Menu

Pretribulationism: The Church Raptured Before the Tribulation

,

Pretribulationism is clearly supported in the Word of God. Traditional premillennialism has always contended the church will be raptured before the prophetic period called the Tribulation (described in such passages as Matthew 24, and Revelation 6-18). Several books have been written in recent days challenging this position, suggesting the church will be left on earth to endure the Tribulation, and will be raptured at the end of that time.

clouds

Below are some points of argument providing a biblical defence of a pretribulation rapture. For a further development of these and other arguments, you are encouraged to consult larger works, such as those listed at the end of this article. In The Rapture Question, for example, Walvoord offers fifty proofs of his pretribulation position.

1. The nature of the Tribulation as a time of wrath and judgment

Christ bore the full penalty for our sins on the cross. We have been delivered fully and finally from sin’s condemnation (Jn. 5:24; Rom. 8:1). That separates us from one distinctive purpose of the Tribulation. In addition to chastening Israel and leading her to repentance, it will involve God’s temporal judgment on the nations. It is a time when the Lord’s indignation and wrath will be poured out on this godless world (Isa. 26:20-21; 34:1-3; Rev. 6:16-17; 11:18; 14:19; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19; I Thess. 1:9-10; 5:9). It is repeatedly described as a time of judgment and punishment (Isa. 24:20- 21; Rev. 14:7; 15:4; 16:5-7; 19:2).

2. The Tribulation’s unparalleled destruction and suffering

Without doubt, many Christians have, and will yet, suffer during the Church Age (II Tim. 3:12). From time to time, believers in a particular area do go through terrible trials. However, the Bible specifically teaches that the horrors of the Tribulation will be unique and world-wide in scope (Rev. 3:10; Isa. 34:2; 24:1, 4-5, 16-17, 13-21; Jer. 30:7; Matt. 24:21). When one reads of a quarter of the world’s population being wiped out (Rev. 6:8), or of every creature in the sea dying (16:3), it becomes evident that this is no localized trial. Men will seek some way to die, but will find they are unable to (9:6). That will make this period utterly unique.

3. The certainty of Christ’s promise that Christians will be kept from the Tribulation

If Church Age Christians are to be among the Tribulation martyrs of Revelation 7:14, then Christ did not keep His promise, given in Revelation 3:10, to preserve them from that world-wide trial. God promises to preserve us from the wrath to come (I Thess. 1:10; 5:9). In the context, the latter reference is dealing not with eternal damnation but with the earthly Day of the Lord, and God’s judgment (5:2-3).

4. A clear distinction between Israel and the church

In the Tribulation, God once more takes up His program with Israel. The period is referred to as “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7). It is the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy concerning “your people and your holy city” (Dan. 9:24). Jesus’ instructions regarding the Tribulation indicate that He has a Jewish audience in mind (Matt. 24:20). In his Systematic Theology (Vol. IV, pp. 47-53), Chafer lists twenty-four contrasts between Israel and the church. God’s plan and program for each must be kept distinct. Only a pretribulation rapture allows adequately for this.

5. The contrast between the rapture and the second coming

The first relates specifically to the saints of the Church Age (Christians); the second relates to the fulfillment of Jehovah God’s covenants with Israel. A study of Bible passages describing these events indicates that they are quite distinct in purpose, character and result. Christ will come in the air, secretly, to snatch away the church (I Thess. 4:13-18). Then He will return seven years later, visibly and in glory, to the earth to reign as Messiah-king over Israel and the world (Matt. 24:27, 30-31; 25:31-32). The two events must not be confused.

6. The church not mentioned in Revelation 6-18

That passage contains the most extensive description of the Tribulation in the New Testament. The church is discussed in the opening chapters of John’s book, and it appears again in Chapter 19, but it is completely missing from the earth in the tribulation section. On the other hand, John’s entry into heaven (4:1) seems to prefigure the rapture, and the twenty-four elders around the throne in heaven (4:4, and elsewhere) are taken by some commentators to represent the glorified church, in God’s presence while judgment is poured out upon the earth. (E.g. Dwight Pentecost lists many reasons why he is convinced this is so in Things to Come, pp. 207-209.)

7. The rapture as a major event

Several passages of Scripture describe the rapture of the church, and the subsequent events–the Judgment Seat of Christ (I Cor. 3:11-15; II Cor. 5:10), and the Marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9). Posttribulationism does not give adequate time for these events, or place proper importance on the rapture, since Christians seem to meet Christ on His way down to the earth and instantly return to earth with Him.

8. The imminence of the rapture

The return of Christ for His church is seen in the New Testament as an at-any-moment event that Paul seems to have looked for in his own lifetime (I Thess. 4:17; cf. 1:10). That could not be if seven years of unparalleled suffering and world-wide destruction must precede it. The second coming is different. As described in God’s Word, it is preceded by a specified series of signs and events (related to the seven years, e.g. Matt. 24:4-28). The church is looking forward to the coming of the Lord, not for the coming of the Antichrist.

9. The silence of Scripture regarding a posttribulation rapture

Passages such as Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-19 do not describe a rapture at the end of the Tribulation. Nor do other rapture passages such as John 14, I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 4. While an argument from silence is not conclusive, it does seem strange that Christians are not told about it, or what to do, if they must endure the seven years first. The lack of instruction to Christians on how to cope with the Tribulation makes sense only if we won’t be there!

10. Exhortations regarding the rapture harmonize with pretribulationism

Exhortations such as “Let not your heart be troubled” (Jn. 14:1), and “Comfort one another with these words” (I Thess. 4:18) do not suit a scenario in which Christians will face unparalleled suffering and in which most of them will be martyred or die of terrible plagues. What comfort is there in that? But, on the other hand, the atmosphere of I Corinthians 15:51-58, in dealing with the rapture is one of joy and victory–because it will come first.

11. An explanation for the worry of believers in I Thessalonians 4

If posttribulation were true, Christians in the Thessalonian church would be rejoicing that their friends and family members who had died were going to miss the terrible Tribulation. Instead, they were grieving in fear that their loved ones had missed the rapture and its unique blessings, and may now face the terrors of the tribulation (II Thess. 2:2).

12. The saints who will populate the Millennial Kingdom

If the rapture is to take place at the end of the Tribulation, no one will be left to enter the earthly Kingdom. Scripture teaches that it is mortal believers (i.e. in bodies subject to death) who have come out of the Great Tribulation and who will then enter the Millennium. They will marry and bear children, and, though longer-lived, they will be subject to death (Isa. 4:1-3; 65:20- 23; Jer. 23:3-6; 30:19-20). This is not true of resurrected, glorified saints. If they are all raptured, and given resurrection bodies, they will not be able to do this (Matt. 22:30).

13. The importance of consistent literal interpretation

A literal interpretation of the Word of God gives each word its plain, normal sense. Even Amillennialists admit that if one is consistent in that approach, the result will be a premillennial interpretation–and one in which the rapture precedes the Tribulation. For instance, the posttribulationist must either explain Revelation 6-18 as being already fulfilled (somehow!) in history, or he must water down and spiritualize those things described, rather than taking them as a description of real events. John Walvoord has pointed out that, of the many interdenominational Bible colleges founded in this century, most are premillennial (and pretribulational), because they have been founded on consistent literal interpretation.

14. An ordered chronology of events

There is basic agreement among pretribulationists regarding end time events–with minor differences on the details. On the other hand, posttribulationism offers a wide diversity of opinions on various points. The reason is their lack of consistency with regard to the method of interpretation. Prophetic conferences are common among those who adhere to pretribulationism, but they are virtually unknown (and impossible) for posttribulationists. The reason is that the literal interpretation of the former provides a clear and logical calendar of end-time events. However, posttribulationists debate endlessly about what to spiritualize and what to take literally. As a result, it is difficult to find any two who agree on end-time details.

There are several books which deal with the defence of a pretribulation rapture in greater detail. Here is a short list.

Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1992. LaHaye discusses “why Christians will escape all the tribulation.”

Hal Lindsey, The Rapture: Truth or Consequences (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1983). Lindsey’s is an excellent popular defence of the doctrine.

Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Company, 1958). Pentecost spends nearly two-hundred pages on the tribulation and various views concerning it– pp. 156-339.

Gerald B. Stanton, Kept From the Hour (Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Company Incorporated, 1991. A significant book, well-documented. Recommended.

John F. Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corporation, 1976). “A historical and biblical study refuting posttribulationism.”

Another link to check! Israel My Glory is the award-winning magazine produced by Friends of Israel, a Christian ministry to Jews. If you suspect you are not getting balanced reporting on events in Israel from the secular media, you are right! But this wonderful magazine will teach and inform you on this and other crucial Bible subjects. Highly recommended.

Dispensationalism: Is It Biblical?

Dispensationalism. What do you think? The simplest and most direct answer to the above question is, “Yes, of course it is.” I have been an adherent of classical dispensationalism (popularized by C. I. Scofield) for over half a century. But this understanding did not come about because of the schools where I was educated (they did not teach it), nor because of the churches I attended (some either were not dispensational, or did not emphasize it). The reason I am a dispensationalist is because I am convinced that is the way the Bible, and God’s program, are laid out for us. Dispensationalism describes an observable pattern in the workings of the Almighty through the ages.

Further, I have long argued that all orthodox Christians are dispensationalists, whether they realize it, or would willingly admit it, or not. The reason I say that will become clearer as I continue. But to make the point briefly, if we do not still offer animal sacrifices today, we have recognized an essential difference in the way God deals with human beings before and after Calvary. It is thus not so much a matter of who is a dispensationalist and who is not, but of what dispensations are recognized and how it affects our approach to the Word of God. There are a number of divine stewardships through history, which we shall deal with in a moment.

What is a dispensation?

The word translated “dispensation” several times in the epistles is the Greek word oikonomia (literally meaning house management). Sounding it out will show the word’s kinship with our English word “economy.” It has to do with a stewardship in domestic life, having to do with the management and oversight of household affairs. In theological terms, we can think of the world as the “household” God is managing. Through human history He has made various promises and provisions for mankind, and spelled out specific responsibilities related to them. These have not always been the same in every age, as indicated in the previous paragraph.

Dispensationalism, in biblical terms, involves a stewardship arrangement made with man by the Lord. Sometimes the stewardship is inaugurated with one man, or one nation, but aspects of it spill over and affect others. Sometimes there are elements of a particular arrangement that, once instituted, continue in effect after the dispensation has ended. Other aspects are confined mainly to one dispensation. To the Apostle Paul was committed a major part of the revelation concerning the present Age of Grace, “the dispensation [oikonomia] of the grace of God” (Eph. 3:2), but he speaks also of the future “dispensation of the fullness of the times” (Eph. 1:10), referring to the Millennial Kingdom.

Down through history, the outcome of each household arrangement, from God’s perspective, is a further demonstration of His righteousness and infinite wisdom, to His own honour and glory. All if history is thus tending to that end, the greater glory of God (Rom. 11:36). As far as man is concerned, the overall purpose of these changing arrangements is to test his willingness to live in submission to and faith in God. The result, sadly, in each case is a litany of failure, showing conclusively that we need God to be all that God intended us to be.

What are the dispensations?

As to how many dispensations students of the Scriptures have identified, the number varies anywhere from three or four to eight or more. Hymn writer Isaac Watts (1674-1748) wrote an essay defining eight dispensations entitled, “The Harmony of All the Religions God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations Toward Them.” (They went in for long titles back then!) Classical or traditional dispensationalism recognizes seven. But three of these are dealt with in much more of the Bible than the others. The three major dispensations are the Dispensation of Law, the Dispensation of Grace, and the Dispensation of the Kingdom (or Millennium). However, there are other milestones marking a major changes in the stewardships God has given to man.

For example, it is not difficult to see there was a significant change after the fall. Pre-fall Eden was very different from the sin-cursed world into which Adam and Eve were driven. The requirements placed upon man were certainly different after Eden. Then, partly because much of early history is passed over with extreme brevity, the dispensations between the Fall and the giving of the Mosaic Law are sometimes debated. However, two history-altering events occurred during that period which would seem to identify a change of stewardship. One is the Noahic flood, the other is the call of Abraham.

God’s covenant with Noah after the flood introduced capital punishment to demonstrate the preciousness of human life and deter murderers. This is so significant it is seen by many as the divine institution of human government. Then, with God’s covenant with Abraham, His design for the nation of Israel was established. This too is a major turning point, since Israel was an new entity and it has continued to be at the fulcrum of world history ever since.

Here are the seven dispensations as recognized by most modern dispensationalists:

1) The Dispensation of Innocency (or Freedom) (from the creation of man to the fall, Gen. 1:26–3:24). Adam and Eve were not sinners in the beginning, but this was not because of a choice they made. When their lives began they had as yet no opportunity to choose right or wrong. Theirs was an unconfirmed holiness. To test their willingness to recognize His lordship and depend upon Him. God presented a simple test, the fruit of one tree, the tree of knowledge, was forbidden to them. As the Bible records, they failed the test, with devastating results.

2) The Dispensation of Conscience (from the fall through the Noahic flood, Gen. 4:1–8:19). Since man had taken it upon himself to live in independence of God (the significance of eating the forbidden fruit), He gave human beings the opportunity to live and make choices according to the direction of an inner voice, “their conscience also bearing witness…accusing or else excusing them” (Rom. 2:15). The inadequacy of this inner rule–apart from its being empowered and directed by the Holy Spirit–is seen in the rampant wickedness which precipitated the flood. Another test had ended in failure.

3) The Dispensation of Human (or Civil) Government (from the flood to the call of Abraham, Gen. 8:20–11:32). This dispensation added an external control to the inner one. With the introduction of capital punishment (Gen. 9:5-6), power was placed in the hands of the community, or the state, to enforce God’s righteous standard. But instead, this authority was used in an attempt to rebel against the commands of God, and establish a community at Babel which totally ruled God out. God had said, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1), but the credo of Babel was, “Come let us build ourselves a city…lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4). Human government, apart from a recognition of God’s supreme rule, will fail.

4) The Dispensation of Promise (or the Patriarchs) (from the call of Abraham to the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, Gen. 12–Exod. 18). What if God Himself started a nation which would relate to Him in a special way? A nation endowed, as Israel was, with great blessings above all the nations of the earth, a nation whose future was assured by guarantees (covenants) given by God Himself ? Would that make a difference? No, the children of Israel carelessly abandoned their heritage. Joseph brought the family of Jacob down to Israel during a time of famine. Circumstances there allowed them to multiply into a nation of people, set apart by themselves in Goshen. This much was providential. However, while there, the Israelites adopted the idols of the Egyptians, and ceased the rite of circumcision which was the sign they were under God’s covenant of promise (cf. Lev. 17:7; Josh. 5:2-5, 9; 24:14; Ezek. 20:5-9). Failure again.

5) The Dispensation of Law (the Mosaic Covenant) (from the giving of the Law on Sinai to the death of Christ on the cross, Exod. 19:1–Matt. 27:56, and a similar point in the accounts of Mark, Luke and John). Here, in addition to the unconditional promises made to Israel in the previous dispensation, God adds a comprehensive set of directives for personal holiness, the governing of the community, and the religious observances of His people. Some 613 commands made up the Mosaic Covenant. The Law was given to Israel, and was in force from Mount Sinai to Mount Calvary (when its rule ended). As circumcision was the sign one was under the Abrahamic Covenant, the keeping of the Sabbath was the specific sign Israel was under the Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 31:12-17).Did this rule of law succeed? No, it ended with the crucifixion of the Law-Giver Himself, the only One to ever keep the Law perfectly.

6) The Dispensation of Grace (also commonly called the Church Age) (from Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2 to Christ’s second coming, extending from the end of the Gospel record to Rev. 19:21). Certainly the grace of God has been evident all through history, but there can be little question it was expressed in a new and fuller way with the coming of Christ, and especially after the church was born in Acts (Jn. 1:16-17; Rom. 6:14; Tit. 2:11-14). In the church, God has brought together a spiritual body whose composition leaps over national boundaries to include all. Ours is a heavenly citizenship (Phil. 3:20). Even the Jew has no special status before God in the body of Christ (Col. 3:11).

