: a wild olive tree and a cultivated olive tree. “For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree (agrielaios) and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree...” (Rom. 11:24). Grafting doesn’t change the identity of a grafted branch. It still produces fruit unique to its own DNA. This is why Paul continues to identify the branches of the wild olive with the tree itself: “but you, being a wild olive tree (agrielaios)” (Rom. 11:17). But those branches now receive sustenance from the tree into which they've been grafted.

The wild olive tree in Romans 11 refers to Gentile believers in Jesus. The cultivated olive tree refers to Jewish believers in Jesus. Here we have a Biblical basis for understanding the two trees of Revelation 11.

These two trees are also described as two lampstands. This implies that they are divisions of the Church, as with the lampstands in Revelation 1. And this is how the Church was originally understood: to be made up of Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus. These two groups provide two distinct witnesses to the truth about Jesus.

This understanding of the Church can be seen in the New Testament, where it distinguishes between believers “from the circumcision” (Col. 4:11), that is, Jewish believers in Jesus, and believers from “the uncircumcision” (Rom. 3:30, 4:9-12, 15:8-9, Gal. 2:7-12, Eph. 2:11), that is, Gentile believers in Jesus.

Evidence of this early self-understanding can also be found in Christian art. An early Christian symbol from the Roman catacombs shows two fish caught on a cross-shaped anchor. One has scales and fins—it’s permitted according to the Jewish food laws (Lev. 11:9-12). The other lacks scales and fins, which means it’s not permitted for Jews to eat. What does it represent? The two major divisions of the Church as they were understood at the time: Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile believers in Jesus, both “caught” on a symbol of the cross of Jesus.⁹

This isn’t the only example of this self-understanding in the Church. A fifth century mosaic from the Church of Sta. Sabina in Rome has images of two women, one on each side of a large inscription. One is labeled, the “Church from the Circumcision” (Eclesia ex Circumcisione), and the other, the “Church from the Gentiles” (Eclesia ex Gentibus). This is evidence that this two-fold nature of the Church was still understood in the 5th century.

These same two women can be seen in a 4th century mosaic at the Church of Saint Pudentiana in Rome. Here they are crowning Paul for his mission to the Gentiles and Peter for his mission to the Jewish people. And these are not the only examples.

But there’s one more piece of evidence that strongly supports the idea that the two witnesses represent two groups of people. In two different places, their dead bodies are referred to as a single body. This is in Revelation 11:8 and again in Revelation 11:9. The original language is very clear: “And their corpse [singular] is in the wide street of the great city.... And they out of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations see their corpse [singular] three and a half days...” Most translators don’t know what to do with this, so they change it to a plural (“corpses”). But the singular form is not an error. There are no textual variants here with a different text in the original language.

So how can two individual people share a single corpse? They can’t. This is instead a prophecy of a terrible end-times persecution of the whole Church.¹⁰ It will be an intensification of the persecution we see taking place around the world right now, in our own lifetimes.

Where do these witnesses get their supernatural abilities, like the fire that comes out of their “mouth” (mouth is also singular in Greek, Rev. 11:5)? If we apply the Parallel Method, we’re led to Jeremiah 5:14: “I am making my words in your mouth fire and this people pieces of wood, and it will consume them” (also Jer. 23:29, Psalm 104:4, and John 12:48). It refers to the power of the gospel in the mouths of believers: a gospel that some will receive to eternal blessing, but others will reject, bringing eternal fire.

What about their ability to stop the rain of heaven? James tells us, “Elijah was a man with the same nature as ours, and in prayer he prayed that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months” (James 5:17). James is talking to believers: “The active prayer of a righteous person can do much” (James 5:16).

What about their ability to turn water into blood? This was done by another man with a nature like ours: Moses. “Stretch your hand over the water of Egypt...and they will become blood” (Exo. 7:19). Both Moses and Elijah were closely connected with Jewish expectations of the coming of the Messiah. Here, Revelation teaches that we, the Church, share their prophetic anointing. This is similar to what Paul teaches when he describes the Church as the Body of Messiah:

That you may know...what is the surpassing greatness of his power in us who believe, a power that matches the action of the intensity of his might, which he made active in the Messiah when he raised him from the dead and seated him on his right in the heavenlies. (Eph. 1:18-20)

This hardly exhausts the description of the two witnesses in Revelation 11. But it’s a good start to understanding the Parallel Method—and to understanding who the two witnesses really are.

NOTES

¹ Ian R. Brown, A Historical Perspective on the Two Witnesses of Rev 11:1-13, 2024, 4-5, https://www.academia.edu/118758289/A_Historical_Perspective_on_the_Two_Witnesses_of_Rev_11_1_13

² Yehnis Elantony, The Two Witnesses of Revelation, 3,5, https://www.academia.edu/95383790/The_Two_Witnesses_of_Revelation

³ Tyconius understood the two witnesses to represent the testimony of the Church from the time of Jesus until a final persecution and the resurrection of the dead. Brown, 17-18. He also saw the visions of Revelation as recapitulatory, rather than being arranged in a linear chronological order.

⁴ Though strictly speaking, Primasius identified these two branches of the church with the two lampstands that are identified with the two witnesses in Revelation 11:4.

⁵ Though these proved less popular than identifying them with individuals or groups of people. Brown, 32.

⁶ John wrote in about AD 95, the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.

⁷ The “you”s used here are plural, indicating that the believing community as a whole makes up the one true Temple of God.

⁸ In Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks each day refers to a year (Daniel 9). A similar symbolic meaning is likely here, too.

⁹ Many other depictions of two fish and a cross-shaped anchor have been found, though most don’t make such a clear distinction between the fish. Nevertheless, the same idea may have been in mind.

¹⁰ It’s also an allusion to the strange prophecy in Isa. 26:19 which says in Hebrew: “Your dead will live, my corpse [singular], they will rise...”

More Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Sons of God in Genesis 6:2-4

2023-09-13T03:06:00.012-07:00

One of the most puzzling passages in the Bible is Genesis 6:2-4. It mentions the “sons of God” (the “sons of Elohim”) who took wives from the “daughters of man.” This happened just before the Flood of Noah. Many sensational videos have been made recently to explain this strange event and the mysterious giants (the Nephilim) mentioned in these same verses. But what do we actually know about these “sons of Elohim”? And what can we learn about them from other passages in the Bible?

Let’s start by looking at the verses in question:

Genesis 6:2,4: And sons of God (b’nei ha Elohim) saw that the daughters of man were desirable; and they took wives for themselves from all that they chose.... The giants (the Nephilim) were on the earth in those days and also afterwards, when sons of God (b’nei ha Elohim) went in to the daughters of man, and they bore children for them. They were the mighty ones that were of old, men of renown.

Different views about these “sons of God” have been circulating since the 2nd century AD. This is when the idea first appeared that they were actually the “good” descendants of Seth as opposed to the bad descendants of Cain—a teaching still popular in many places today. But before that time, all the ancient authorities agreed that these “sons of God” were angelic messengers. So for example, Josephus the Jewish historian, who lived in the time of the apostles, wrote:

For many messengers (angeloi) of God, coming together with women, bore children that were violent men and disdainful of all that is good because of the confidence they had in their own strength, whose daring resembles that of the giants spoken of by the Greeks; and these are the great deeds handed down [by tradition]. (The Antiquities of the Jews 1.3.1 §73)

Here Josephus clearly identifies the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 as “messengers of God,” in other words, as angels.* The giants (the Nephilim) he identifies as the children of the messengers and the women. And he directly connects the Biblical account with the similar stories of giants among the Greeks.

* The Greek word angelos (angeloi in the plural), just like the Hebrew word malak, simply means “messenger.” Whether this is a human messenger, an angelic messenger, or the Word of God acting as a messenger can only be determined from the context. Since these messengers are here called “messengers of God,” this identifies them as angels.

But Josephus wasn’t the only one to make these identifications. This was common knowledge at the time. This can be seen in many of the writings that come to us both from before and just after the time of the New Testament.*

* These “sons of God” are also identified as angels in the Enoch writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, and 2 Baruch. But we can trace the expression “sons of God” back even further to discoveries in the Ugaritic language from the time of Moses and Joshua. Ugaritic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew. In Ugaritic, the expression “sons of gods” (bn ilm) refers to divine beings, beings that were the focus of pagan worship and which are identified in the Bible as fallen angels.

But there’s no need to look outside the Bible to identify the “sons of Elohim.” The Bible itself is quite clear about who they are:

Job 1:6: And the day came when the sons of God (b’nei ha Elohim) came to stand before the LORD, and the Adversary [Satan in Hebrew] also came among them.

This is a description of the Divine Council of God that is mentioned several times in the Bible. The idea is that from time to time God called a meeting of those he had put in authority in heaven; much like an earthly king would call a meeting of the nation’s leaders. That this meeting took place in heaven is clear from the fact that it took place in the presence of the Lord (Job 1:6), and that Satan left the earth in order to attend. (He came “from roaming around on the earth,” Job 1:7.) Since Satan, who is himself an angel, was attending, this implies that the other “sons of God” at the meeting were also angels.*

* Satan is described as an archangel (an archon) in the Greek of Matt. 9:34 and Eph. 2:2. This is the same Greek word that appears in Eph. 6:12 to describe the “rulers” of the spiritual forces in the heavenlies.

This is how the Septuagint (the LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the Bible, also understands this event:*

* The Septuagint, also known as the LXX, is a Greek translation of the Old Testament made for the Jewish community in Egypt. It is thought to have been translated from the original Hebrew in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC. The Septuagint served as the Old Testament for early Gentile Christians and is still used in many Eastern churches today. Translators often refer to the Septuagint to check their translations of the Bible or to determine the meaning of difficult Hebrew words and phrases. Many of the slight differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic Text) are today understood to originate in earlier Hebrew versions of the Bible.

Job 1:6 (LXX): And it came to pass on this day that look, the messengers (angeloi) of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew “sons of Elohim” as “messengers of God.” In other words, it understands that this was an angelic council. A similar passage appears in chapter 2 when the council meets again:

Job 2:1: And it was the day when the sons of God (b’nei ha Elohim) came to stand before the LORD. And the Adversary (Satan) also came among them to stand before the LORD.

Here again, Satan is among the “sons of Elohim” as one of them. And again the Septuagint understands this to be an angelic council:

Job 2:1 (LXX): And it came to pass on a certain day that the messengers (angeloi) of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord.

In another place, Job mentions the “sons of Elohim” in a description of the Creation:

Job 38:7: [Where were you] at the crying out of the morning stars together, and when all the sons of God (b’nei ha Elohim) shouted for joy?

This passage is about acts of Creation that took place before the creation of man (“when I laid the foundations of the earth,” etc., in Job 38:1-6). That means that these “sons of Elohim” cannot be human beings—in fact, that’s the whole point of the passage: that at the time human beings were nowhere to be found. Rather these “sons of Elohim” are the angelic sons of God. Once again, the Septuagint understands this verse the same way:

Job 38:7 (LXX): When the stars were made, all my messengers (angeloi mou) praised me with a loud voice.

There is only one other appearance of the “sons of Elohim” in the Bible. But it’s not in the versions most people are familiar with today. Instead, it’s a variant reading found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which many scholars believe to be the original text:

Deuteronomy 32:8 (DSS): When the Most High gave the nations an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (b’nei ha Elohim).*

* Most modern translations of this verse follow the standard Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text) instead, which reads: “he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.”

This implies that God placed the nations under these angelic authorities, with Israel under the direct authority of God himself: “For the portion of the LORD is his people, Jacob is the allotment of his possession” (Deut. 32:9). This is also how the Septuagint understands it:

Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the messengers (angelon) of God.

This agrees with the idea found in the book of Daniel that God put each of the nations under the authority of an individual angel (Dan. 10:13,20; 12:1).

But verses that mention the “sons of Elohim” are not the only way to find out who these beings were. There are other, similar expressions that also refer to them, though modern translations sometimes obscure the original meaning. Consider the Hebrew of Psalm 82:

Psalm 82:1,6-7: God (Elohim) is standing in the congregation of God (El), in the midst of the gods (elohim) he judges.... “I myself said you are gods (elohim), and all of you sons of the Most High (b’nei Elyon). But surely as a man you will die, and as one of the princes you will fall.” *

* This passage is a good demonstration of the fact that the plural Hebrew word Elohim can be used both to refer to God and to the gods. Which of the two it is must be determined from the context, since the word can have both meanings. In verse 1, the first Elohim refers to God, since it takes a singular verb form (nitzav). The second elohim refers to “the gods,” since God stands “in the midst” of them (or “among” them). In verse 6, elohim also refers to “the gods,” since God addresses them with a plural form of “you” (atem): “you are gods.”

This is another reference to the Council of God. But instead of the expression “sons of Elohim,” we see “sons of Elyon.” This is the same Elyon found in the expression El Elyon (“God Most High” in Gen. 14:18, etc.). Since this is the same Council of God that we saw earlier in Job, it’s clear that “sons of Elyon” has the same meaning as “sons of Elohim.” That this is not referring to human beings can be seen in verse 7, where the punishment given to these “sons of the Most High” will be to die “as a man.” That is, they will lose their current immortality and experience death as human beings do. But why then are these beings also called “gods”?* By this point in history, these angelic beings had allowed themselves to be identified as gods: the pagan gods of the nations. And because of this, as God warns them here, they were headed toward eternal punishment.

* Some modern translators are uncomfortable with the plain meaning of the words, and so change “gods” in verse 1 to “judges” (JPS) or “rulers” (NAS).

Jesus refers to this passage in John 10:34-36:

John 10:34-36: Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said you are gods’ [Psa. 82:6]? If these to whom the word of God came he called gods—and Scripture cannot be abolished, do you say of the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said I am a son of God?”

Jesus’ point here is that if God called these angels “gods” “to whom the word of God came” (vs. 35)—which implies that they are not the originators of the word of God and so are not true gods at all—how can it be wrong for “the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world”—that is, Jesus himself, who is the Word of God and therefore higher than the angels—to be called “a son of God” (vs. 36)?