It is the responsibility of each individual to trust in Christ for salvation, and then continue to walk in the enabling of the Spirit of God (Gal. 5:25). Unique to this dispensation is the permanent indwelling of each individual believer by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:17; Rom. 8:9). By this gracious provision we are able to internalize God’s righteous standard and live to please Him. But again the end will see failure. After the true church is raptured, the apostate religion of the Tribulation will involve a Christless “church” which worships the Antichrist and revels in satanic powers.

7) The Dispensation of the Kingdom (or the Millennium) (from the return of Christ to the earth through the thousand years of His reign, Rev. 20:1-6, plus an enormous amount of Scripture in the Old Testament books of prophecy which describes many details of the earthly messianic kingdom, e.g. Isa. 2:1-4; 11:1-10; 35:1-10). During this period the curse upon creation will be removed, resulting in unparalleled productivity, and the strong personal rule of Christ will bring peace among the peoples of the earth. Also, since Eden the devil has been active deceiving and corrupting, but with the inauguration of the Kingdom he will be bound and unable to carry out his evil work (Rev. 20:2-3).

Though only believers will be found on earth when Christ’s reign begins, they will still be in mortal bodies, and the population of the earth will increase over the years. Each individual born will need to trust in Christ and be regenerated by the Spirit of God. Some will not. They will conform to the rule of Christ outwardly, but when an opportunity to rebel comes at the end of the thousand years, they will do so and be swiftly destroyed (Rev. 20:7-9). Thus even with the ideal conditions of the Kingdom Age man, apart from divine enablement, will fail to glorify God.

What are the major implications?

It seems to me it is helpful to see this overall design and pattern in the flow of biblical (and later) history. As Augustine put it, “Distinguish the ages and the Scriptures harmonize.” It does not resolve all the questions we may have about God’s dealings with man, but it clarifies things considerably. And it does three things which are essential in a proper interpretation and application of the Scriptures.

1) It keeps God’s plan for Israel and the church distinct. No end of confusion results when we fail to do this. God has a plan for His earthly people Israel, and He has a plan for His heavenly people the body of Christ. Those who force one upon the other end up “spiritualizing” or allegorizing the biblical text, rather than accepting it at face value.

When the future rebuilding of Jerusalem is prophesied, including details about “the Tower of Hananel…the Corner Gate… [and] the Horse Gate” we cannot turn that into a description of world missions and the proclamation of the gospel by the early church without doing violence to the clear meaning of the text (Jer. 31:38-40). Yet that is what some do, in an attempt to find the church in the Old Testament. Israel is not the church, and the church is not Israel.

It has been suggested that dispensationalists want to do away with, or ignore, the Old Testament on this basis. No. (Actually, over the years, I have preached and taught more from the Old Testament than the New.) “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable” (II Tim. 3:16). All Scripture provides a revelation of God, and insight into the nature of man. All Scripture is instructive, either by providing examples or illustrations of God’s dealings with man, or by demonstrating basic life principles which are the same in any age (Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:11). However, that is not to say that the precise responsibilities God gave to Adam, Noah or Moses are applicable to us today. Otherwise, as noted earlier, we would still be offering animal sacrifices.

And it is possible to use incidents in the Old Testament as pictures and analogies of what happens in the Christian life without denying the historical reality and dispensational position of the former. Note how beautifully Charles Spurgeon does this by drawing a parallel between Pharaoh’s dream (Gen. 41:4) and his own spiritual experience:

“Pharaoh’s dream has too often been my waking experience. My days of sloth have ruinously destroyed all that I have achieved in times of zealous industry; my seasons of coldness have frozen all the genial glow of my periods of fervency and enthusiasm; and my fits of worldliness have thrown me back from my advances in the divine life. I had need to beware of lean prayers, lean praises, lean duties, and lean experiences, for these will eat up the fat of my comfort and peace….When the caterpillars of indifference, the cankerworms of worldliness and the palmerworms of self indulgence lay may heart completely desolate…all my former fruitfulness and growth in grace avails me nothing whatever.” (Morning and Evening, July 3 a.m.)

2) Recognizing the dispensational distinctives in God’s program allows for a consistent hermeneutic. The literal interpretation of the Scriptures has been a cornerstone of orthodox Christianity down through the centuries. Taking the words of Scripture in their plain, normal sense, avoids the pitfalls of speculation, grounding interpretation in accepted rules of language. This dispensationalism is able to do.

3) Dispensationalism recognizes the underlying purpose of God in the world from the beginning of human history to the end–the manifestation of His own glory. This is the unifying goal of all that God has done from Eden onward (Ps. 104:31; Matt. 5:16; Jn. 15:8; Rom. 11:36; 15:5-6; I Cor. 6:19-20; 10:31; Eph. 1:6 ,12, 14; 3:21; Phil. 4:20; I Tim. 1:17; II Tim. 4:18; I Pet. 4:11; II Pet. 3:18; Jude 1:25; Rev. 1:6; 5:13; 7:12).

What about the plan of salvation?

Those who have criticized dispensationalism have often done so because they believe dispensationalists are teaching there are different ways of salvation from one dispensation to another. Over the years, dispensational literature has not always repudiated this notion clearly or emphatically enough. There has only ever been one way of salvation. There is absolutely no way any human being can save himself by his own works and effort. It is always by grace through faith, in any age (Eph. 2:8-9). And it involves something called imputed righteousness. In short, God’s plan was to transfer our sin to Christ’s account (the account which was paid at the cross), and to transfer His righteousness to our account (II Cor. 5:21).

If we cannot make ourselves righteous, the only answer is imputed righteousness, perfect righteousness credited to our account by a gracious God. And that heavenly accounting is received by faith. So universal is this arrangement that Paul was able to use Abraham, living in the Dispensation of Promise, to illustrate the principle for Christians in the Dispensation of Grace (Rom. 4:1-5; cf. Gen. 15:6). Further, the passage in Romans makes it clear that faith is not some kind of meritorious work. The two are antithetical. Salvation is for “him who does not work but believes on Him,” simply a trusting in God and His gracious promise, and accepting the work already done by God.

God’s plan required an adequate payment for human sin. If sin is to be paid for in such a way that sinners can be forgiven and saved eternally, it required the death of an innocent substitute . That Substitute was ultimately Christ, God’s Lamb, who took upon Himself our debt of sin and died upon the cross (Jn. 1:29; Jn. 3:16; I Pet. 3:18). But that final sacrifice, and the principle of substitution was pictured and foreshadowed in the sacrifices of the Old Testament, back to Abraham’s time and long before. Even the clothing of our first sinning parents in coats of animal skin required the death of an innocent substitute (Gen. 3:21).

But having noted the unifying principles behind the work of salvation, we also need to understand that God’s revelation was progressive, given a little at a time. In terms of eternal salvation, it was simply not possible for those in the Old Testament to trust in the shed blood of Christ. For one thing, Jesus had not yet died. For another, they knew little of what was to come. No one back then is told, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).

For this reason, it is not really accurate to refer to the saints before the cross as “Christians”– Christ-ones, or as members of Christ’s body, the church. By faith, today, we are “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6). And “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (II Cor. 5:17). But it has only been possible to be placed into Christ by the Holy Spirit since His death, resurrection and ascension. Only Church Age saints can rightly be called Christians. It is better to refer to those before the cross simply as believers, or as saints (God’s set-apart ones).

The Old Testament saints were saved just as we are to the extent that they put their faith in God, and trusted in the gracious promises of God. But the content of those promises was somewhat different back then. And though God’s forgiveness was real and immediate, sin could only be dealt with in a final sense at Calvary. What came before anticipated that, and God accepted it until the full answer could be provided in Christ. Even so, saints before the cross experienced real forgiveness, through faith. When the offerer placed his hand upon a sacrificial animal, he was identifying himself with it. He was recognizing it as a substitute for himself (cf. Lev. 1:4) and God acknowledged that.

Later, “God set forth [Christ Jesus] as a propitiation [to fully satisfy His justice] by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness [by punishing sin, in Christ], because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” (Rom. 3:25). Before Calvary, God “passed over” sin, accepting the temporary means of “covering” it, through the shed blood of the sacrifice. The sacrifices pointed forward to the cross, God’s final answer, and the only way of salvation (Jn. 14:6). Yet we know that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). It needed a Man to die for sinful men–and only a perfect Man could do it (or he would need to die for his own sins). That is why Christ had to come.

Where can I find out more?

It is not possible, in a brief article, to deal with the details of this large subject, or to answer all the questions that may arise. However, we are not lacking excellent resources for a deeper study. The notes in the Scofield Study Bible explain the characteristics of the dispensations in far greater detail than I have been able to do here. Other than that, there are two books that provide clear and carefully considered teaching on dispensationalism. They are: Dispensationalism (Revised and Expanded Edition), by Charles Caldwell Ryrie, and There Really Is a Difference! (A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology), by Renald Showers. I highly recommend these books as a valuable addition to any Christian’s library.

Millennial Rule: Administration in the Kingdom Age

, ,

Question: Considering that the millennial reign of Christ is to be, among other things, a perfect political administration, it stands to reason that it will not be a bloated bureaucracy. Yet Christ is said to rule with all His saints. Do you think it is possible that God is waiting until the number of saints, dead and living, equals the number necessary for a perfect administration?

Answer: It’s an interesting question! The simple answer is, of course, that we just don’t know. But, all the same, there are a number of relevant Scriptures that are worth looking at.

1) Second Peter 3:12 speaks of Christians “looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God [i.e. the Day of the Lord].” The words “and hastening” seem to suggest that we can somehow move the end-time events closer, by our prayers, our witness, and the preaching of the gospel, thus bringing more people to repentance and faith (vs. 9). The NIV follows that line of thinking with, “look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.”

This is in harmony with Peter’s sermon in Acts 3:19-20, where he says: “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before.”

Such passages do seem to hint that the Lord may have a specific number of converted individuals in mind. However, others say it is open to serious question whether a sovereign God would adjust His timetable in this way. The phrase “and hastening” can also be translated “earnestly desiring,” which would remove this supposed difficulty.

I’m still on the fence on this one. I don’t have enough light to be dogmatic about either view. But it does seem at least possible to me that, as your question implies, the ushering in of future events is related to God’s (sovereign) determination that all who are to respond to the gospel have done so.

2) As to who will rule in the Kingdom, under the supreme rule of Christ, we know that the apostles will have a key role in relation to Israel. The Lord told them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration [the renewal of the Kingdom Age], when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you [disciples] will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28; cf. the prophecy in Isa. 1:26). (Judas Iscariot, who committed suicide, was later replaced by Matthias, to bring the total to twelve once more, Acts 1:26.)

In addition, there will be some kind of administrative role for other believers (Rev. 5:10; 20:4). There is a parable of the Lord Jesus (in Lk. 19:11-27) that may be pertinent here–though I hasten to add that we must be cautious about “proving” something from parables. They are made-up stories to teach a particular spiritual truth. That being said, the details here are intriguing.

In the parable of “The Ten Minas” (a Greek mina being equal to about 3 months salary), servants are rewarded for their faithfulness, during the absence of their master, by being assigned rulership over an appropriate number of cities in his realm. For example: “He said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you have been faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities [or towns]’” (vs. 17).

As I say, it’s not possible to build a dogmatic doctrine on this. But it does suggest that there will possibly be a division of administrative work, and ranks (a hierarchy) of administrators, in the coming Kingdom Age.

3) Given that millions have come to Christ since Pentecost, it seems to me quite possible that the necessary total of future rulers and governing officials has already been reached, or even surpassed. But God knows the optimum number needed.

Keep in mind that though the Church Age saints will be in their glorified bodies at that time, while those who enter the earthly Kingdom after the Tribulation will still be in their mortal bodies. And because of the greatly improved conditions, men and women in the latter category will live longer, and bear more children (Isa. 65:20; Ezek. 47:22; Zech. 10:8).

It’s my belief that longevity will return to what it was in the beginning. (Recall that Methuselah lived to be 969 years of age, Gen. 5:17.) So, it could be that many will live through the entire thousand years of the Millennium, bearing many children over the years. The population will increase rapidly, calling for the establishment of more towns and cities, and therefore more administrators.

Another thought. We don’t know whether these jobs will all be permanent. Or whether, like some politicians today, individuals will serve for a particular term–perhaps with the possibility of reappointment. In ancient Israel, the tribe of Levi got so large that not all the Levites could serve in the temple at one time. They were divided by King David into twenty-four groups, each with an assigned period of service (I Chron. 24). I don’t know if something similar will be worked out in the Kingdom, but it seems possible.

4) One more quick thought. I wonder if the references to our reign describe something corporate, rather than individual. That is, because we belong the Christ, and honour Him as our King, we are, in a sense, a part of His reign, a part of the reigning congregation of the saints. In a similar sense, because we vote on those who serve in our government, we are corporately a part of the ruling body. (This is just a speculation. But I wonder of reigning together with Christ will be, at least for some, experienced in that secondary sense.)

As you indicate, whatever the case, our sovereign and omniscient Lord will have a wise and efficient administration, with no “bloated bureaucracy.” I look forward to serving in whatever way He calls me to.

Is Roman Catholicism Christian?

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? In response, we must first come to some common understanding of what is meant by a “Christian.” There are many churches, sects, and cults which claim to be Christian but are not. They may recognize Jesus and the Bible as somehow significant to their belief system, but is that enough? It perhaps makes them a part of Christendom (the professing church) in the broadest sense, but that is all. As Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 7:21-23). Profession of God’s saving grace is not the same as possession of it!

The good news of the gospel of grace is that “Christ died for our sins” (I Cor. 15:1, 3). A Christian (a “Christ-one”) is a person who is rightly related to Christ (II Cor. 13:5), through faith alone in His saving work on the cross of Calvary (Rom. 1:16). (Note the emphasis on salvation by faith in Romans 3:21-28.) Through faith, the individual is born again by the Spirit of God and becomes a part of the family of God (Jn. 1:12-13; Gal. 3:26). He is said to have eternal life as a present possession (Jn. 3:16; 5:24). This life is a “gift” of God (Rom. 6:23), and cannot be earned or acquired by any human works or effort (Eph. 2:8-9).

What church the person attends is irrelevant to this. Not that it is unimportant, but it is not what saves us. We are not saved by a church, but by a gracious work of God. In the Bible, sinners were not invited to join a church for salvation, but simply to trust in Christ Acts 16:30-31; cf. 4:12).

With that background, what of the question above? The article on my website entitled Critique of the Passion (Mel Gibson’s film about the sufferings of Christ) deals with some basic errors of the Roman Catholic Church. I will review them here, because they indicate where the Church of Rome stands in relation to biblical Christianity.

1) Rome gives human tradition the authority of Holy Scripture. In some cases even overruling the revealed Word of God with the opinions of men. Christ’s charge against the Pharisees fits: “You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition….making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down” (Mk. 7:9, 13). One example of this is the Catholic Church’s insistence on the celibacy of her priests. This became law by the decree of Pope Gregory VII in 1079, but nowhere is it taught in the Scriptures. It has opened individuals to unnecessary temptation and led to terrible abuse. In stark contrast, the Christian faith is based upon the revealed Word of God (Rom. 10:17; I Pet. 1:23–2:2; II Pet. 3:15-16), and on that alone (Jude 1:3; cf. Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:6-9). “Beware lest anyone cheat you through…the tradition of men…and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).

2) Rome attempts to keep on crucifying Christ over and over in the Mass. In his book The Faith of Millions, Catholic priest John O’brien says, “When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.” But the Bible teaches that Christ was offered once for all to pay the price of our sins (I Pet. 3:18; Heb. 9:28; 10:10, 14), and that, having risen from the dead, He dies no more (Rom. 6:9-10; Heb. 7:25). “This Man [Christ], after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God…there is no longer an offering for sin” (Heb. 10:12, 18). The Lord’s Table is a place where Calvary is to be remembered, not repeated.