The heavenly Council of God makes another appearance in Psalm 89:

Psalm 89:5-7: The heavens praise your wonder, LORD; yes, your faithfulness in an assembly of the holy ones. For who in the cloud [of stars, i.e. in the heavens] compares to the LORD? Who resembles the LORD among the sons of the gods (b’nei elim)? God (El) causes great trembling in the council of the holy ones and causes all surrounding him to fear.

The language used here makes it clear that these “sons of the gods” dwell in the heavens, or at least go there to participate in God’s council.* So why are they called “sons of the gods” instead of the “sons of Elohim”? Because as we’ve already seen, they had allowed themselves to be identified as the gods of the pagans. And this is how these pagan gods were known among the nations: as the supposed sons of other, earlier gods.

* Here, too, many modern translators are uncomfortable with the plain meaning, and so change the “sons of the gods” in verse 6 to “sons of the mighty.”

Another appearance of the Council of God, or at least of its members, appears in Psalm 29:

Psalm 29:1: Ascribe to the LORD, sons of the gods (b’nei elim), ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.

Here the Psalmist is calling on the gods of the nations, that is, on fallen angels masquerading as gods, to worship the God of Israel. (For more on this topic, see our teaching on Psalm 29.)

One final reference to the “sons of Elohim” can be found in a section of the book of Daniel written in Aramaic, a sister language to Hebrew. Here, the Aramaic bar elahin is a direct translation of the Hebrew ben elohim (“son of the gods,” with elohim here used to refer to the pagan gods):

Daniel 3:25,28: He [King Nebuchadnezzar] answered and said, ‘Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods (bar elahin)!’.... Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego: he has sent his messenger (malak) to rescue his servants...

According to King Nebuchadnezzar, the fourth man in the fiery furnace looked different than the others. He looked like “a son of the gods,” in other words, he had a divine rather than a human appearance. But he also refers to this fourth man as a messenger (malak in Aramaic, just as it is in Hebrew). In other words, he understood that this “son of the gods” was an angelic messenger. So here, the book of Daniel directly identifies the expression “son of elohim” with an angelic “messenger.”

What happened to the sons of God after they sinned with the women?

These verses all clearly identify the “sons of Elohim” as angelic messengers of God. But they don’t tell us the rest of the story. They say nothing about what happened to the angels of Genesis 6 after they sinned with the women. To get that information, we have to turn to the New Testament. Here, Peter tells us:

2 Peter 2:4: For if God didn’t spare messengers (angelon) who had sinned, but having thrown them into Tartarus [the deepest part of Hades], he delivered them to chains of darkness where they are being kept for judgment...

Here we find the punishment given to these angels. But how do we know they’re the same angels? They appear in a list of judgments starting with (1) these angels (in verse 4), and then going on to (2) the Flood of Noah (in verse 5), and then to (3) Sodom and Gomorrah (in verses 6-8). These events are in chronological order. So what event preceded the Flood for which God would have judged angels? The sin of the “sons of Elohim” in Genesis 6:2-4.

Jude has a shorter list. But he mentions these same angels (in verse 6) followed by the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (in verse 7):

Jude 1:6: Messengers (angelous) that did not keep watch over their own domain, but rather left their proper dwelling place, he has kept under watch in darkness for eternal bonds on the judgment of the great day.

So where did Peter and Jude get this additional information about the angels of Genesis 6? A likely source is the book of Enoch (1 Enoch). Enoch was never accepted into the Bible, but some parts of it line up well with the Bible’s teaching.* Jude, in fact, quotes directly from 1 Enoch 1:9 in describing God’s judgment:

* It is, however, accepted as Scripture by both the Ethiopian Jewish community and by Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

Jude 1:14-15: But Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, also prophesied to these, saying, “Look, the Lord will come with tens of thousands of his holy ones to bring about judgment against all and to convict every soul about all their godless deeds in which they were ungodly, and about all the harsh talk that ungodly sinners spoke against him.”

Enoch’s description of the punishment of the angels is similar to 2 Peter and Jude:

1 Enoch 10:12-13: Bind them [the angels who sinned with the women] for seventy generations under the hills of the earth until the day of their judgment and of their consummation, until the judgment which is for all eternity is accomplished. And in those days, they will lead them to the abyss of fire; in torment and in prison they will be shut up for all eternity.*

* H.F.D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 196.

Does this mean, then, that the book of Enoch is at the same level of inspiration as the Bible? There’s no question that Enoch had an important influence on people’s ideas about prophecy in the time of the New Testament. But it wasn’t accepted as part of the Bible for good reason, as I think you’ll see if you read it yourself: it just doesn’t have the same sense of authority and authenticity. So while those few parts of Enoch quoted in the New Testament are God’s inspired word, the rest is mostly of historical interest, and shouldn’t be used to construct any Christian doctrines.*

* One of the problems with the book of Enoch (1 Enoch) is that it’s actually a set of five books of uncertain date and authorship, none of which can be traced back to the time of the patriarch Enoch of Genesis 5:21-24. Another is that it’s been preserved in full only in the Ethiopian language (Ge’ez).

Did Jesus say that angels can’t marry?

In the New Testament, the phrase “sons of God” refers almost exclusively to followers of Jesus—to human beings. But even here there is an association with angels:

Luke 20:35-36: But those considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead* neither marry nor are given in marriage, for neither are they still able to die, for they are like messengers (isangeloi) and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

* The “resurrection from the dead” is the first resurrection, also known as the resurrection of the righteous (Rev. 20:5-6 and Luke 14:14). This will be a resurrection of some of the dead (the righteous) out “from” the other dead (the unrighteous), who will remain dead until the general resurrection. Then, in this second or general resurrection, all the remaining dead will be raised for the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-13).

Here Jesus teaches that a resurrected son of God will no longer die, just as angels don’t die (in verse 36). He also teaches that they will no longer marry, just as the angels in heaven don’t marry (in verse 35, as also in Matt. 22:30). But wait a minute! If angels don’t marry, wouldn’t it have been impossible for the angels to marry women in Genesis 6:2-4? But note carefully that Jesus didn’t say that angels can’t marry. He just said that they don’t.

So why wouldn’t God want angels to marry? The Bible teaches that the purpose of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:22, etc.). But since angels were created as eternal beings, they were created in their full number right from the start, and so have no need for marriage and the bearing of children.

So what about resurrected believers? When the time of the resurrection comes, they, too, will have reached their full number. As it says in Rev. 6:11: “...until the number of those about to be killed even they had been...is complete.” This is talking about Christian martyrs, but the same language is used of the Church as a whole (the “mystery of God”) in Rev. 10:7: “the mystery of God will also be completed, as he proclaimed the good news to his servants the prophets.” This is the “fullness of the Gentiles” mentioned by Paul in Rom. 11:25.*

* That there was a full number of believers that God had appointed to come in was also taught in the first generation after the apostles (in the Shepherd of Hermas and the First Epistle of Clement).

Besides, the mystery of salvation can take place only in the present, fallen world. Only now is it possible to believe in God by faith. After Jesus returns, the knowledge of God will be by sight, and so salvation by faith will no longer be possible. As a result, any children born after that time would not be able to be saved.

Another explanation comes from the impurity laws of the Old Testament. These teach that reproduction and giving birth are ritually unclean. This doesn’t mean that giving birth is bad or sinful, or even that it should be avoided. Just the opposite, the Bible commands husbands and wives to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:22, etc.). But the process of giving birth led to times of separation from the worship of the community. A woman who gave birth to a baby boy, for example, wasn’t allowed to enter the sanctuary of God (the Temple or Tabernacle) for more than a month: “And thirty-three days she will sit in the blood of her cleansing, she will not touch any holy things, and she will not go to the sanctuary until the fullness of the days of her cleansing” (Lev. 12:4). This wasn’t a punishment. Most women would have seen it as a blessing, since they were freed from many responsibilities and given time to recover and heal. But these and similar laws were often connected with the shedding of blood, and so by implication with death. Since God wanted to clearly identify himself as the God of life, contact with death led to a time of separation from public worship. (See our teaching on Clean and Unclean.)

But in the resurrection, there will be no more death at all: “Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?” (1 Cor. 15:55). In the resurrection, there will be nothing that removes us from God’s presence. There will be no obstacle to communion with God—even for a short time. So for this reason, too, there will be no more marriage and no more giving birth.

This helps to explain why the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 was such a tragedy: They abandoned their calling of continual service to God to engage in ritually unclean acts, acts that removed them from the presence of God and led to sin. And since there is no plan of salvation for angels (1 Peter 1:12), they lost their privileged position in heaven for eternity.*

* Why is there no plan of salvation for angels? Because they, unlike us, know God by sight, not by faith: “See that you don't despise one of these little ones: for I say to you that their messengers in the heavens always see the face of my Father in the heavens” (Matt. 18:10). This is why the topic of salvation for human beings is a topic “into which angels long to look” (1 Pet. 1:12). They have nothing similar of their own.

More Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

What Will be our Language in Heaven? (Q&A)

2023-08-20T06:17:00.005-07:00

Q: Someone in our small group asked this question when we were going through Revelation, “What will be our language in heaven?” referencing Revelation 7:9-10:

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’” (ESV)

Will it be that we will be worshiping and singing to the Lord in our own language? And will we be communicating with our own languages yet understanding each other and never needing any translation? (I’m thinking of 1 Corinthians 13:12 on this.)

Could you enlighten me please? I want to know your thoughts. —Jean R.

A: I can’t think of any verse in the Bible that addresses directly the question of what language we will use after we die and go to Paradise to be with the Lord (as in Rev. 7:9-10), or then again in the Millennium after the resurrection, or then again after the Final Judgment in the New Heavens and New Earth (see our teaching: https://totheendsblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/hell-hades-and-gehenna-list-of-verses.html also https://newchurchsermons.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-is-eternal-destiny-of-human-soul.html).

I did have a Hebrew professor one time who assured us that we would all be speaking Hebrew. But I’m not sure he was entirely serious about that, and he certainly didn’t offer any proof.

As far as indirect evidence goes, the best I can think of comes from Peter’s statement that at Jesus’ return from heaven there will be a “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21). This is the time that Jesus called the “regeneration” (in Matt. 19:28), which can also be translated “renewal” or “rebirth” (palingenesia in Greek). If “all things” are going to be restored, I would assume that this includes the ability people had before the time of the Tower of Babel to all speak with “one language” (Gen. 11:1). Which language that was or will be, I have no clue. But it does mean we will all be able to understand one another, and that the divisions that so often create conflicts in our world today will be gone, including linguistic divisions.

I believe this is an important part of the symbolic meaning of the Day of Pentecost, when Jewish pilgrims from many different nations and language groups were supernaturally hearing the disciples speaking in their own language (Acts 2:4-6). Whether that’s because the disciples were actually speaking other languages (a miracle of speaking) or because God enabled them to hear in their own languages (a miracle of hearing) or both, I can’t say. But this, I believe, was pointing towards God’s intention to reverse the judgment that took place at the Tower of Babel and restore unity among the nations in his son Jesus. Whether this restoration of a single language will be done through supernatural means, as on the Day of Pentecost, or through everyone actually speaking one language in the way we commonly speak languages today, I don’t know. But this is only speaking about the time of the resurrection, which includes both the Millennium and the New Heavens and New Earth.

When it comes to our time in Paradise before the resurrection, which is what I believe Revelation is talking about in Rev. 7:9-10, this will be a different situation. Why? Because Paradise is not a physical but rather a spiritual place. It’s where the souls of the righteous await the resurrection. We will have no physical bodies during this time, and so we will not have the ability to speak mechanically as we do now. Our bodies will still be in the grave. So this means that some other means of communication will be necessary. I would assume it would be much like when we speak to God in private prayer, or he speaks something into our hearts, as many believers have experienced at different times in their lives, not to mention the prophets of old (John 16:13). I suppose we can call that spiritual communication. And since it appears to operate independent of any mechanical means, these thoughts clearly have the ability to penetrate directly into our souls independent of ordinary language production, even though in the Bible they are always understood as being spoken in a real human language (again, whether it’s a miracle of speaking or of hearing or both is unclear). So it seem quite likely, as Revelation indicates, that we will be able to communicate with each other this way at that time.

Otherwise, better brush up on your Hebrew.

(For more on this topic, see our book The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

Understanding Alfred Edersheim’s “The Law in Messianic Times”

2023-07-06T09:56:00.004-07:00

What will happen to the Law of Moses in the time of the Messiah? This was an open question in Jesus’ day. And it still generates strong opinions today. Does the Law of Moses have any legitimate place in the Christian Church? What about for Messianic believers in Jesus? And what about in the Messianic age to come? You may think your church or Christian organization is exempt from such controversies. But if your church teaches that Jesus did away with the Law of Moses, how does it explain continued obedience to the Ten Commandments? This “moral law” as some call it is still nevertheless a part of the Law of Moses. So is the Law of Moses in force today or not?

The famous Messianic scholar Alfred Edersheim laid out some important insights into these questions in the 14th appendix of his classic The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Unfortunately, his style of writing and the difficulty of tracking down his references cause many to skip over this little gem. So to make it more accessible, I’ve written a brief summary with explanatory comments, complete with internet links to his rabbinical references in English. His original writing is also linked below. (A few of the links require you to sign-in to archive.org and to “borrow” the book in order to read it. The references that I can’t find at the indicated location are marked with a “?”.)

Edersheim may not answer all our questions. But he helps us understand the background to this discussion among the Jewish people. Hopefully, this short summary will make it easier to grasp his main points and to find many of his references.

-----------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF “THE LAW IN MESSIANIC TIMES”

In ancient Israel, there were many different views about what would happen to the Law of Moses in the time of the Messiah. There were also different ideas about how or if this Law would be imposed on the Gentiles. Many were expecting a new law that would either replace or revise the Law of Moses. This idea is mentioned in the gospel of John, where a delegation of religious leaders from Jerusalem asked John the Baptist if he was “the Prophet” (John 1:21). This is a reference to the Prophet like Moses mentioned in Deut. 18:15,18:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me [like Moses] from among you, from your brothers; you will listen to him.... I will raise up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you [like you, Moses], and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.