3) Rome has a false view of justification–our judicial right-standing with God. The Catholic Church says justification is received “by the sacrament of baptism…without which no one was ever justified” (the Council of Trent)– and by which they mean a baptism sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, normally infant baptism. Rome teaches that each Catholic must be justified repeatedly by the sacraments and by works, because he loses his justification by sinning. But according to the Scriptures God’s justification is permanent. “Whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified [no exceptions]” (Rom. 8:30). And the Bible says a sinner is justified (pronounced righteous by a holy God) by grace, through simple faith in Christ, apart from any works. “By Him [Christ] everyone who believes is justified from all things…” (Acts 13:39; cf. Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5; cf. II Cor. 5:21).

4) Rome has a weak and inadequate view of grace. The Bible says salvation is not by works, but by grace (a gift) alone (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. Isa. 64:6). It is not by a “do” but by believing in an “already done.” Christ’s Calvary work on our behalf is abundantly sufficient to save the worst of sinners. And God’s Word emphasizes that grace mixed with any works ceases to be grace (Rom. 4:4-5). Rome claims to believe that Christ died for our sins. But for them that is not enough. The church, and the priest, and various human works are needed. Romanism often substitutes word “graces” for the glorious Bible word grace, suggesting that salvation is not received entirely and forever at once, but is meted out in little instalments earned through participation in the sacraments. This is a different and perverted gospel, a salvation by works (Gal. 1: 6-8). By this heresy the principle of grace is destroyed.

5) Rome exalts Mary to a level with Christ (or above Him). Some teach that she is a “co-redemptrix” with Christ. According to the Catholic Catechism “Mary…by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation.” Much space could be given to this error, as it is a dominant one. That the elevation of Mary amounts to blasphemy and outright idolatry cannot be denied when one reads the vast volume of literature Rome has churned out on the subject. One example: In Soul Magazine, the official organ of the adherents of Our Lady of Fatima, we read (in the Dec. 1984 issue), “Mary is so perfectly united with the Holy Spirit that He acts through [her] His spouse….all our life, every thought, word, and deed is in Her hands…at every moment, She Herself must instruct, guide and transform each one of us into Herself, so that not we but She lives in us…”

But the Bible never tells us the Spirit of God works through Mary to transform our lives. And it is not Mary who lives in us, and into whose likeness we are transformed, it is always and only Christ’s (Rom. 8:29; Gal. 2:20; 4:19; Col. 2:6-10). In contrast to Romanism, the Bible honours Mary for her faith in God (Lk. 1:45), but Mary herself recognizes she is a sinner in need of a Saviour (Lk. 1:46-47). Twice the Lord diverts attention away from Mary (Lk. 8:19-21; 11:27-28). Further, believers have the right and liberty to approach the throne of God directly in prayer through our heavenly Intercessor, the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 4:15-16; 7:25). The Bible declares Christ to be the one and only Mediator between God and man (I Tim. 2:5; cf. Jn. 14:6).

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? It is my belief, based on the consistent teaching of God’s Word regarding these fundamental truths, that the answer must be “No.” In spite of many claims to the contrary, it has drifted too far from God’s inspired Word to merit that designation. But what if we were to ask: Are there Roman Catholics who are Christians? In that case the answer could well be “Yes.” It is possible there are individuals who have been able to cut through the heretical doctrines and unbiblical traditions promoted to by Rome to trust in Christ alone for salvation.

Yes, there may be born again Christians who continue to worship in a Catholic Church. However, these individuals will not be able to fully accept Catholic doctrine, since it is so often incompatible with Scripture. And as the Spirit of God continues to work in their hearts through the Word I believe they will become increasingly dissatisfied with where they are. That is what happened to the reformers. They tried to bring changes to the Church of Rome, to rid it of erroneous doctrines and practices. But when they could not, they were compelled to leave by their own Bible-based convictions. They no longer felt at home there.

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? This brief response to the initial query may leave you with many more questions. If you would like to do further research on this subject I encourage you to check out the website of Mike Gendron, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries. Mike was a Roman Catholic for 37 years, before coming to Christ. He can speak with authority on many of these issues.

Critique of The Passion: Gibson’s Film in the Light of Holy Scripture

Critique of the Passion is important. It raises numerous questions about the meaning of the cross.

Is the Film Antisemitic (Inciting Hatred Toward the Jewish People)?

The Jews are portrayed in a negative way–though, under pressure, Mel Gibson removed a Bible verse from the script, so as not to offend them. When Pilate tried in vain to insist that Christ had done nothing worthy of death, the Jewish multitude cried out, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25). The line was originally there, but later removed from the film script. This kind of tinkering with the account to satisfy public opinion would seem to be what the Apostle Paul spoke of when he said, “If I still pleased men, I would not be the bondservant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

True, the Jews are not depicted favourably. But the Romans are also portrayed in a negative way in the film–as a pack of brutal sadists. Without doubt, crucifixion was cruel and brutal–designed that way to discourage law breaking! (Though it is quite possible much of the cruelty pictured in the film never happened!) And the Romans, especially the centurions, are always portrayed in Scripture as just in their dealings–and often as men of faith (e.g. Matt. 8:5-13; Acts 10:1-2; 22:25-26; 27:42-43; cf. Mk. 15:39).

The Bible is balanced with regard to who was to blame for the crucifixion of Christ–including both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 4:27). The larger truth to be kept before us is this: In the final analysis, each human being is responsible for what happened to Christ, because He died for our sins (Isa. 53:6; I Pet. 2:24). And though the antisemitism issue has often been at the forefront of discussions about the film, there are other critical issues to be considered.

I. The Film Suffers from a Lack of Context

“Context” is what comes before and after. It is a crucial step in Bible interpretation to consider the context of a passage. When a sermon is presented, the preacher can cite Scripture references giving biblical authority for what he says. Listeners should always check with the inspired Word of God (Acts 17:11). With a film, that is not usually possible. (Viewers of Gibson’s film would have difficulty doing that in any event, since many of the things portrayed are not found in the Bible at all.) While watching the film well taught Christians may be able to supply the needed context from what they already know. But many others will not likely be able to do so.

The Passion is almost exclusively about the 12 hours from Jesus’ arrest until His death on the cross. A brief glimpse is given of the resurrection (with peculiarities of its own, to be dealt with later). There are also some flashbacks to earlier times in Jesus’ life. (Some are scenes of Jesus’ boyhood with His mother, Mary–events not in the Bible.) But Calvary needs to be put in a proper (and accurate) context. This is done by teaching what comes before, and after the cross in the Word of God. In the broadest sense, this includes:

1) Before: creation, and the fall of man; the Old Testament Law, and the failure of all to keep it; the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Saviour; and the account of Christ’s virgin birth, His teachings, His miracles, and His sinless life, as recorded in the Gospels.

2) After: Christ’s resurrection, with its “many infallible proofs” that He was truly, physically alive (Acts 1:3; I Cor. 15:3-6, etc.); the record of His ascension, and of his high priestly work at the Father’s right hand; the promise of His return; the record in Acts of the formation and growth of the church, as Christ’s “Great Commission” (Matt. 28:18-20) is obeyed; the commentary on the meaning of the cross given in the epistles, and how we are to respond to the work of Christ.

3) A Theological Context: To appreciate the meaning of Calvary, people need to hear: that we are all lost sinners, condemned to eternal judgment, apart from the intervention of God’s grace (Rom. 3:23; 6:23; Jn. 3:18, 36); that Christ is God the Son in human flesh (Jn. 1:1, 14), sent by God the Father to take the punishment for our sins upon Himself (I Cor. 15:3); that He has provided a full and free salvation for all who will trust in Him alone as Saviour (Jn. 1:12-13; 3:16); and that His resurrection demonstrates who He is, and that the Father is fully satisfied with His payment for sin (Rom. 1:3; 4:25).

II. The Film Contains Unparalleled Violence

Some Christians have claimed viewing all the brutality and gore has made them love the Saviour more. But the Bible shows a holy reticence when it comes to these details. Jesus’ physical suffering is described with very few words. But in the film, physical mutilation, blood and gore fill nearly all of the two hour running time. (Film critics are calling it the most violent movie they have ever seen.)