This prophet “like Moses” was expected to have the ability to make changes and/or make additions to the Mosaic Law.

This idea was connected with the “new covenant” mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31 and following:

Look, days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant—not like the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I laid hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt...

Some changes of this kind were also associated with Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah (Malachi 3:22, Eduyot 8:7). Though here again, there were many different opinions.

Echoes of the many different views held in Jesus’ day can be found among the rabbis. The strictest of these denied any possibility of future changes in the Law. They held that even the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans (in AD 70), which made animal sacrifices impossible, was only a temporary gap in their observance. Once the Temple was rebuilt, all the laws would be observed again without change. In the same way, any exile of the Jewish people from Israel only freed them from laws directly attached to the land itself and only for the duration of their exile. All other commandments stayed in force. Today, while the Temple remains in ruins, the offering of sacrifices has been replaced, according to the rabbis, by reading about them in the Law of Moses, together with prayer and study of the details of the Law (Megillah 31b, Bereishit (Genesis) Rabbah 44 [?], Berakhot 2b, Menachot 110a). But this is only temporary. As for the most sacred day of the year, the Day of Atonement, it’s now explained that the day itself rather than its sacrifices is what brings reconciliation with God (Sifra, Acharei Mot, 8.1).

This strict view held that not only Biblical but also rabbinical rulings, even those that had been intended for a limited time and purpose, were to be kept forever (Beitzah 5b). Its adherents even went so far as to claim in Bereishit (Genesis) Rabbah 98:9:

Israel will not need the teaching of King Messiah in the future, for it says, “The nations will seek him” [Isa. 11:10]. The “nations” will seek Messiah, that is, but not Israel. If so, for what purpose will King Messiah come, and what will he do? He will come only to assemble the dispersed of Israel and to give the Gentiles thirty commandments [that is, the laws of Noah].

However, as mentioned in this same passage, even strict defenders of the Law understood that the Gentiles would be given laws in the Messianic era. Some held that this meant the Gentiles would be brought under the same laws as Israel. Others held that only the thirty commandments, that is, the laws of Noah, supposedly listed in Leviticus 19, would be required (Chullin 92a). [These thirty commandments are an amplification of the original seven laws of Noah taught by the rabbis and others.] Others held that only three commands would be binding on the Gentiles: two connected with the Feast of Tabernacles and a third with the phylacteries (Midrash on Psalm 31.1 [?]).

But the strict view was a minority opinion. Overall, the prevailing understanding among the rabbis was that a new law would be given by the Messiah. This new law is mentioned in a passage in Yalkut Shimoni on Isaiah, Remez 429 [English not available] which mentions “a new law that God will give by the Messiah” in the age to come. It also appears in the Midrash on Song of Songs (Shir Ha-Shirim) 2:13 [?] which, applying Jeremiah 31:31, says that the Messiah will give a new law to Israel. Similarly, the Targum on Isaiah 12:3 speaks of a “new instruction”:

Behold, in the Word of God is my salvation; I am trusting, and will not be moved, because my strength and my praise is the fear of the Lord: He has spoken by his Word, and he is become my Savior. And you will receive a new instruction with joy from the chosen of the righteous. (Targum Jonathan on Isa. 12:2-3)

A new “Law” in the “world to come” is also mentioned in Yayikra (Leviticus) Rabbah 13.3.

But the Talmud goes even further, stating that in the “age to come,” the whole ceremonial Law and all the feasts will cease (Midrash on Psalm 146.3). All that had formerly been “bound” or forbidden will be “loosed” or allowed, including the distinction between clean and unclean animals. Only the thank offering and the Day of Atonement, or perhaps the Feast of Esther, will continue.

This variety of rabbinic views helps us understand the attempt by the Pharisees at the Council of Jerusalem to force Gentile believers to observe the entire Law of Moses (Acts 15:5). It also helps us understand Paul’s distinctly different point of view and its similarity to Peter’s views, as well as the way Peter handled the new converts at the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10-11, 15:6-11). It also explains the overall proceedings of the Council of Jerusalem itself (in Acts 15). Paul, in his opposition to the Pharisaic party among the believers, was actually maintaining a fully orthodox Jewish position. But when he asserted not only a “new law of liberty” [a phrase from James 1:25 and 2:12 referring to the Law of the Messiah] but also the typical and preparatory nature of the Law of Moses and its fulfillment in Jesus, he went beyond the Jewish standpoint (Gal. 3:19-29, Rom. 10:4).

The views surveyed above also show that the scholarly theory that Paul and Peter had opposing views on this topic has no basis in the Jewish opinions circulating at the time, unless it’s supposed that Peter held the strict view, which doesn’t match with what we know about his life.

They also help us understand how Peter’s vision of the unclean animals descending from heaven may have been based on contemporary Jewish expectations (Acts 10:9-16).

They also explain why the Council of Jerusalem settled the question of the Gentiles by turning to the laws of Noah. [These included the three requirements that the Council did require of Gentiles: no idolatry, no immorality, and nothing strangled, i.e. with blood in it (Acts 15:20,29).]

Finally, they cast light on the authorship of John’s gospel. Uniquely among the gospels, his mention of “the Prophet,” which implies that changes to the Law would be made by the Messiah, shows close familiarity with Jewish ideas. This would have been impossible if this gospel had been composed in the second century, as claimed by the “Ephesian Gospel” theory.

---------------------------------------

So to review what Edersheim says here: The idea that the Messiah would bring changes to the Law of Moses had deep roots in Israel, going back even to Moses himself and the prophets of Israel. Some thought these changes would be minimal, affecting primarily the Gentiles. But others were anticipating a whole new law and even the complete replacement of the Law of Moses. This helps us understand the diversity of views mentioned in the New Testament and especially at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

But what about Jesus himself? How did he understand the effect of his earthly ministry on the Law of Moses?

Do not suppose that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but rather to fulfill them. For ‘amen’ I say to you, until the heaven and the earth pass away, a single letter or a single stroke [of a letter] will certainly not pass away from the Law until all comes to pass (Matt. 5:17-18).

Not even the smallest section of the Law can be done away with until the coming of the New Heavens and the New Earth. But that didn’t stop Jesus from making authoritative rulings on disputed points of law. Nor did it stop him from adding new commands of his own to be followed by his disciples. These new commands are what the apostles called the Law of the Messiah (Rom. 8:2, 1 Cor. 9:21, Gal. 6:2). And unlike the old Law, they would apply both to his Jewish and his Gentile followers (Matt. 28:19-20).

Read Edersheim’s original Appendix here

(For more on this topic, see our book The Jewish Roots of Christianity and our new book Jesus of Nazareth.)

More Teaching Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

Copyright © 2023 by To The Ends Of The Earth Ministries

www.totheends.com

Can We Command God? Isa. 45:11 (Q&A)

2022-11-15T01:32:00.007-08:00

Q: A classmate sent me an online poster titled “You Will Command Me” (Tetzavuni) and said we can command Jesus to do healing, not ask! The poster has different translations of Isa. 45:11, including the original Hebrew. Is this true? How to explain the Hebrew here? –Ruth C.

NOTE: The poster includes an English translation from the Darby Bible: “Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: Ask me of the things to come; concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands, command ye me” (Isa. 45:11)

A: It’s certainly true that many translate the end of this verse as “you command me concerning the works of my hands.” But meaning is derived from context, and so we need to look at the context to figure out what this means.

The passage appears in the middle of a prophecy about Cyrus, the Persian ruler who defeated the Babylonians (in 539 BC). God says that he will “subdue nations” before Cyrus, even though Cyrus doesn’t know the God of Israel: “though you have not known me” (Isa. 45:1,4). And why will God support Cyrus in this way? In order to prove that “besides me there is no God” (Isa. 45:5-6). Not only does the prophecy mention Cyrus by name, it also mentions that he will rebuild Jerusalem and let the Jewish exiles go free (Isa. 45:13). These are tremendous miracles that actually happened more than a hundred years after Isaiah’s prophecy was given.

But right in the middle of this prophecy, God rebukes those who quarrel with their maker: “Woe to the one who contends with his maker – an earthen vessel among the vessels of earth” (Isa. 45:9-10). He then goes on to assert his supreme authority: “I made the earth and created man on it” (Isa. 45:12). Since God is the one in authority, he can exercise that authority any way he wants.

This is where God identifies himself as the mighty one of Israel: “This is what the LORD says, the holy one of Israel and the one who has formed him, ‘Inquire of me about the things to come concerning my sons’” (Isa. 45:11). This is a challenge to his people Israel to turn to God if they want to find out about the future – the very future he’s proclaiming in his prophecy about Cyrus. This contrasts with his rebuke of idols and those who worship them in verses 16 and 20. No one else, no other god, has this kind of information about the future.

The verse then ends with the statement in question, “And you will command me concerning the work of my hands.” The implication is that if Israel will turn to (“inquire of”) the God of Israel rather than the false gods, they’ll be able to command him concerning his creation. In other words, God will favor them even more than Cyrus, since unlike Cyrus, they will know God and be his children.

The claim that people will be able to command God at first seems entirely impossible. As a result, many translations try to soften the meaning. One solution is to turn it into a question: “Will you instruct me about the work of my hands?” (Isa. 45:11 in the JPS Tanakh 1985). Another is to change the meaning of the verb altogether: “And you will commit to me the work of my hands” (NASB). But it’s difficult to justify either of these in Hebrew. So how can we understand this promise, which seems too good to be true?

There’s an important parallel in the New Testament. Jesus taught, “whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give to you” (John 15:16, also John 14:13-14, 16:23-26). Here, too, we have an incredible promise in which asking God is followed by his granting the request. The main difference is that in John this is called asking God, while in Isaiah it’s called commanding God. But there’s another passage in the New Testament that involves a command:

Jesus taught, “Have faith from God.* Amen I say to you that he who says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and be thrown into the sea,’ and doesn’t doubt in his heart, but rather trusts that what he says comes to be, it will be for him” (Mark 11:22-23). It’s true that the command here is given to the mountain and not to God. But God is still the one who makes it happen: “Because of this I say to you, all things that you pray and ask, trust that you have received them, and they will be for you” (Mark 11:24). This tells us that the command to the mountain is a form of prayer to God.

* Though this is often translated, “have faith in God,” the Greek uses a subjective genitive to indicate that the source of the faith is God: it’s a faith that comes from God rather than being a faith that we have mustered up on our own.

All of these verses, however, face the obstacle that many have experienced personally: I asked something from God (or perhaps commanded something), and it didn’t happen. How then should we understand these promises? Obviously they don’t mean that everything we ask under any circumstance will automatically be done by God. Even a command, as we saw in Mark, is a type of request, and that means it can only take place by the will of God.

Many point to a lack of faith when prayers aren’t answered. And we can certainly all join with the apostles in asking Jesus to “increase our faith” (Luke 17:5). We need to replace our faith with the faith of God in order to see our requests answered. There’s also the question of timing: that our request has not yet been answered doesn’t mean it never will be. Some things take time.

But one thing all of the verses listed above have in common: they challenge us to draw closer to God and to believe that faith will produce miracles. God isn’t calling us to be slaves, but to be his sons and daughters (Gal. 3:26, 4:5-7) and eventually to rule and reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12, Rev. 20:4). He wants to do even greater things for us than he did for Cyrus. We may have had prayer failures along the way, but this only shows that there’s a learning curve to all of this. As we draw closer to God, our will will align more closely with his, and that means that more of what we ask will be granted.

(For more on this and related topics, see our Great Discoveries of the Bible Seminar.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

Why did God want to kill Moses? Exo. 4:24-25 (Q&A)

2022-11-14T02:53:00.005-08:00

Q: About Exodus 4:24-25: Why did God want to kill Moses? And why did Zipporah cut off her son’s foreskin and cast it at Moses’ feet? Why did she say Moses is truly a “bridegroom of blood”? –Ruth C.

A: Zipporah called Moses a “bridegroom of blood” because of the circumcision of their son (Exo. 4:26). This refers to the small amount of blood produced in a circumcision. But we know little else about this incident.

It’s especially puzzling that the Lord wanted to put Moses to death, since he was in the process of going to Egypt to do exactly what the Lord had asked him to do (Exo. 4:24). But something similar happened to the prophet Balaam when he went to prophesy over Israel. He, too, was on his way in obedience to the command of God (Num. 22:20). But even though he was obeying God, God was angry with him (Num. 22:22). In the Balaam story, it’s clear that God wanted to put fear in Balaam’s heart to make sure that he only spoke the words that God wanted him to speak (“and the word that I speak to you, only that will you speak,” Num. 22:35). So perhaps this is also what God was doing with Moses. We know that people often go through a big spiritual struggle when God is calling them to do some great thing, and this seems to be what Moses was going through.

But there’s also the possibility that the Lord wasn’t seeking to kill Moses but rather his son: the Bible only uses the pronoun “him.” This assumes a connection with the immediately preceding verse in which God told Moses to threaten pharaoh’s first-born son with death if he didn’t let Israel go (“I will kill your son, your first-born,” Exo. 4:23). In the same way, God’s covenant with Abraham threatened death for all his male descendants who weren’t circumcised (“that soul will be cut off from his people,” Gen. 17:14). This was understood to mean death at the hand of God. Perhaps God was coming to kill Moses’ son because he wasn’t circumcised, and relented once the circumcision was performed.

This raises the question of why Moses’ son hadn’t been circumcised previously. God’s covenant with Abraham required circumcision on the eighth day after birth (Gen. 17:12). But Moses hadn’t done this. Many assume this is why God attacked Moses, and that Zipporah saved the day by circumcising her son.

But it’s also possible that Moses had wanted his son to be circumcised, but up until now Zipporah had refused. Only when she saw Moses’ spiritual struggle did she finally relent and circumcise him herself. But there’s not enough information to decide between these possibilities.