Why the emphasis on the details of the physical abuse of Christ? It seems like a throwback to the obsession with these things in the Middle Ages (ca. 500-1500). During that era, there was a growing fascination with supposed religious relics. Such relics included body parts or bones of dead saints, clothing or other personal items associated with them. Many alleged nails from the cross, and even “the Virgin’s milk” (a huge quantity) were put on display. Though great claims were made, it is virtually impossible to prove whether such relics are authentic. It has been estimated that enough supposed pieces of the cross of Christ were circulated to fill a whole railway freight car with wood.

These relics stirred a deep fascination with the physical details of Christ’s sufferings. The belief grew in the Middle Ages that one could best commune with Christ by meditating on His physical pains. And that one could help pay for his own sins by suffering in a similar way to Jesus (whipping one’s self, being suspended for awhile on a cross, etc.).

But in contrast with this obsession, the biblical record is sparse. Mark says simply, “He [Pilate] delivered Jesus, after he had scourged Him” (Mk. 15:15), whereas the whipping of Jesus takes 9 minutes in the film, with every detail shown of bloody flesh being ripped from His body.)

John says, “They crucified Him” (Jn. 19:18). That is all. The actual “blood” of Jesus is never once mentioned in the biblical account, from the time of Jesus’ arrest until His death on the cross. (It is only after His death that we read, “One of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out,” Jn. 19:34.) Not that the shed blood of Christ was unimportant to the Bible’s authors. (It is mentioned about 20x in the epistles, but mostly for its doctrinal significance, and as the fulfillment of what was pictured in the Old Testament sacrifices (Jn. 1:29; Heb. 9:11-15, 22.)

Even God the Father refused to gaze upon the cross. The scene was shrouded in supernatural darkness (Matt. 27:45). And Christ, in His agony, sensed the withdrawal of the Father’s fellowship (Matt. 27:46). The Bible says God is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon wickedness” (Hab. 1:13). So is it right for us to gaze with fascination upon the details of the greatest sin ever committed? How do the scenes portrayed fit the Bible’s injunction, “Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy– meditate on these things” (Phil. 4:8)?

There is another reason why the Bible turns our attention away from these gory scenes of physical violence. It is because the spiritual burden Christ bore, and the torment He felt in bearing the world’s sins (Isa. 53:6) was far greater than His physical pain. His heart- wrenching agony in Gethsemane (before His physical abuse) shows us that (Matt. 26:36-39; cf. Lk. 22:44). What He experienced spiritually is at the heart of what His salvation gains for us. He endured separation from the Father so that we might be delivered from that very thing (Matt. 27:46; cf. Isa. 59:2; II Thess 1:7-9).

III. The Film is Marred by Fictions and Fallacies

The claim is made that “The Passion” is an accurate and factual account of what happened to Christ. “It is as it was” (were allegedly the words of the pope, after viewing the film). Gibson says, “I wanted to be true to the Gospels. That’s never been done before. I didn’t want to see Jesus looking pretty. I wanted to mess up one of His eyes. Destroy it.” (But where in the Gospels do we read of one of Christ’s eye being destroyed?) One reviewer comments, “It was assembled from the four biblical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [And] the film presents a moving and factual account…” (Greg Laurie).

But that is not so. A critique of The Passion will show that many times the film is not historically accurate or factual. Nor is it always based upon the four Gospels. The motion picture is riddled with two kinds of errors 1) Fictions: details not in the Bible–some that might have happened, but we have no way of knowing for sure. 2) Fallacies: details that actually contradict the Bible, or support false doctrine. With some research, I was able to come up with a list of about fifty things that fall into one category or the other. For a film claiming biblical accuracy, that is not a good record! Here are a few examples.

  1. Jesus is played by a tall, handsome Caucasian actor, closely resembling the image on the Shroud of Turin. But in truth we do not know what Christ looked like. He may have been short and swarthy. We know He was a Jew, and that there was apparently nothing remarkable about His general appearance (cf. Matt. 1:1; Isa. 53:2). Beyond that point we must proceed with caution.
  2. All the characters speak either Aramaic, or Latin. But Latin was used mainly for formal documents. The common language of conversation was Greek.
  3. At the Last Supper, Jesus and His disciples sit down to eat, as is often portrayed in paintings. But the custom was to recline on couches at such meals, with each person leaning on His left elbow.
  4. At the supper, Peter is seated next to Jesus. But in fact John was reclining on Jesus’ right (and hence able to lean back on His bosom, Jn. 13:23, 25), and Judas Iscariot was on Jesus’ left (since it was to him Jesus directly passed the food, Jn. 13:26). Peter was actually across the table, where he was able to motion to John to find out who the betrayer was (Jn. 13:24).
  5. After he leaves the upper room, Judas is attacked by demons in the form of two children–who chew off his flesh! This, of course, is nowhere found in the Word of God.
  6. Satan repeatedly appears to Jesus and tempts Him during His passion. (This is never mentioned in the Bible.)
  7. In the film, Satan is played by a woman.
  8. In Gethsemane, Jesus crushes the head of a serpent that appears from under Satan’s robe. But this prophecy was fulfilled through His death, not in Gethsemane (Gen. 3:15; cf. Heb. 2:14).
  9. Missing from “The Passion” is this incident: When Jesus announces Himself to the arresting party as the “I AM,” they all fall backward, possibly indicating His sovereign power (Jn. 18:6).
  10. The film depicts several of the disciples fighting in Gethsemane against the arresting party, but the Bible mentions only Peter doing so (Jn. 18:10).
  11. The soldiers begin beating Jesus in Gethsemane. But that is nowhere found in the record.
  12. The soldiers throw Jesus off a bridge, where He dangles at the end of a chain.
  13. Herod calls Jesus a “Fool,” and the Romans call Him “King of Worms.” Neither of these appellations is recorded in Scripture.
  14. Jesus is scourged twice in the film. (According to Scripture there was only one beating.)
  15. Simon of Cyrene at first disdains to carry Jesus’ cross. Then he has a change of heart, and appeals to the Romans on His behalf.
  16. The soldiers continue to beat Christ on the way to Calvary, and a frenzied riot breaks out between the Jews and the Romans. (Not in the Bible.)
  17. One of Jesus’ hands is nailed to the cross. Then His body is cruelly and violently stretched, in order to reach a hole drilled for the other nail.
  18. After Jesus is nailed to the cross, it is raised up, turned over, and dropped face down. (And lifted up and dropped again.) This goes far beyond the Bible.
  19. The names of the two thieves crucified with Jesus are given as Gesmes and Dismas, when the Bible is silent about this.
  20. A crow pecks out the eye of the unrepentant thief.
  21. During the earthquake accompanying Jesus’ death, the floor of the temple is cracked, and other damage done there. But the Bible mentions only the tearing of the veil before the holy of holies (Matt. 27:51).
  22. Mary Magdalene is depicted as the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8:3), but the Bible makes no such identification. They are two different people.
  23. At the resurrection, an angel rolls away the stone before Jesus emerges from the tomb. But in the Bible the stone is rolled away to show His followers He has already risen (Matt. 28:1-6).
  24. At the resurrection, Jesus walks out of the tomb stark naked. This bizarre portrayal is nowhere found in the Bible.

So, is it right to take “dramatic licence” with the inspired Word of God, and add to it? Some have called Gibson’s additions simply “artistic embellishments.” But should we do that with the Bible? In Christianity Today, Frank Schaeffer is quoted as saying, “The person I meet when I pray is not subject to negotiation or interpretation by a movie director. I want Jesus as He reveals Himself to me when I pray, not Mel Gibson’s casting choice.”

The practice of adding to or subtracting from the Bible is specifically condemned, in both the Old and New Testaments (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18). While the Scriptures do not tell us everything that happened, God has told us all we need to know. His purpose is not to satisfy our curiosity, but to present His Son as our Saviour and Lord, the One to be believed on and obeyed. The Bible says, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deut. 29:29).

The many inaccuracies in the film raise the question: Where did Mel Gibson (who co-authored the script) get his material? Not from the Bible. As Richard Corliss, in TIME Magazine notes, “[It was] inspired as much by Renaissance iconography [statues and paintings], the Stations of the Cross [in Catholic tradition], and [a book called] ‘The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary’, as by the Gospels’ terse narratives.” In truth, a major source for the script was the writings of Roman Catholic mystics Mary of Agreda, and Anne Emmerich.

Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) was a Franciscan nun who is alleged to have had visionary trances. She claimed the power to send a vision of herself to foreign lands to teach Christianity to the heathen. She prophesied as follows: “It was revealed to me that through the intercession of the Mother of God, all heresies will disappear. This victory over heresies has been reserved by Christ for His Blessed Mother….Before the Second Coming of Christ, Mary must, more than ever, shine in mercy, might and grace, in order to bring unbelievers into the Catholic Faith.”

Mr. Gibson’s main source for the film, however, is the visions of Anne Emmerich (1774-1824), as especially recorded in her book The Dolorous [Painful, Sad] Passion of Our Lord, published posthumously, in 1833. She claimed the ability to “see” a person’s sins, and to actually see souls in purgatory. She is also said to have had the ability to levitate (defy gravity and float in mid-air). It is claimed she miraculously understood the Latin Mass without ever studying Latin, and was spending 4-5 hours a day in prayer, by the age of four. Says Gibson, “[She] supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.” (Almost all the extra-biblical “fictions and fallacies” in the film come from her.)

According to a vision of Emmerich’s, “the complexion of our Lord was fair, like that of Mary, [and] His hair, which was far from thick was of a golden brown colour.” (This accords with the European appearance of Jesus in many paintings and statues from the Middle Ages. It is not the more likely appearance of a Middle Eastern Jew.)

Emmerich describes the beatings of Jesus in gory detail. (She claims there were two beatings, where the Bible mentions only one.) “Two fresh executioners took the places of the last mentioned, who were beginning to flag; their scourges were composed of small chains, or straps covered with iron hooks, which penetrated to the bone, and tore off large pieces of flesh at every blow. What word, alas! could describe this terrible–this heartrending scene! The cruelty of these barbarians was nevertheless not yet satiated; they untied Jesus, and again fastened Him up with His back turned towards the pillar….The body of our Lord was perfectly torn to shreds.”

The writings of Anne Emmerich are often anti-Jewish in tone. Many details she gives about Christ’s passion focus on the Jews and amplify their involvement. For example, she claims a Pharisee sent seven slaves to get wood and prepare the cross before Jesus was arrested, and that the cross was constructed outside Caiaphas’s court. She also asserts six brutal Pharisees were in charge of the arresting party, and that the high priests paid the soldiers to abuse Jesus. None of this is recorded in the Bible.

The Word of God sharply contrasts the faithful preaching of the apostles with the “fictions and fallacies” of those who distort or add to the truth of God’s Word. “We are not, like so many (as hucksters, tavern keepers, making a trade of) peddling God’s Word–short- measuring and adulterating the divine message; but as men of sincerity and the purest motive, commissioned and sent by God, we speak [His message]….We refuse to deal craftily (to practice trickery and cunning) or to adulterate or handle dishonestly the Word of God…” (II Cor. 2:17; 4:2, Amplified Bible).

IV. The Film Rests on a Corrupt Foundation

Presenting the truth of the Word of God is a holy calling and a sacred duty, not to be taken lightly. Even the prophet Isaiah realized he needed God’s special cleansing before he could do it (Isa. 6:5-7). But compare the people who created The Passion of the Christ:

One of the main actresses is famous in Italy for her hard core pornographic movies. Three prominent actresses have repeatedly posed nude for various pornographic publications. The actress who plays Mary appeared in a Hungarian film which one critic calls “vile and sexually provocative.” The actor who plays Jesus has appeared recently in films with restricted viewing because of their nudity, graphic sex, foul language, and violence.

According to a transcript of some “out-takes,” the actor who plays Jesus took the Lord’s name in vain on the set of The Passion, and made silly jokes while he was hanging on the cross (“Hey! I can see my house from here!”). Mel Gibson himself has recently appeared in movies notorious for their extreme violence and profanity. (In one film alone there were 94 examples of vile language–16 of these involved taking the Lord’s name in vain.) Surely, “By their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:20).

Also significant is the film’s Roman Catholic roots.

Mel Gibson has stated publicly that he believes no one can be saved outside the Church of Rome. (“There is no salvation for those outside the Church.”) He also believes that only a Mass delivered in Latin can have saving benefit (the Tridentine Latin Mass). When asked if he was born again, Mel Gibson replied, “No, I’m not born again, I’m a Catholic.”

Gibson has repeatedly added things to the film, or departed from the facts, in order to support Catholic tradition. For example: A battered and gore-covered Jesus appears weak and helpless, on the way to Calvary. He falls several times (based on the Catholic “Stations of the Cross,” not the Bible). A woman offers Jesus a drink (of water or wine) along the route. When she wipes His face with a cloth, the image of His face is miraculously imprinted on the cloth. (This is the Catholic legend of St. Veronica, and not biblical.) As Jesus collapses repeatedly under the burden of the cross, Simon helps Him up, saying things like “You’re almost there.” (But it was Simon who was bearing the cross, according to God’s Word–almost from the start, Matt. 27:31-32.) At one point, Jesus falls and seems unable to continue, until He looks at Mary, and gains strength from her.

None of this is biblical. Jesus on the way to the cross exhibited strength and full control of Himself. He was even able to do some teaching (Lk. 23:27-31).

In The Passion, the nails are driven into Jesus’ palms. But we know from history and from medical science that is not how it was done. (A nail through the palm could not support the weight of the body.) In fact, the nails were driven through the wrists, crushing the median nerve and causing terrible pain. (In the language of the day, the wrist was considered part of the hand.) This raises the question of why a man, committed to getting his facts straight, deliberately did it wrong. It is possibly because, in portraying this correctly, Mel Gibson would have contradicted the view of Christ on the cross in the countless crucifixes of Romanism displayed around the world. That he was not willing to do.

Five Basic Errors of Romanism

The truth about the church of Jesus Christ comes to us from the inspired revelations given through the apostles, and from that alone. Some of these teachings we hold in common with the Church of Rome (a belief in the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, His second coming, etc.). However, Rome has added much tradition and many papal decrees, which often distort or contradict God’s Word.

1) Rome gives human tradition the authority of Holy Scripture. It places later tradition and papal decrees on a level with the inspired Scriptures, or even above them. Rome receives the Sacred Scriptures and “the unwritten traditions…preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church, with equal affection of piety and reverence….No one may dare to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in a manner contrary to that Church” (The Council of Trent–hereafter abbreviated CT).

In stark contrast, the Christian faith is based upon the revealed Word of God (Rom. 10:17; I Pet. 1:23–2:2; II Pet. 3:15-16), and on that alone (Jude 1:3; cf. Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:6-9).

2) Rome attempts to keep on crucifying Christ, over and over. Romanism declares that Christ’s sacrifice is renewed and repeated, each time the Mass is celebrated. It teaches that the communion wafer is miraculously turned into the actual body of Christ at that time (a doctrine called transubstantiation). “The Mass permits us to have a part in the redemptive work of Christ….God is pleased that we are doing our share in making up for sin” (Monsignor J. D. Conway). “The Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins” (CT). Rome also teaches that Masses can also be said for the saving benefit of the dead, completely contradicting Scripture (Heb. 9:27).

Mel Gibson says, “The sacrifice of the cross, and the sacrifice of the altar [meaning the Mass] are the same thing.” He uses a clever technique to show this in the film. Instead of putting the Last Supper in its chronological place, he waits until the crucifixion is in progress, then inter-cuts scenes of the cross and the Last Supper. This is to emphasize that the Mass carries on the sacrifice of the cross.

Gibson had a Mass conducted on the film set every day. His reason? “We have to be squeaky clean just working on this.” But is the latter how we are to get cleansed of our sin, according to God’s Word? (It is not.) In addition, the Bible teaches that Christ was offered, once for all, to pay the price of our sins (I Pet. 3:18; Heb. 9:28; 10:10, 14), and that, having risen from the dead, He dies no more (Rom. 6:9-10; Heb. 7:25).