The same is true of her calling Moses a “bridegroom of blood.” While many assume that this is because she was upset about the circumcision, the verse doesn't actually say that she “threw” her son’s foreskin at Moses’ feet (as often translated), implying anger on her part. Rather it says she “made it touch his feet” (v’taga l’ragelav, Exo. 4:25). This can be understood as laying it at his feet. This would make it rather an act of submission or even of reverence. Since blood was often used in making covenants, she may even have seen this as establishing a deeper covenantal bond between herself and Moses, rather than as something negative. But here again, there is not enough information to decide between the different possibilities.

(For more on this and related topics, see our Great Discoveries of the Bible Seminar.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Lament of the Land (Micah 7)

2022-11-07T00:33:00.005-08:00

The warning of coming judgment is a common theme in the Bible. But only in a few places is this expressed as the land itself crying out because of the sins that have taken place on it (Isa. 33:9; Jer. 12:4, 23:10; Hos. 4:3, Joel 1:10; Zech. 12:12). Here in Micah, the land speaks directly to lament the tragedies it has suffered and those that were coming in the future.

This unusual prophecy caught the imagination of Jesus. He quoted a portion of it in his own prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 10:34-36, Luke 12:51-53). It’s outcry of the land contains an important message for us today when people and nations are once again at risk of spoiling their land through sin and incurring the judgment that will follow.

Micah spoke shortly before the devastating Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel. This northern kingdom, which had broken away after the time of Solomon, ruled the northern ten tribes for two hundred years. But almost immediately, it began a dangerous spiritual decline. Micah’s message came at a time of political turmoil: The northern kingdom had been ruled by five rulers in the space of twenty years. Two of these had ruled for less than a year, and three of them had gained the throne by murdering its former occupant. False prophets filled the land with false hope (Micah 3:5-7). And this spiritual and moral corruption was spreading south to Judah. But despite the judgment and destruction that Micah warns was coming, in the end God will restore his people.

The Lament of the Land is the climax and final chapter of the book of Micah (Micah 7):

[1]

Woe to me!

For I have become like the gatherings of summer fruit;

Like the gleanings of a grape harvest.

There is not a cluster of grapes to eat;

A first-ripe fig my soul desires.

The “gatherings of summer fruit” refer to the harvests of different kinds of fruit that take place in August and September in Israel. This is ordinarily considered a time of great abundance and joy. But from the point of view of the land itself, the once heavily laden trees and vines have all been laid bare; their bounty of fruit stripped away. The fields and orchards appear desolate and forlorn. No cluster of grapes remains hanging on the vines. The first-ripe figs of springtime, considered the tastiest of all, are nowhere to be found.

[2]

The godly one has perished from the land,

And the upright among man is not.

All of them lie in ambush for blood;

They hunt, each man his brother, with a net.

We now learn that the missing clusters of grapes and first-ripe figs are a poetic image of the lack of upright people in the land. The godly man is out of season. All now act as criminals, seeking to trap and hurt their fellows. This is a picture of the lawless conditions and political turmoil in the time of Micah.

[3]

With regard to evil, both palms do well:

The prince asks, even the judge, for a bribe,

And the great speaks out the desire of his soul,

And they weave it together.

One of these two “palms” of the hand is the prince (the king), who in those days also acted as a judge—here a corrupt judge. The other is the “great” (or wealthy, influential) man, who has the power to get whatever he wants. These two work together like a pair of malicious hands doing evil.

[4a]

The good one among them is like a briar;

The upright like a thorn bush.

Even the best of the people are like dangerous thorn bushes, the natural groundcover in much of Israel. Their thorns and barbs stick in your pants, socks, and shoes when you walk across the land. Some will even sting you.

[4b]

The day of your watchmen [Israel],

Your visitation, has come!

Now will their dismay be!

Because of the debased state of the nation, the day is upon Israel (“your” is masculine singular) when their watchmen will shout out the alarm, warning of an invading army. But this is not a random attack: it’s a visitation of God himself against a lawless nation.

[5]

Don’t trust in a companion.

Don’t confide in a friend.

From the one lying on your bosom

Guard the openings of your mouth.

The times are so dangerous that you can’t trust a friend or even a lover, but must watch carefully everything you say.

[6]

For son despises father,

Daughter has risen up against her mother;

Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

A man’s enemies are the men of his own household.

The situation is so bad that even within families, there are divisions and dangers. This verse was quoted by Jesus to deny that he came to bring peace on the earth (Matt. 10:34-36, Luke 12:51-53). Rather, he said, he came to bring division like that in the time of Micah; a division between those who accept and those who reject his offer of mercy from God.

[7]

Yet I, in YEHUAH* I will watch.

I will wait for the God of my salvation.

My God will hear me.

Yet in spite of all this, the land itself is faithfully looking to God to deliver it from the terrible judgment that is coming because of sin.

* The personal name of God (YHWH). Its pronunciation is uncertain, replaced with Adonai when reading by the Jewish people or by the Lord or the LORD in most Christian Bibles. This is one of several possible reconstructions. Click here for more on God’s name.

[8]

Do not rejoice over me, my enemy,

Though I have fallen, I have endured.

Though I sit in darkness,

YEHUAH is a light to me.

Though the land has fallen in defeat before an enemy, it’s able to endure a time of spiritual darkness because of the light of the Lord.

[9a]

The rage of YEHUAH I will bear,

For I have sinned against him,

Until he pleads my case

And executes my judgment.

Has the land itself committed sin? Or is this rather a sin by association with the sinners living on it (compare Gen. 6:11-12)? If so, the land has taken on itself the sins of others, an example of the innocent suffering for the wicked. This is the same idea that underlies the sacrificial system of Israel as well as the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The land is willing to endure the punishment of the Lord because of the sins of its residents and to wait for God to bring deliverance.

[9b-10a]

He will lead me out to the light.

I will see his righteousness.

And my enemy will see it,

And shame will cover her—

In the end, God will surely deliver the land by his righteousness, just as he later delivered Jesus from death, and the enemy will see it and be ashamed.

[10b]

The one saying to me,

“Where is YEHUAH your God?”—

My eyes will look [in victory] at her.

The enemy mocks the land’s hope in God. But in the end, the land will prevail over its enemy.

[10c-11]

Then she will be a place of trampling,

Like mud in the streets.

A day to build your walls,

That day your border will be distant.

In that final victory, the enemy land will be trampled on in victory. As a result, she will have to return home to defend herself, moving her threatening border far away.

[12]

That day will be, yet to you [Israel] he [God] is coming

From Assyria and the cities of Matzor [Egypt]

And from Matzor and to the River [Euphrates]

And from sea to sea, and mountain to the mountain [Jerusalem].

Yes, the enemy will one day be defeated. But first “you” (Israel, masculine singular) are going to receive God’s judgment. This will come at the hand of the Assyrians. And this is exactly what happened: the Assyrians advanced first south to Egypt (poetically here called Matzor) and then back again, leaving desolation in their wake. “Sea to sea” is from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea; “mountain to the mountain” is from the mountains of Assyria in the north to the holy mountain of Jerusalem in the south, which the Assyrians besieged in the lifetime of Micah. All this is a description of the actual extent of Assyrian aggression.

[13]

And the land will be a desolation

Because of those dwelling upon her

From the fruit of their deeds.

The land will be made desolate, in punishment for the sins of those living upon her.

[14a]

Shepherd your people [Lord] with your rod,

The flock of your possession,

The one dwelling alone in a wood

In the midst of Carmel.

The rod is a symbol of judgment, but also of the care of the shepherd who protects his flock from danger. This sometimes involves swatting them to get their attention: a small punishment to keep them from far greater danger. This protective care is compared to taking a flock of sheep and goats to the forest on top of Mt. Carmel. This was a place where people could retreat for safety in times of danger. It’s also a picture of the remnant that would survive the Assyrian onslaught.

[14b-15]

Let them graze Bashan and Gilead

As in days long past.

As in the days of your coming out of the land of Egypt,

I [God] will show him [Israel] extraordinary things.

Here the prophet appeals to God to let his people expand once again as far as Bashan (the Golan Heights) and Gilead, both up on the heights above the east bank of the Jordan River. These are areas that Israel had conquered in the time of Moses, when great miracles had taken place. In response, God speaks through the prophet, revealing that he will do great miracles again.

[16]

Nations will see and will be ashamed

Of all their might.

They will put their hand upon their mouth;

Their ears will be deaf.

The nations, despite their military power, will once again see God’s care of Israel, and be in awe.

[17]

They will lick up dust as the snake,

As the crawling things of the land.

They will come trembling from their fortresses

To YEHUAH our God.

They will be in dread and they will be afraid of you.

The nations will be in fear of Israel and will turn to the Lord.

[18a]

Who is a God like you,

Who forgives a transgression

And who overlooks a sin

For the remnant of his possession?

Who is like God, who forgives the sins of his people?

[18b-19a]

He has not kept his anger forever

For he delights in kindness.

He will repent; he will have compassion on us.

He will overcome our transgressions.

God will eventually have compassion on Israel, and forgive them for their sins.

[19b]

And you will cast into the depths of the sea

All their sins.

He will remove their sins completely from them.

[20]

You will give truth to Jacob,

Kindness to Abraham,

Which you swore to our fathers

From the days of old.

God will extend truth and kindness to Israel as he promised to the patriarchs of old.

More Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

Why was Joseph buried in Shechem? (Q&A)

2021-06-07T08:32:00.013-07:00

Q: I was rather astonished to realize, in reading Joshua 24, that they buried the bones of Joseph in Shechem instead of in the cave of Machpelah, where Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried... Do a word-search on Shechem and you'll find that it is a rather nefarious place. Why did they bury him there? I was also a little distressed to realize that Stephen, in the book of Acts, says that Abraham bought the land in Shechem, but Moses wrote that it was Jacob that bought land there. –Sarah P.

A: Welcome to the tension between the north and the south in Israel. This tension goes all the way back to the division of Saul’s kingdom in the time of David, a division that reemerged when the kingdom was divided again after the death of Solomon. It then reappears in the time of the New Testament in the tension between the Samaritans in the north and the Judeans in the south. Among these tensions were some different and conflicting traditions.

What does this have to do with Shechem? Let’s begin with the burial place of the twelve patriarchs, the sons of Jacob, one of whom was Joseph. Acts 7:16 implies that they were all buried in Shechem: “And they [the antecedent of “they” is “our fathers” in vs. 15] were removed to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had purchased for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.”* That the brothers were buried in Shechem certainly makes sense, as the children of Israel under Joshua came into possession of this area before they did of Hebron. And it seems logical that they would bury the others where Joseph was buried: “And they buried the bones of Joseph, which the sons of Israel brought up from Egypt, at Shechem” (Joshua 24:32). However, the Bible only mentions the bones of Joseph being brought along in the Exodus: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exo. 13:19). Nothing is said, except in the book of Acts, about the burial of his brothers.

* That this doesn’t include Jacob himself is evident from the account of his burial at Hebron: “For [Jacob’s] sons carried him to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave…opposite Mamre [by Hebron]” (Gen. 50:13).

That the brothers were buried at Shechem with Joseph was a long-standing tradition. In the time of Jerome, the famous church father (4th-5th century AD), the tombs of the twelve patriarchs were still shown in Shechem and not at Hebron. However, this claim was disputed by those in the south. Josephus, the Jewish historian, says that Joseph’s brothers (though not Joseph himself) were buried at Hebron, and implies that this was done before the Exodus (as Acts 7 could also be understood to imply, though with regard to Shechem rather than Hebron):

At length [Joseph’s] brethren died, after they had lived happily in Egypt. Now the posterity and sons of these men, after some time, carried their bodies, and buried them at Hebron; but as to the bones of Joseph, they carried them into the land of Canaan afterward, when the Hebrews went out of Egypt, for so had Joseph made them promise him. (Antiquities 2.199-200)

This Hebron burial is also mentioned in the intertestamental books of Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. But no evidence is offered to support this claim, nor is there any evidence that their tombs were ever shown to anyone there. So these are clearly conflicting traditions.

But why would any of the brothers, including Joseph himself, be buried at Shechem? You’re quite right that some disturbing things took place there. The story of the rape of Dinah and the subsequent murder of the men of Shechem are deeply disturbing events (Gen. 34:2, 25-27). But that’s not the whole story. Jacob had bought land there before he built an altar on it (Gen. 33:19-20). And despite all the bad things that happened, the people of Shechem had made a covenant with the Israelites, a covenant to become “one people” (Gen. 34:22)—a covenant that was never revoked. This promise of unity became a reality when the sons of Jacob took the wives and children of those who were slain at Shechem, and these people then joined them in their travels: “and they captured and plundered all their wealth and all their little ones and their wives…” (Gen. 34:29). This soon made them genetically one people. And despite the tragic events that had taken place, it seems that the covenantal origins of this relationship were never forgotten.

This ancestral relationship appeared in a much more positive light in the time of Joshua, when the people of Shechem were bravely resisting the demands of the Egyptian pharaoh and needed the help of the recently arrived Israelites. We actually have records of the plight of the people of Shechem in the Amarna Letters, written in the time of Joshua. These letters tell us that the ruler of Shechem was cooperating with the invaders that we know to be the Israelites. In fact, he “gave the land of Shechem” to them (EA 298). This explains why, when Joshua divided the land, the “sons of Shechem” were included in the tribal allotment: they had joined Israel (Josh. 17:2). Otherwise, it’s hard to imagine why the Israelites had no opposition in Shechem and didn’t have to fight to take that area, unlike their experience in the rest of Canaan.*

* The Gibeonites were another local group that joined Israel, but because they made a covenant under false pretenses (they lied about their true identity and location), they suffered the penalty of being made second-class citizens (Joshua 9).

But why then does Acts 7 say that Abraham bought a tomb at Shechem? No such thing is mentioned in Genesis. But the idea does help explain a couple of things in the Bible. (1) As we have just seen, Jacob bought land at Shechem before building his altar there (Gen. 33:19-20). Wouldn’t it be likely for Abraham to have done the same thing? (2) There is also the strange inheritance that Jacob gave to Joseph: “And I give you one portion [literally “one shoulder” (or “Shechem”) of land] more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow” (Gen. 48:22). This military action doesn’t match the massacre connected with Dinah very well, since the land Jacob was living on there at the time had been purchased, not taken. But it’s just possible that at some point he had to defend a piece of land that the family already owned there, tracing back to Abraham, that he joined to the additional land that he bought himself. This tradition would be more likely to be remembered in the north, and be remembered with great pride as it tied the northern tribes that much more closely to Abraham.

There are also other attempts to answer this question. But the most likely explanation is that Abraham did in fact buy land in Shechem, though Genesis doesn’t mention it. Here the twelve brothers were buried, as people in the north continued to maintain. Only later, because of tensions between the Judeans and the Samaritans--Shechem being the most important Samaritan city--did those in the south begin to claim that eleven of the brothers were buried at Hebron rather than at Shechem. But the older tradition was never forgotten, and wasn’t contradicted when Stephen mentioned it to the Sanhedrin Council.

It’s difficult to imagine that Stephen could make an error about such well-known events, events that could so easily be “fact checked,” especially when speaking before the Sanhedrin Council. Clearly, we are the ones who are missing something here, not him. Many times, the smallest additional piece of evidence is enough to resolve enigmas like this. Perhaps in the future something will be discovered that will help us resolve this one, too.

(For more on this topic, see our Great Discoveries of the Bible Seminar.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

If the Philistines were Greeks, why did they worship Dagon? (Q&A)

2021-06-07T06:16:00.005-07:00

Q: In my devotions the other day I was reading about when the Philistines captured the ark, and how God showed the Philistines that he was greater than Dagon… If the Philistines were Greeks, why don’t we see them worshipping any of the Greek gods – only Dagon? --Sarah P.

A: You’re right that the Philistines have now been identified as Greeks of some kind—or at least that they developed from an original core of Greeks that settled in what is today Israel and intermarried with the local population. This is the result of both DNA analysis, pottery analysis, and the similarity of cultural practices that point to a connection with Greece and/or other areas of Greek influence (such as Cyprus, Crete, and western Turkey). These include the bronze greaves worn by Goliath, the Philistine hero that was defeated by David (1 Sam. 17:6), and even Goliath’s call to one-on-one combat (representative warfare), otherwise unknown in the area. However, the connection with the Philistines is at a very early time in Greek history known as the Mycenaean Age (15th-11th cent. BC). This was long before the Classical Age of Greece (5th-4th cent. BC) with its well-known Greek gods (the Olympian gods). It was even before the Archaic Period (8th-6th cent. BC) in which the Greek alphabet first appears. (See diagram)

But this was not only a matter of the passage of time: The Archaic Period was separated from the earlier Mycenaean Age by the Greek Dark Ages (11th-8th cent. BC), during which literacy was completely lost and even the Mycenaean script (Linear B) was forgotten. The great Mycenaean palaces and cities were destroyed or abandoned. There was a huge decrease in population. This was clearly a time of great trauma for the Mycenaean civilization, great enough to bring that civilization to a close. What exactly happened is debated, since as a “Dark Age” we don’t have much information about it. Was it famine? Invasion? Earthquakes? But whatever happened seems to have affected the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean: all the way from the Hittites in the north to the Egyptians in the south. And it involved, either as a cause or as a result of all these changes, a mysterious group known as the “Sea Peoples.”

The Sea Peoples were loosely-organized groups of invaders from the general area of Greece and even further afield (including Sardinia) that came to the Eastern Mediterranean and overthrew cities and even kingdoms. They even tried to overthrow Egypt, but narrowly failed. The Philistines were one of these groups, also known as the Peleset. When they failed to settle in Egypt, they chose instead the southern coast of what is today Israel.

One of the key historical events that took place near the close of the Mycenaean Age, and which may have contributed to the Sea Peoples invasions, was the Trojan War (13th-12th cent. BC). It wasn’t only Odysseus that went wandering around after the close of the war (as recounted in the Odyssey). Others, too, scattered around the Mediterranean, as recounted in the Nostoi legends. Some of these wanderers settled in the Eastern Mediterranean. These are most likely to be identified with the Philistines and other similar groups that settled along the Eastern Mediterranean coast at this time.

It’s true that when we read the Iliad and the Odyssey, which tell of the Trojan War and its aftermath, the classical Greek gods are an important part of the story. And we do know through the decipherment of Mycenean inscriptions that several of these same gods were in fact known and worshiped in Mycenean times. But we know very little about these earlier beliefs. Homer, who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey in the 8th cent. BC, was writing hundreds of years after the events portrayed, long after the collapse of Mycenaean civilization. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th cent. BC) says that Homer was one of the first to name the Greek gods and describe their characters. This means that the gods as they appear in his account tell us more about the beliefs of the groups that came together to form Classical Greek civilization and less about the beliefs of the Philistines at the time of their migration.

Whatever those beliefs may have been, the Philistines seem to have abandoned them rather quickly. In the same way that the core Greek group of Philistines intermarried with local Canaanites, they also adopted the local religious beliefs. One of these was the worship of the god Dagon, which is documented in the area back to as much as a thousand years before the arrival of the Philistines. It seems to have been a common belief in ancient times that different gods ruled over different regions, and that people should adapt to whatever region they happened to live in. A good example of this in the Bible is the Samaritans, who began to worship the God of Israel because they had come into his territory (2 Kings 17:25-28). The Philistines seem to have done much the same thing when they arrived in the Middle East.

(For more on this topic, see our Great Discoveries of the Bible Seminar.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Pater Noster Church, Jerusalem

2020-07-19T22:55:00.000-07:00

The Unfinished Reconstruction of the Eleona Church (foreground)
in front of the Pater Noster Church (facade at back partially hidden by a palm tree);
the cave is under the platform in the foreground

· The Traditional Location of Jesus’ Endtimes Teaching on the Mt. of Olives

(the “Olivet Discourse,” Matt. 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21)

· Site of the Byzantine Eleona Church (the “Olive Grove” Church, also known

as the Church of the Disciples)

· Site of a Crusader-era chapel associated with Jesus’ teaching of the Lord’s Prayer

· Currently the location of the Pater Noster Church commemorating Jesus’ teaching

of the Lord’s Prayer as well as the partly rebuilt Eleona Church.

Biblical events remembered here:

(1) Jesus’ Endtimes Teaching (the “Olivet Discourse,” Matt. 24-25),

(2) Jesus’ Teaching of the Lord’s Prayer

Location: On top of the Mt. of Olives, east of Jerusalem, beside the old road from Jerusalem to Bethany.

Authenticity: The church is in the right general area for Jesus’ endtimes teaching, which took place on the Mt. of Olives directly opposite the Jewish Temple. However, the cave on the property, said to be the exact location of this teaching, contains a first-century AD tomb (a kochim-style tomb of a type popular in the time of Jesus). The presence of this tomb makes it highly unlikely that Jesus and his disciples would have come here, or that the early Jewish Christians would have revered the site (see our teaching on Clean and Unclean), though it is possible that the tomb was introduced at a later time. Nor does the Bible say anything about a cave. However, the actual location of Jesus’ teaching could not have been very far away.

The association with Jesus’ teaching of the Lord’s Prayer has no Biblical basis, given the fact that the gospels say this took place in Galilee (Matt. 4:23-5:1,9-13). This tradition emerged for the first time in the Middle Ages.

View down on the top of the Mt. of Olives. The Bethany-Jerusalem road goes from bottom right
to upper left in the photo. (Google satellite view)

Jesus’ Endtimes Teaching: Matthew says that Jesus and his disciples left the Temple and were sitting on the Mt. of Olives (Matt. 24:1,3). Mark adds that they were sitting “opposite the Temple,” that is, directly across the Kidron Valley from the Temple, which certainly matches this spot (Mark 13:3). It’s hard to imagine for such a dramatic teaching that they didn’t go to the top of the hill with its magnificent view over Jerusalem. They certainly wouldn’t have sat at the bottom of the hill, which today is a cemetery just as it was in Jesus’ day. Touching any of the tombs there would have made them ritually unclean, and would prevent entry into the Temple that day. Instead, they would have crossed the Kidron on the bridge (or “causeway”) that extended part-way up the Mt. of Olives to avoid contact with the cemetery. This, too, points to a location higher up the hill.

Jesus’ endtimes teaching here was in response to a question by his disciples: "And as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things be and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3). First Jesus warned them of the things that would not be signs of his coming: false Messiahs, wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes: these things, he said, are not yet the end (Matt. 24:4-7). They are only the “beginning of birth pangs,” the beginning of the difficult period that would precede his return (Matt. 24:8). This difficult time was known to the Jewish people as the approaching footsteps, or literally the “heels,” of the Messiah (iqvot haMeshiach; Psa. 89:51). During these birth pangs, Jesus said, his followers would be persecuted, and hated, even killed (Matt. 24:9). Some would fall away, others would betray one another and hate one another, and there would be much false teaching (Matt. 24:10-11). Most people's love would grow cold (Matt. 24:12). But even so, the gospel will be preached throughout the whole world before the end comes (Matt. 24:14). And the one who endures to the end will be saved (Matt. 24:13).

Then he warned of the horrible tragedy that was about to come on Jerusalem: its destruction by the Roman armies, which would usher in a long period of tribulation (Matt. 24:15-28, Luke 21:20-24). But then, finally, would come the signs of his return: the sun and moon will be darkened, stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken (Matt. 24:29). Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky (Matt. 24:30), and the Jewish people will mourn as they see him coming in power and glory (Matt. 24:30 as in Zech. 12:10). Then he will send his angels out with the sound of a great trumpet to gather in those who believe in him from all over the world (Matt. 24:31,40-41). This is the catching up of believers mentioned by the apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, when the dead in Messiah will also be raised. Then will follow the destruction of the wicked (Matt. 24:39), and the descent of the believers with Messiah to earth to reign with him in his Messianic kingdom (Matt. 25:34).

As Zechariah put it: "For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle.... Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when he fights on a day of battle. And in that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley.... Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with him!" (Zech. 14:2-5).

And what happens after that? The wedding feast of the Lamb (Matt. 25:10)! Many imagine that the wedding feast will be somewhere in heaven. But Isaiah says: “On this mountain,” speaking of Mt. Zion (Isa. 24:23), “the Lord will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples... And on this mountain he will swallow up the covering that is over all the peoples... he will swallow up death for all time” (Isa. 25:6-8). Isaiah 4:5 adds that at that time there will be over Jerusalem “a cloud by day, and smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy (a chuppah).” What canopy is this? A bridal canopy (a chuppah), like those used in Jewish weddings. Why a bridal canopy? For the wedding feast of the Lamb! Jesus said that “many will come from east and west, and recline at the table [to eat] with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob” (Matt. 8:11). What a day of rejoicing that will be!

Then Jesus gave them many warnings in parables of the need to keep alert and not to stumble in the long time of waiting until his return (Matt. 24:40-25:46).

The Cave: The cave under the later Byzantine-period church is not mentioned in the Bible. But a cave on the Mt. of Olives was associated from an early date with the endtimes teaching of Jesus. It’s first mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of John (2nd-3rd cent. AD)

The Byzantine Eleona Church: After the legalization of Christianity, the Emperor Constantine and his mother Helena built three large basilica-style churches in the Holy Land (4th cent. AD). They were all associated with the new Nicene Creed: 1) the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem ("born of the Virgin Mary"), 2) the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ("was crucified, died, and was buried; on the third day he rose again from the dead"), and 3) the Eleona Church on the Mt. of Olives ("and ascended into heaven”). Eusebius the Church historian says directly that Helena built the Eleona Church “in memory of [Jesus’] ascent to heaven.” But the location chosen for the church was above a cave which he says was remembered as the “very cave [in which] the Savior imparted his secret revelations to his disciples” (Life of Constantine 3.43). This seems to be why Helena named the church the Church of the Disciples. But it soon came to be known as the Eleona (the “Olive Grove”) Church, completed by 333 AD.

Diagram of the Byzantine-period Eleona Church based on the excavations in the early 20th century.

The actual site of Jesus’ ascension, however, was thought to be on “an open hillock nearby” (the pilgrimage diary of Egeria, mid 4th cent.), where another church was built by 378, currently the site of the Chapel of the Ascension.

The Eleona Church had a terrace in front of its main entrance on the west side with a beautiful view over the city of Jerusalem. Steps led up to the church from the Kidron Valley below. This marble stairway is reminiscent of the bridge (or “causeway”) that went across the Kidron Valley and part way up the Mt. of Olives in the time of Jesus. The Eleona was destroyed by the Persians in 614.

The Middle Ages: In the Middle Ages, a chapel built here was associated with the teaching of the Lord's Prayer (1106). This was made into a church in 1152. There was also another chapel where the apostles were said to have formulated the Apostle’s Creed, though the creed dates in its earliest form to the 3rd or 4th century. These medieval structures were heavily damaged in the Muslim reconquest of the city in 1187 and abandoned by 1345.

The Modern Church and Cloister: In 1868, the site was purchased by Princesse Aurelia Bossi de la Tour d’Auvergne, whose tomb can still be seen on the site. She built a church dedicated to the Lord’s Prayer and a convent for French Carmelite nuns that continues today. Archeological work in 1910 discovered the ruins of the Byzantine-period church and the cave over which it was built. But an attempt to rebuild the Eleona Church failed for lack of funds (1915-1927), which accounts for the incomplete state of the structure seen today. The modern church and cloister continue the Crusader commemoration of the Lord’s Prayer, today shown in more than 60 languages.

Three of the dozens of plaques of the Lord's Prayer in different languages
These are in Latin, Arabic, and Armenian.

Inside the Cave: From the Byzantine church above there were originally two entrances to the cave below. The raised platform above the cave was located at the eastern end of the sanctuary (see the diagram above). The cave was originally larger than it appears today; it partly collapsed in 1910.

Photo of the Partly Reconstructed Eleona Church in front of the Pater Noster Church courtesy of Hoshvilim under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

Photo of Lord’s Prayer plaques at Pater Noster Church courtesy of Pater Noster – Carmelite sisters – Mount of Olives under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

More Locations

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Chapel of the Ascension, Jerusalem

2020-05-31T22:54:00.017-07:00

The Chapel of the Ascension and Surrounding Courtyard

The Traditional Site of Jesus’ Ascension into Heaven
Site of the Byzantine Imbomon Church (Church “On the Hill”)
Current location of the Crusader-period Chapel of the Ascension

Biblical events remembered here:
(1) The ascension of Jesus into heaven forty days after his crucifixion and resurrection;
(2) The return of Jesus with his people at his second coming.

Possible historical site of:
(1) The Jewish fire signal used to announce the sighting of the new moon,
(2) The burning of the red heifer to produce the ashes used for cleansing from the impurity of contact with the dead,
(3) The burning of the sin offerings offered up on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

Location: On top of the Mt. of Olives, east of Jerusalem.

Authenticity: The chapel is in the right general location for Jesus’ ascension, though the actual site is probably a bit further east on the old road to Bethany. This road runs from west to east just a few steps south of the entrance. So at the very least, Jesus and the disciples passed right by this spot shortly before Jesus' ascension.

View down on the top of the Mt. of Olives. The Bethany-Jerusalem road goes from bottom right to upper left in the photo. (Google satellite view)

The Ascension of Jesus: Jesus’ ascension is reported in three places in the New Testament (Mark 16:19, Luke 24:50-51, Acts 1:6-12) and mentioned in many more (John 3:13, 6:62, 20:17; Acts 2:32-36; Eph. 4:8-10; Rev. 12:5). The most detailed account is in the book of Acts:

"Then, having come together, they were questioning him, saying, ‘Lord, at this time are you restoring the kingdom to Israel?' But he said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or dates that the Father has set by his own authority, but rather you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.' And after he said these things, he was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took him up out of their sight. And while they were gazing into the sky as he was going, look, two men had come up beside them in white clothing, who also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why are you standing looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way that you saw him go into heaven. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called ‘Of the Olive Grove’ (Elaionos; the Greek name for the Mt. of Olives)...." (Acts 1:6-12).

This clearly identifies the site of Jesus’ ascension as being on the Mt. of Olives. The gospel of Luke further specifies that it was a spot near Bethany (“He led them out [of Jerusalem] until [they were] near Bethany,” Luke 24:50). Since the main route to Bethany from Jerusalem ran right over the Mt. of Olives, these two descriptions match up perfectly. Bethany (known today as al-Azariya in memory of Lazarus whom Jesus raised there from the dead) is on the east side of the Mt. of Olives. It’s just a little less than a mile away from the Chapel of the Ascension. The old road from Jerusalem to Bethany, today a narrow paved road, passes by just south of the Chapel. This is the same road that Jesus had taken a few weeks earlier on Palm Sunday, riding a donkey in the other direction, toward Jerusalem. His ascension could have been anywhere between here and the edge of Bethany.

The Scapegoat on the Day of Atonement: The road from Jerusalem to Bethany goes out in the same direction, and was likely the same road, that the scapegoat was led along on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) as it was taken out into the desert. This was one part of a unique sacrifice offered on that day of two identical goats, one offered up on the altar in the Temple, the other taken out and released in the desert (Lev. 16:5-10, 15-28). This second goat had all the sins of Israel laid on it by the high priest, which it then took away from the city: removing those sins from the people. In the same way, Jesus took the sins of mankind out this same road and removed them from us as he ascended into heaven (Psa. 103:10-12).

The Sin Offerings on the Day of Atonement: The first goat of the special sacrifice of two goats on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was offered up in the Temple (Lev. 16:15-19) together with a bull (Lev. 16:11-14). These two animals were then taken “outside the camp” to be burned with fire (Lev. 16:27). Some believe that the site of this burning (the “place of ashes” of Lev. 4:12) was where the Chapel of the Ascension is now located. This burning of the bodies of the sacrifices on Yom Kippur is referred to in Heb. 13:11-12 as a type of the Messiah, who also suffered outside the city: (“For of those animals whose blood is brought [as an offering] for sin in the holy places [of the Temple] by the high priest, their bodies are burned up outside the camp. Because of this, Jesus, too, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate [of the city.]”)

The Burning of the Red Heifer: A more certain identification of this site is as the place of the burning of the red heifer. This is the heifer whose ashes were used to purify from contact with the dead (Num. 19:1-10). The reason for this greater certainty is that the rabbis specifically mention that this took place on the Mt. of Olives (which they call the Mount of Anointing) at a point directly east of the doors of the inner Sanctuary (Num. 19:4, Midd. 1:3, 2:4; Par. 3:6-7,11). This matches the site of the Chapel of the Ascension. The site was accessed by a bridge (or “causeway”) built across the Kidron Valley and part way up the slope of the Mt. of Olives. This was to prevent contact with the graves of the dead. Jesus and his disciples would have taken this same bridge on their way out of the city on the day of his ascension. This red heifer is also a type of the Messiah (“For if...the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean makes them holy with regard to the cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Messiah...cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Heb. 9:13-14; also Heb. 10:22).

Fire Signals Announcing the New Moon: Since this is the highest spot on this section of the Mt. of Olives, it was also likely the site of the Jewish fire signal sent up every month to announce the new moon (R. Sha. 2:4). This was at a time when the new moon had to be sighted visually (the first sliver of the waxing moon), and confirmed by the Sanhedrin Council in the Temple. This signal was then relayed from mountain to mountain until much of the Jewish world in the eastern Mediterranean got the message. This had been discontinued, though, by the time of Jesus because of enemy signals intended to confuse the Jewish people. In its place, the Great Sanhedrin sent out emissaries (apostles) to personally take out the message, much as Jesus sent out his apostles with the good news of salvation, a mission that Jesus spoke to them about that day just before his ascension (the Great Commission, Acts 1:7-8).

The Return of Jesus: The coming return of Jesus to the exact spot from which he ascended was not only foretold by the angels who were there that day (Acts 1:10-11, see above). It was also prophesied by the prophet Zechariah long before:

“And his feet will stand on that day on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west, a very large valley... And the LORD my God will come, all the holy ones will be with you [Jerusalem]” (Zechariah 14:4-5).

The holy ones with Jesus at his return will be all those who have loved him and believed in him from all the ages. Many talk about the rapture or catching away of the believers when Jesus returns, but that’s only the beginning. After that, they will come back down with Jesus to rule and reign on the earth. This will be the beginning of the Messianic Age, when the lion will lie down with the lamb, and there will be no more war (Isa. 11:6-9). The earth will be renewed, or as Jesus put it, it will be a palingenesia, a new Genesis, a new start for the world (Matt. 19:28).

Many parts of the Church have neglected or even rejected this teaching of the Messianic age to come. But Jesus and the disciples firmly believed and taught it, when wrongs will be righted and the earth will be renewed. The apostle Paul said that all of creation groans in anticipation of this revelation of the children of God (Rom. 8:22).

The Byzantine Period Church: The first church associated with the Ascension of Jesus was the nearby Eleona Church built by the Emperor Constantine and his mother Helena in 333 AD. The ruins of this church can still be seen beside the Pater Noster Church, just a few meters away.

But the actual site of Jesus’ ascension was thought to be on “an open hillock nearby” (the pilgrimage diary of Egeria, mid 4th cent.). This small rise on top of the Mt. of Olives is where the Chapel of the Ascension is currently located. At the time, this was an open area, and the annual celebration of Jesus' ascension took place outdoors. But soon afterwards, a church was built on this higher location by a wealthy Roman lady, a member of the imperial family (Poimenia, in 378).

This newer church was known as the Inbomon Church, which means “on a height.” It was an octagonal church with a circular colonnade that held up a dome. Octagonal churches were used to mark the spot where a Biblical event had taken place. On top of the church was a cross that could be seen from a long distance away. This church was destroyed by the Persians (in 614). But it was soon rebuilt as a circular structure, in which the inner enclosure, a little larger than the current enclosure, was open to the sky. This meant that you could stand in the church and look up into the sky, much as the disciples had done when Jesus ascended.

The Current Chapel: The much smaller octagonal chapel we see here today (the “edicule”) was built by the Crusaders. At that time, the arches in the sides of the chapel were open and the roof was open to the sky. This was then converted into a mosque by the Muslim sultan Salah ad-Din (Saladin) and given to a couple of his followers (in 1198). It is still in Muslim possession today. Islam also believes that Jesus ascended into heaven: the Koran says that "God raised him up to himself" (Sura 4.158).

The Muslim owners permit Christian services here once a year on the Feast of the Ascension. If you look carefully, you can see hooks in the walls of the courtyard that are used to secure awnings used by the different Christian communities celebrating the feast.

The tiny burial crypt next to the chapel is revered by all three local religions: Jews believe it contains the 7th-century BC prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:14); Christians believe it to be the tomb of the 5th-century saint Pelagia, a repentant harlot from Antioch who became a hermit on the Mt. of Olives; while Muslims maintain that the 8th-century ascetic and Sufi mystic, Rabi'a al-Adawiyya, known for her devotion to the unconditional love of God, is buried there. The Christian tradition of Saint Pelagia is the oldest of the three.

Interior of the Chapel of the Ascension with the "footprint" of Jesus in the marble box.

Inside the Chapel: The footprints of Jesus on a stone here were first mentioned at the time of the construction of the Imbomon church. One of these was later removed to the el-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, where it is associated with Mohammed’s nighttime journey to heaven (the Mi’raj). The remaining "footprint" can still be seen (in the marble square by the candles in the photo above).

More Locations

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Angel of the Lord: A List of Verses

2020-05-03T07:11:00.005-07:00

One of the most important contributions of the early Jewish-Christian community to our understanding of Jesus is the connection they made between Jesus and the Angel (or Messenger) of the Lord.* This mysterious being appears in several places in the Hebrew Bible. He has the appearance of a man, yet speaks and acts like God. This identification was an important early step in the development of the idea of the Trinity: that the Angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate Word of God, is God himself, yet is distinct from the Father.

* The Bible’s words for “angel” (malach in Hebrew and angelos in Greek) mean simply messenger. Whether this refers to a human messenger, a spirit-being messenger (an angel), or God himself acting as a messenger must be determined from the context.

One of the most well-known appearances of this Messenger of the Lord is as one of the three men who appeared to Abraham at Mamre (Gen. 18:13,17,20). In the passage, one of these visitors is identified as the LORD God himself: “and the LORD said to Abraham” (Gen. 18:13). Later, this same LORD rained fire and brimstone on Sodom “from the LORD out of heaven” (Gen. 19:24). This is a clear reference to two distinct entities—the Father in heaven and the Son on earth—that share the divine name (LORD, YHWH in Hebrew) and are together one God.*

* Evidence for this understanding among the early Jewish-Christians can be seen in their controversies with the rabbis in which they used passages like these to argue for the divinity of Jesus (Sanh. 38b).

Here’s a list of the other appearances of the Messenger of the Lord where he is specifically referred to as God or the LORD:

1) The “messenger of the LORD” that spoke as God to Hagar (Gen. 16:7,9-11): “And she called the name of the LORD who was speaking to her, ‘You are the God who sees...’” (Gen. 16:13).

2) One of the “three men,” two of whom are later identified as “messengers” (Gen. 19:1), that appeared to Abraham (mentioned above): “And the LORD appeared to him” (Gen. 18:1), “And the LORD said to Abraham” (Gen. 18:13), “while Abraham was still standing before the LORD” (Gen. 18:22).

3) The “messenger of the LORD” that spoke as God to Abraham at his offering of Isaac (Gen. 22:11,15): “You have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” (Gen. 22:12).

4) The “messenger of God” that identified himself as “God” to Jacob at Bethel (Gen. 31:11): “I am the God of Bethel” (Gen. 31:13).

5) The “man” identified as “God” that wrestled with Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32:24): “I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:30).

6) The “messenger” identified with God in Jacob’s three-fold blessing over Joseph’s sons (Gen. 48:16): “The God before whom my fathers...walked, the God who has been my shepherd..., the messenger who has redeemed me from all evil” (Gen. 48:15-16).

7) The “messenger of the LORD” identified as “God” that spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Exo. 3:2): “God called to him from the middle of the bush” (Exo. 3:4).

8) The “messenger” with God’s name in him that went before the children of Israel in the desert (Exo. 23:20): “My name is in him” (Exo. 23:21).

9) The appearance of “the God of Israel” before Moses and the seventy elders on Mt. Sinai, traditionally identified as an angelic messenger: “And they saw the God of Israel” (Exo. 24:10).

10) The “LORD” (#1) who descended and stood by Moses as the “LORD” (#2) passed by in front of him (Exo. 34:5-6): “And the LORD descended in the cloud and stationed himself with him there.... Then the LORD passed by over his face...” (Exo. 34:5).

11) The “captain of the Lord’s army,” identified as “the LORD,” that spoke to Joshua (Joshua 5:14-15): “And the LORD said to Joshua” (Josh. 6:2).

12) The “messenger of the LORD” that spoke as God at Bochim (Judges 2:1,4): “I brought you up out of Egypt” (Judges 2:1).

13) The “messenger of the LORD” identified as “the LORD” that spoke to Gideon (Judges 6:11): “And the LORD turned toward him” (Judges 6:14).

14) The “messenger of the LORD,” identified as “a man of God” with “the appearance of a messenger of God,” who appeared to the parents of Samson (Judges 13:3,6,8): “We have seen God” (Judges 13:22).

15) The “messenger of great counsel” in the old Greek (Septuagint or LXX) version of Isa. 9:6, who in the Hebrew is called “mighty God, eternal Father.”

16) The “messenger of his [God’s] presence” in Isa. 63:9, referring to Exo. 23:20-21 (see #8 above).

17) The “likeness with the appearance of a man” that glowed like metal in Ezekiel’s vision of the storm cloud, who is identified as “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD” and who speaks as God (Eze. 1:26-28): “I am sending you to the sons of Israel...who have rebelled against me....and you will say to them, ‘This is what the Lord GOD says’” (Eze. 2:3-4).

18) The “messenger of the LORD” who speaks as God before Joshua the high priest (Zech. 3:1, 3, 5-6): “And the LORD said to Satan” (Zech. 3:2), “I am going to bring in my servant” (Zech. 3:8).

Later, under the influence of Greek philosophy, the idea of Jesus as the angelic messenger of the Lord was misused. Some began to teach that Jesus was “just” an angel, that is, that he was a type of created spiritual being, and was therefore not God. This view became very popular in the Arian heresy of the 4th century, and lives on today in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In response, the Church cooled to the idea of Jesus as the Angel (Messenger) of the Lord, and the teaching was actually denied by Augustine of Hippo (5th century). But it remains an important Biblical teaching when understood in the original sense that Jesus, the messenger of God, is in fact God revealed to us, yet at the same time is distinct from the Father God.

(For more on this topic, see our teaching Does God Have Parts? or the index category the Angel of the Lord.)

More Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

What did Paul mean in his rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14? (Q&A)

2019-06-02T06:20:00.000-07:00

Q: I’m almost finished reading your Jewish Roots of Christianity book. I’ve appreciated learning so much history that I never knew, but it makes me sad to think that people who have called themselves by the name of Christ have acted so horrendously… It helps me to understand a little better the anti-Semitism that we saw (and were SHOCKED by) in Ukraine.

I’m meditating on the thought that you bring forth in the book that Messianic Jews still need to follow the law… What do you do then with Paul’s remarks in Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul calls Peter on the carpet for reverting back to following the laws when the circumcision party shows up in Antioch? Paul certainly talks here, and in other places, like he is not following the dietary laws at least…

I am trying to wrap my brain around both ideas (them required to follow the law, or not follow the law) and am having a hard time going with one or the other… Does the 2^nd covenant annul the 1^st one…? If they have to do some of the laws, then why wouldn’t they have to follow ALL of the laws, but like I said, Paul seems to make the case for not having to follow the law…

I would like to know your thoughts on Galatians at least… --Sarah P.

A: This was also a very difficult concept for me when I first arrived in Israel and was challenged by some of the beliefs and practices of the Messianic Jews there. But Christianity’s thinking, beliefs, and even Bible translations have been influenced by the thousand plus years of anti-Semitism that you have read about in the book. It takes some doing to get beyond this, but that’s what finally happened to me as I studied the relevant passages in the original languages from the point of view of the culture of the time.

It’s important to remember that when Peter had his vision of the sheet descending in Joppa (before the events in Antioch, but also quite some time after Jesus’ resurrection), he said, “ I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean” (Acts 10:14). Never in his life. This clearly tells us that he had never stopped obeying the Law, and specifically the dietary laws, either during his time with Jesus or in the time since Jesus’ ascension. So whatever happened in Antioch did not involve him suddenly returning to the Law after having abandoned it previously.

We also need to consider Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, which led to his imprisonment. This is after the events at Antioch. He had come up specifically to celebrate one of the Jewish feasts in Jerusalem (Pentecost): a requirement of the Law of Moses (Acts 20:16). When he arrived, he was introduced to the “tens of thousands...among the Jews of those who have believed [in Jesus], and they are all zealots for the Law” (Acts 21:20). This attachment to the Law is not condemned. It is mentioned as a way to warn Paul about the false report that had gone out about him, “that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles [i.e. outside of Israel] to forsake Moses [i.e. the Law], telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (Acts. 21:21).

So what was the advice to Paul of the brothers [believers in Jesus] there? “We have four men who are under a vow [Messianic believers under a Nazirite vow, also a part of the Law, Num. 6, which Paul had also observed as a believer in Jesus, Acts 18:18], take them and purify yourself along with them [this is Jewish ritual purification, also according to the Law], and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads [as part of the Nazirite rite: paying the expenses of Nazirites was considered a meritorious deed in Judaism], and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law” (Acts 21:23-24). In other words, they told him to do these things in obedience to the Law so that everyone could see that the stories about him teaching against the Law were completely false. Did Paul follow this advice? Yes he did, the very next day (Acts 21:26).

This same false charge of disobeying the Law had earlier been leveled against Stephen, if you remember, in Acts 6: “And they put forward false witnesses who said, ‘This man does not stop saying things against the Holy Place [the Temple] and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and will alter the customs which Moses handed down to us” (Acts 6:13-14). Notice that it was the false witnesses who said that Stephen and Jesus before him were opposed to the Law of Moses.

And of course there can be no better witness than Jesus himself who clearly said, “Do not suppose that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish, but to fill [or fulfill] them” (Matt. 5:17). To make his meaning as clear as possible, he added that not even the smallest stroke of the Law will pass away until it is all accomplished (Matt. 5:18), and that anyone who annuls even one of the least of these commandments of the Law will be the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them will be great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:19). Since the Law includes many prophecies about the endtimes that have not yet been fulfilled, clearly from Jesus’ point of view, the Law of Moses is still in place.

But the big mistake that many Gentile believers make when they read and finally understand passages like these is to assume that the Law must then apply to all believers in Jesus. This is a false assumption and was the whole reason for the council in Acts 15, where it was decided that Gentiles could become believers in Jesus without coming under the Law of Moses as Jews. This distinction of callings is what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 7: that if you are called as a believer in Jesus as a Gentile (uncircumcised), you should remain a Gentile (uncircumcised). If you are called as a Jew (circumcised and in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is what circumcision symbolized), you should remain a Jew (1 Cor. 7:18-19). “Each in the calling in which he was called, let him remain in this calling” (1 Cor. 7:20). For Jewish believers, this means following the whole Law of Moses, as the Messianic believers in Israel do. For Gentile believers, this means following the Law of Messiah (the New Testament), which the Jewish believers must also follow.

So what is going on in Gal. 2:11-14? For most of us, it’s difficult to tell the difference between the Law of Moses, which Jesus strongly upheld, and the Oral Law of the Pharisees, which Jesus had some deep and serious problems with. Remember when he told his disciples to “beware...of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:12)? Or when he argued in favor of his disciples eating the grain in the field on a Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-8)? There is no place in the Law of Moses where it says that you cannot pick heads of grain for a snack on the Sabbath. So why did the Pharisees say that the disciples were doing something unlawful (Matt. 12:2)? Because it was against the Oral Law of the Pharisees.

The same thing is going on in Gal. 2. If you notice carefully, it was not what they were eating that was the problem. It was that they were eating together with the Gentiles (Gal. 2:12), in other words, sitting side by side with them. This was not against the Law of Moses. This was only against the Oral Law of the Pharisees. And this is why Paul got upset. For God had revealed to him that Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus are together the one body of Messiah, even though we still have individual and distinct callings (Eph. 2:11-22). To eat separately would break this fellowship, and that he could not stand for.

So what happened at Antioch in its origins had nothing to do with obedience to the Law of Moses. It had only to do with the Pharisees’ oral additions to the Law, which Jesus often did not support. Nevertheless, it raised the whole issue of the role of Gentiles in the body of Messiah which was then resolved at the council in Acts 15.

I hope this is helpful to you. If not, I would recommend reading back through the first part of the book again, which might come across differently now that you’ve heard the larger story.

(For more on this topic, see the index category Paul.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

Infant Baptism? (Q&A)

2019-02-20T22:52:00.001-08:00

Q: [In response to our teaching, “The Washing of Water with the Word”:] I'm going to get into trouble here, but here goes anyway....please notice that the verse you mention says that the Messiah does the cleansing by the washing of water with the word. We don't do it. Therefore it is a gift, just like our name from our parents. So there is no need for someone to wait until they are "ready" for baptism. It is a gift that we cannot by our own power or will do anything to be "ready" to receive. Moral of my story is --get your kids baptized and don't wait another day. –Stephanie K.

A: Thanks for your enthusiasm in defending infant baptism--a long-held and widely practiced tradition of the Church. But this tradition ignores a key component of the original idea of baptism: that receiving the word of God—being “cleansed...by his word” (Eph. 5:26)—requires being able to understand that word. Traditional churches themselves admit to the inadequacy of infant baptism by their practice of confirmation, a rite mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Having teenagers confirm or accept their baptisms is a recognition that infant baptism is incomplete without the conscious and believing participation of the one being baptized. And that's exactly the point. Baptism is the outward, public response to an inner faith: the sign of a conscious repentance of sin and a decision to follow Jesus. This decision brings an inner cleansing (Acts 15:9), while baptism completes the process with an outer washing: “the outward sign of an inward grace,” as Augustine of Hippo put it. There is just no other way to make sense of the Biblical description of this rite as a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," unless there is an actual repentance on the part of the person being baptized (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24, 19:4). This requires a conscious appeal to God (1 Pet. 3:21) by faith (Col. 2:12). Infants are completely incapable of doing these things.

Ancient Judaism and the earliest Church, like those who practice believers' baptism today, took a different approach to infants, in a ceremony known as dedication. This is what Jesus himself experienced as an infant: he was taken to the Temple, not to be baptized, but to be dedicated to the Lord (Luke 2:21-24). To be dedicated simply means to be set aside for the purposes of the Lord (sometimes translated "to be made holy" or "sanctified"). This is the language Paul uses when discussing the children of a believer married to a non-believer (1 Cor. 7:14). He does not say that the children have been baptized and are therefore saved, but rather that they have been sanctified, in other words, set aside for the Lord (dedicated), exactly the same language he uses about the unbelieving spouse in that same verse. The children of believers are dedicated, that is, set aside for God by the believing parents until they come to maturity and are able to make their own decision about following Jesus.

Look, for example, at how Jesus himself treated children. The Bible never says he baptized them. Rather, he blessed them while laying hands on them (Matt. 19:13, Mark 10:16, Luke 18:16). This refers to the Jewish and Biblical custom of blessing someone in the name of God, a kind of prayer that God would do something good in their lives: “May God bless you...”

But the “cleansing” of God’s Word required for baptism requires a conscious acceptance and understanding of that Word. As the apostle Paul puts it: "How will they believe in him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10:14). These are not things an infant would understand. As Paul also says in that same place: "For whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?" (Eph. 10:13,14). Appealing to God on the basis of conscious belief is essential to salvation.

You are right that the cleansing by Messiah in preparation for baptism is a gift. But it is a gift that must be consciously received, whether it be through teenage confirmation or believer's baptism or in some other way. But before that conscious participation is possible, the Bible instructs us to dedicate our children to the Lord (Luke 2:22, 1 Cor. 7:14). This is, in fact, all that traditional infant baptism can offer until it’s confirmed by a conscious decision later in life.

(For more on this topic, see the index category Baptism.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Meaning of Psalm 23

2019-02-13T01:23:00.000-08:00

“A psalm of David. The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing” (Psa. 23:1).

The original historical context of Psalm 23 is the ancient Kingdom of Israel, in which sheep were a major part of the economy. We’re talking about huge flocks of sheep running into the thousands in some cases. King David, probably the most famous king of Israel, worked as a shepherd when he was a boy, just as many other boys did at the time. This Psalm, which is associated with his name, likely reflects his own experience as a shepherd as he reflects on God as the shepherd of his own life.

The sheep-grazing areas in Israel are mostly dry, rocky, semi-desert areas, where the sheep are often taken far away from the agricultural land near town, especially in the spring and summer. This is an area of steep and dangerous cliffs and canyons. Even a sure-footed sheep or goat is in real danger of falling to its death. In fact, I’ve seen a couple of them nearly fall myself out in this area.

This is nothing like the situation in America or Australia, where sheep are kept in huge, fenced pastures. This is instead dry and rocky ground where there is just a little grass here and there for the sheep to eat. This means the sheep have to be moved constantly from one spot to another throughout the day. And the little grass they find to eat is often dry and brown, dried out by the desert sun.

The sheep also need to be watered at least once a day. This is difficult since there are so few water sources in most parts of this region. This means that the shepherd needs to walk the sheep to and from the water source each day. But he must choose a different route each time, so the grass will not be overgrazed and the pasture destroyed.

“In pastures of fresh grass, he makes me lie down, beside the waters of places of rest he leads me” (Psalm 23:2).

The idea of finding a pasture filled with lots of fresh, green grass and a bubbling stream beside it is almost a vision of heaven out in this area (Psa. 23:2). This is also the implication of the shepherd making or causing the sheep to lie down. It implies that there is so much to eat, the sheep are full and can stop eating, something that rarely happens in the desert.

“My soul he restores; he leads me in the paths of righteousness for the sake of his name” (Psalm 23:3).

The paths (or literally “trails”) taken by the sheep can be seen all over these parts of Israel still today (Psa. 23:3). There are thousands of them everywhere, and of no help in directing the sheep, unless they have the guidance of a shepherd. In the same way, the Psalmist says, God leads us in the right way, the way of “righteousness.”

“Even if I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will not fear evil, for you are with me. Your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Psa. 23:4).

The “valley of the shadow of death” is an allusion to the dangerous and steep cliffs and canyons in the desert (Psa. 23:4). But even here, the sheep can relax, because the shepherd is always carefully watching. In the same way, God is always with us through the difficult times in our lives.

The rod and staff of the shepherd are used to direct the sheep in the way they should go (Psa. 23:4). The rod is used to thwack the sheep hard enough to get its attention, which is not always an easy thing to do. The staff, which functions as a shepherd’s crook, pushes or pulls the sheep in the right direction. Why are these irritating forms of correction a comfort? Because the sheep know that ultimately the shepherd is helping them. It’s the same when God helps us: ultimately, it’s for our good.

“You prepare before me a table in front of my enemies; you have anointed my head with oil, my cup overflows” (Psa. 23:5).

A “table in front of my enemies” means that God provides the needs of his people even when they are facing enemies (Psa. 23:5). This is an allusion to the wolves and other predators that threaten the sheep. Even though they are lurking nearby, the sheep can keep on eating peacefully. Why? Because the shepherd is there to protect them.

That God has “anointed my head with oil” refers to the anointing of sheep with oil mixed with things like sulfur and tar to repel biting insects (Psa. 23:5). People also applied oil to their skin to protect it from the ravages of the dry, desert air (Psa. 104:15). But the more direct allusion here is to the anointing of kings and prophets with oil as a sign of their selection by God, just as was done with King David himself, when he was anointed king of Israel (1 Sam. 16:13). Christians see here an allusion to Messiah Jesus, and to our anointing by the Holy Spirit in him (Acts 10:38, 2 Cor. 1:21). (“Messiah” means “anointed one.”)

“Surely goodness and kindness will pursue me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever” (Psa. 23:6).

The blessing of this kind of life with God is reflected in the phrases, “my cup overflows,” in other words, I have more than enough, and “goodness and kindness will pursue me all the days of my life” (Psa. 23:6). This is the opposite of pursuing the good life, rather a good life will pursue me.

The focus of religious worship in David’s day was the Tabernacle that had been built in the time of Moses. This was soon replaced in the time of Solomon, his son, with the Temple in Jerusalem. But in either case, this structure was regarded as the “house” of the Lord, where the presence of the Lord was believed to dwell. By saying that he wants to “dwell in the house of the LORD forever,” the psalmist is saying that he wants to live in God’s direct presence forever (Psa. 23:6).

(For more on this topic, see the index category Psalms.)

More Articles

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

The Non-Trinitarian Views of Eric Chang (Q&A)

2018-10-18T02:50:00.000-07:00

Q: I have just finished studying your book 'The Jewish Roots of Christianity', which I found very readable, and being a Bible student of some 40+ years I found some of the content (surprisingly) most enlightening--things I have wondered about for a long time regarding Paul's writing.

As I was reading your book I did wonder if you have ever come across and read the books of Eric Chang, 'The One True God' and 'The Only Perfect Man.' If you haven't I think you will find them extremely interesting, they are freely available as downloadable pdf's at this link:

http://thetruthinallboldness.info/books/ or

http://www.christiandiscipleschurch.org/content/only-true-god

As a serious student of the truth I would very much appreciate your views of the content covered in this material, considering your extensive and knowledgeable background and area of expertise. If you have a little time to examine it, you may find it interesting yourself. (They are also available on Amazon books if you prefer physical books, as I do. I have nothing to do with their church by the way).

I hope you have time to respond, looking forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards --Phil

A: Thanks for the positive feedback about our Jewish Roots of Christianity book. I’ve glanced briefly through Eric Chang’s The Only True God at your request. It’s nice to see him struggling honestly with the challenges of Christian monotheism in a way that the original sources invite. However, to strengthen his credibility, he needs to wrestle more with early Christian sources from the pre-Augustinian era. The views of Trinitarians have not always been monolithic, and many of these early voices have important insights to add to the conversation. To put it another way: not everyone who claims to be a Trinitarian agrees about what that means.

I completely agree with his criticism of the Trinitarian views that turn Jesus into a second God, and suppress the Father behind the glory of his ascendant Son. This is not what Jesus himself had in mind at all. There is only one God, and whatever was going on in Jesus was a manifestation of that one true God.

But the issue for me comes down to the center of consciousness of Jesus. Was he just a “perfect man” who had some kind of special awareness of God’s power and presence in his life? Or does he speak as God, fully conscious of his divinity? Is he a human in-filled by God, or is he God wrapped in humanity?

When I read the gospels, and read them with attention to their Jewish cultural setting, I see Jesus constantly declaring that he is self-consciously God: not a man filled with God, but God who had taken flesh upon himself, God become man. But this then raises the question as to how that can be, for it is impossible to imagine that all there is to God was somehow limited and restrained within the physical, human form of Jesus (as Chang also recognizes).

The solution provided by the Bible is that the Word of God, that is, some fully divine subset of the totality of God, sent out by God, is what became flesh in Jesus. This sent Word of God, being divine, was able to appear to the patriarchs, speak to the prophets, and speak back to God himself, as Jesus did in prayer. This certainly gives him the appearance of an independent personhood, as the traditional creeds and formulas rightly recognize. Yet God in his divinity is beyond all the earthly limits of personhood that we experience as humans and has the ability to manifest himself in as many persons as he likes without at all lessening the unity of his identity as the one true God. I like to compare this to the neurons in our hearts and stomachs communicating with the neurons in our brains. This communication takes places between different physical locations—messages are sent back and forth—but they are all still part of a single individual. In the case of God the communication between Father, Son, and Spirit does not in any way lessen their identity together as the one and only one true God. The Trinity, that is to say, rightly understood is a revelation of the inner workings within the one true God himself, and reveals him to be an actual being with meaningful inner complexity rather than a mere intellectual concept.

Chang refers often to the rabbinical concept of the Memra, but he does not seem to have wrestled with its meaning among the rabbis, as has Itzhak Shapira in his book The Kosher Pig. Even the rabbis recognized the individuality or individual identity of what Christians often call the pre-incarnate appearances of the Son of God, and that this was more complex than simply saying that Yahweh himself was appearing on earth (as Chang does). There was a distinct identity being revealed here, that the rabbis recognized and tried to explain in various ways, while at the same time defending themselves from Christian claims about Jesus. There is, in fact, a genuine distinction to be made between God and his Word, the Father and the Son. But this is not a distinction between separate beings: rather it is a revelation of the inner workings of the one and only true and living God.

(For more on this topic, see our teaching Did Jesus Claim to be God? and the index category Trinity.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

A Hebrew Matthew and Jerome (Q&A)

2018-06-15T04:51:00.001-07:00

Q: [In response to our Q&A on the Du Tillet manuscript:] ...I believe, based on the statements of various "early church fathers," that the Gospel of Matthew WAS written in Aramaic. I do not agree with those who try to "prove" that the other Gospels or even the entire New Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic!!!!!!!!!! If you would like I can e-mail you a website that I know about that shows many of the textual variants of the New Testament. Yet the issue of who the manuscripts of the New Testament come from bothers me. What do you think of the fact that it is said that Jerome got manuscripts for his gospel of Matthew from Jewish believers in Yeshua?...--Jeremy J.

A: You are right that there is quite a bit of evidence among the early church fathers for a non-Greek original to the gospel of Matthew. This evidence comes from places as diverse as India (in the early Christian community there), Arabia, and Israel itself. In all of these reports, this original Matthew is reported as being in Hebrew. There is no similar historical evidence for a Hebrew original of any other book in the New Testament.

That Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is sometimes contested by scholars who cling to the outdated notion that Jesus taught in Aramaic. But the evidence for Hebrew literacy in Israel in the Second Temple period is clear, both from archeology and textual sources. Today there is no legitimate reason to deny that these church fathers knew what they were talking about when they said that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

I also agree with you that there are difficulties with attempts to reconstruct Hebrew or Aramaic originals behind other New Testament books. Even if this might have possibly been true in certain cases (and this is by no means certain), any reconstruction lacking an original manuscript is just a guess, whereas the Greek we have is certain.

The issue of textual variants is minor compared to this. Most textual variants can be resolved as simple copying errors. None affects any major doctrine, and only a tiny minority affect the meaning of any sentence in the Bible in any significant way.

The claim that Jerome obtained a copy of the Hebrew version of Matthew from Jewish believers in Jesus (Nazarenes) is one that he makes himself (in his "Concerning Illustrious Men" section on Matthew). He claims not only to have seen it, but to have made a copy of it. Unfortunately that is now lost to us, aside from a few comments he made about its contents.

On the other hand, Jerome's Latin translation of Matthew's gospel, or rather his "correction" of the Latin as he puts it, was made from the Greek (as he says in his preface to the Gospels), which it closely matches. Why he didn't make more direct use of the Hebrew is not explained. However, I can't imagine that he was not influenced in some way by the Hebrew original he had copied.

Jerome, by the way, also had access to some scrolls from the Dead Sea area--the first reported Dead Sea scrolls--that he used in his translation of the Old Testament!

(For more on this topic, see the index category Matthew.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

Sabbath for Non-Jews? (Q&A)

2018-06-15T04:19:00.000-07:00

Q: Very good comment on Isa 56 about Jesus as Salvation [see our Q&A on Isaiah 56]. But what about the context: Israel has to offer also Sabbath-keeping as a sign of the new covenant that is brought about by the Messiah (verse 8 "to HIM" will be gathered all). Do you agree that the Sabbath is also the sign of the new covenant for non-Jews, for all Christians? –Jens S.

A: Thank you for bringing up the issue of Sabbath with regard to Isa. 56. As you correctly point out, this is a key element in the chapter. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Sabbath-keeping being a “sign of the new covenant” for Israel, since Sabbath-keeping is usually considered a sign of the old covenant as it specifically says in Exo. 31:13; Eze. 20:12. But if you simply mean that it continues as part of the practice of Jewish believers in Jesus, this is certainly true.

With regard to Isa. 56:8 ("The Lord GOD, who gathers the banished ones of Israel, declares, 'Yet others I will gather to him, to those already gathered.'"), the phrase "yet others will I gather to him" is a reference back to Israel in the same verse, and as a result, is often translated for clarity “to them.” This is how Jesus understood it when he alluded to this verse in John 10:16, speaking of the "other sheep" that were to be added to the Jewish people who had already believed in him.

The foreigners (or literally the “sons of a foreigner”) of Isa. 56:6 are some of these “other sheep” that are to be gathered (in vs. 8). But notice carefully the language used for these foreigners with regard to the Sabbath. The Jewish eunuchs in vs. 4 are instructed to “keep my sabbaths.” But for the Gentile foreigners in vs. 6, they are instructed to “keep from dishonoring the Sabbath.” What’s the difference?

The plural “sabbaths” in vs. 4 instructs Jewish eunuchs not only to observe the weekly Sabbaths, but also to observe all the other festival sabbaths of Israel as well. In other words, Jewish eunuchs are instructed to observe the Law of Moses completely.

But nothing about these other sabbaths is mentioned in the instructions given to Gentile foreigners, nor are they told to observe the weekly Sabbath as the Jewish people do, but rather they are only told to avoid dishonoring the Sabbath, which is quite different.

This difference is key in dealing with your question about the Sabbath for non-Jewish believers in Jesus. The Council of Acts 15 decided that Gentile believers should not become proselytes (converts) to Judaism, and as a result, Sabbath-keeping was not required of them. Instead, the requirements outlined in Acts 15 are similar to the rabbinic idea of the Seven Laws of Noah. Neither system of requirements for Gentiles included keeping the weekly Sabbath in the Jewish manner. This is why there is little evidence of Sabbath-keeping in the Gentile portions of the early church. There is, however, evidence of respect for the Sabbath, especially in the Eastern Church. Just as Isaiah instructed, they kept from dishonoring the Sabbath, even though they did not observe it in the Jewish way.

(For more on this topic, see our teaching on The Laws of Noah, and our Jewish Roots of Christianity book or free audio on-line seminar.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com

Was Early Christianity a Mystery Religion? (Q&A)

2018-06-09T06:44:00.000-07:00

Q: I heard that early Christianity was a mystery religion in Rome. Is this true and does anyone know any of the characteristics of mystery religions? (I know that they were a secret but has anything come out about them?) Was it a popular one, like were there many Romans who joined it? Also did mystery religions have supernatural events that happened, as I read that in some mystery religions, people would enter the spirit world or supernatural realm.

Anyway, I hope that made sense, and thanks for any help.

A: The main focus of the most important rituals of the ancient mystery religions, as far as we know, was the revelation of some secret act or ritual object with deep symbolic meaning for those trained in the belief system of the religion. This took place toward the end of a lengthy and elaborate ritual. This revelation was often intended to produce a specific spiritual or emotional effect on the initiates that were experiencing it for the first time. They were then sworn to keep this ritual a secret, and in most cases they did, as we are still ignorant of most of the core mysteries today.

When scholars speak of Christianity as a mystery religion, this refers primarily to the striking similarity between the Eucharist or Communion as it developed in the Roman world and what we know of the mystery religions. In fact, the closest thing today to the celebration of the ancient mysteries, or even to the liturgies of the pagan Roman state religion, is a traditional Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox mass with its processions and candles and incense.

All of this was quite different than the earliest Christian worship services, which took place in an initially Jewish setting. What later became the Eucharist or Communion began as a simple set of blessings said at a communal evening meal, together with the sharing of bread and a cup in memory of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Among the Gentile Christians in Rome and elsewhere, though, this was soon changed. The blessings along with the bread and cup were removed from an actual meal and placed in a morning worship service that had more in common with pagan Roman rites than with the Jewish original. As in the mystery religions, the cup and bread became special ritual objects that were revealed at the end of a long ritual, but only to those properly initiated. Later it came to be believed that something mysterious and magical happened at the exact moment when the priest said certain words over these elements: that the wine and bread actually became, physically, the body and blood of Christ.

Needless to say, this was not the original idea, even in Rome, but the result of a development over centuries. This development took into account local ideas about religion, including that of the mystery religions. The original Jewish commemoration was more an act of corporate memory, as in the Passover meal with which it was first associated. It was intended to bring past events into living memory. But in the context of Roman society, this communal family-style meal was transformed into more of a magical ritual performed by a priest, of which the congregation were merely spectators. This was the result, in part, of the influence of the mystery religions.

It was against these later developments that the Protestant Reformation was launched in the 16th century, in the attempt to return Christianity to a more Biblical form of worship.

As far as its popularity goes, Christianity started quite small, but quickly gained adherents. By AD 64, when Nero persecuted the Christians living in the city of Rome, they had become an “immense multitude” (Tacitus, Annals 15.44.5). This was only 34 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. By AD 112, in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the number of Christians had become so many in some places that the pagan temples were in danger of becoming deserted (Pliny, Epp. 10.96.10). By the time of Constantine, at the beginning of the 4^th cent. AD, though Christians were still a minority of the population, they soon became a majority after Christianity was made a legal religion in the Roman Empire.

(For more on this topic, see our Jewish Roots of Christianity Book and Seminar.)

More Q&A

More To The Ends Of The Earth Teachings

www.totheends.com