3) Rome has a false view of justification. The Catholic Church says that justification is received “by the sacrament of baptism…without which no one was ever justified” (CT–and by which they mean, only a baptism sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church–normally infant baptism). In fact, Rome says, “If anyone say that…good works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof, let him be anathema [cursed]” (CT).

But the Bible says a sinner is justified (pronounced righteous by a holy God) by grace, through simple faith in Christ, apart from any works (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5; cf. II Cor. 5:21).

4) Rome has a weak and inadequate view of grace. Catholicism says to the saving merit of works like baptism and the Mass, is added that of penance. Penance is an attempt by the sinner to help pay for his own sins. “We deny ourselves, accept sufferings, and perform strenuous works in an effort to expiate [pay the penalty of] our guilt” (Conway). Such intense labour and physical suffering “restores sanctifying grace….forgives our sins….[and] the eternal punishments of hell are taken away” (Conway).

But the Bible says salvation is NOT by works, but by grace alone (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. Isa. 64:6). God’s Word emphasizes that grace that’s mixed with works ceases to be grace (Rom. 4:4-5). Rome claims to believe Christ died for our sins. But for them that is not enough. The church, and the priest, and various human works are needed. And by this heresy the principle of grace is destroyed.

5) Rome blasphemously exalts Mary to a level with Christ (or above). Catholicism teaches that Mary is a “co-redemptrix” with Christ (a belief Mel Gibson himself asserts). Rome teaches that Mary shared in Christ’s sufferings and had a part in His saving work. “At Calvary, she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the church…” (Pope John Paul II). “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office, but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation.” (the New Catholic Catechism, published in 1992).

Rome says, “Great is the need you have of Mary in order to be saved….For a rosary, for a fast, she has sometimes conferred signal graces upon the greatest of sinners” (from a Catholic devotional book). “We do pray to the Mother of Jesus; she has influence with her Divine Son. And we do honour the saints; they are the closest friends God ever had on earth….The priest, the Pope, the saints, the Blessed Virgin, and Jesus Christ: all steps on the way to God” (Conway).

The Catholic rosary consists of a string of beads, ending in a crucifix. Catholics are taught to recite a series of ritual prayers, counting off the beads, one by one. The actor who plays Jesus in Gibson’s film, himself a Catholic, prayed through the rosary during each day’s filming. Below is a recommended prayer that concludes the ritual of the rosary. Note how, time after time, Mary is given exalted titles and ministries the Bible reserves for Christ. Check the contents of the prayer against the Scripture passages inserted and see for yourself how it contradicts the Bible.

“Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our LIFE [cf. Jn. 14:6], our sweetness and our HOPE [cf. I Tim. 1:1]! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious ADVOCATE [cf. I Jn. 2:1-2], thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! PRAY FOR US [cf. Heb. 7:25], O Holy Mother of God. That we may be MADE WORTHY [cf. I Cor. 1:30-31; Col. 1:12-14] of the promises of Christ.”

In contrast to Rome’s teachings, the Bible honours Mary for her faith in God (Lk. 1:45), but Mary herself recognizes she is a sinner in need of a Saviour (Lk. 1:46-47). Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus call Mary “Mother” (but rather “Woman”–a more polite form of address than it appears in English, Jn. 2:4; 19:26). Twice the Lord diverts attention away from Mary (Lk. 8:19-21; 11:27-28). Further, believers have the right and liberty to approach the throne of God directly in prayer through our heavenly Intercessor, the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 4:15-16; 7:25). The Bible declares Christ to be the one and only Mediator between God and man (I Tim. 2:5; cf. Jn. 14:6).

But Mel Gibson supports his heretical view of Mary in his film. Mary appears in scene after scene (incidentally, portrayed by an actress only 8 years older than the man who plays Jesus). When Jesus is tormented by the devil in Gethsemane, Mary awakens from sleep and begins to suffer with Him. Mary is the only person, other than Jesus, who can actually see the devil. Mary is pictured as being near to Christ all through His suffering. Mary appeals to Pilate’s wife to protect Jesus. She talks to Jesus while He is being scourged. Mary, and Mary Magdalene, use some cloths given to them by Pilate’s wife to soak up the pools of blood Jesus sheds while He is being whipped.

When Jesus prays to His heavenly Father, He says, “I am Your Servant and the Son of Your handmaid.” While Jesus is hanging on the cross, Mary comes up and kisses His feet, and Jesus’ blood runs into her mouth, and she backs away, with blood all over her face. Mary helps to take Jesus down from the cross, and holds the dead Jesus in her arms, at the foot of the cross. (Where are Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathaea, Jn. 19:38-42?)

Both Peter and John call Mary “Mother”–and the word is capitalized in the subtitles of the movie. After Peter denies Jesus, he kneels before Mary, and calls her “Mother,” confessing his sin to her. (Sensing his guilt, twice he tells Mary not to touch him.)

So, what has led to the transformation of the “maidservant of the Lord” (Lk. 1:38) into “the Queen of Heaven”? In his book Miriam, the Virgin of Nazareth, scholar Victor Buksbazen gives some of the historical background for the growing emphasis on Mary in early Christianity.

“The ancient world of the Semitic, Egyptian, Greek and Roman civilizations abounded in gods and goddesses which personified the forces of fertility, of spring and awakening new life. To the Semitic peoples the goddess of fertility was known as Ishtar or Astarte; the Egyptians worshiped her has Isis, the spouse of Osiris; the Greeks worshiped her as Athena, Demeter, Cybele or Diana. To the Romans she was known as Juno or Minerva. To all of them she was familiar as the Great Mother or Queen of Heaven.

Even the Israelites, in spite of their strong monotheistic heritage, succumbed to this all-pervading and insidious cult, apparently brought by them from Egypt. This cult was especially popular among the women (Jer. 44:17, 25). If this cult was able to exert such a potent influence on monotheistic Jews, how much more pervasive must its impact have been upon newly baptized and only superficially converted pagans.

When Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire around the shores of the Mediterranean, the forces of paganism were still very strong. Under this influence a gradual and subtle transformation took place, whereby Mary replaced the old goddesses in the devotion of the new converts. At the same time, shrines dedicated to Mary began to replace the ancient temples of her former pagan rivals….Although the tree of paganism was cut down, the roots remained deep in the soil and helped transform Miriam of the Gospel into Mary of popular piety–later into Mariological dogma.”

In the Bible, Jesus cries from the cross, “It is finished [literally paid in full]” (Jn. 19:30). Now He is the “one Mediator between God and men” (I Tim. 2:5; cf. Heb. 7:25). “If we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). From the evidence given above, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Rome presents a different “gospel” from what is found in the Bible.

Kenneth Samples (himself a former Catholic), summarized the problem with Romish teaching as follows. “Catholicism possesses a foundational orthodoxy reflected in its affirmation of the crucial doctrines expressed in the ancient ecumenical creeds. Nevertheless, Protestants detect serious problems in Catholic theology in that the church affirms teachings that are extraneous, and inconsistent with its orthodox (Christian) foundation. These doctrinal errors are of such a serious nature that aspects of orthodoxy are undermined, thus warranting the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, and the continued separation of present-day Protestantism from Catholicism…..The doctrinal disputes of the Reformation era remain substantially unchanged today.”

In summary, Mel Gibson’s film is not recommended: Because it fails to put the cross in a proper context; because of its unparalleled and unwholesome violence; because of its many fictional additions and errors; because it rests upon a corrupt foundation.

Some Christians may have been led to support it because of all the clever promotion (“private showings,” meetings with Gibson). Some have jumped to endorse it after seeing a preview, and making a quick judgment call–perhaps emotionally influenced. Some have supported it because they’ve heard that others did (a kind of snowball effect). And some have supported it out of a legitimate desire to see others saved. (But the end does not justify the means.)

It has been claimed Gibson’s movie is the greatest evangelistic tool of our time. But how can a film do that, when it lacks a proper context and needed foundational teaching? How can it do that when it is loaded with errors? How can it do that when it is blighted by corruption? The answer is, it can’t. And a recent polling by the Barna research organization indicates that it has not.

Barna found “Less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the film stated that they made a profession of faith or accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior in reaction to the film’s content. Equally surprising was the lack of impact on people’s determination to engage in evangelism. Less than one-half of one percent of the audience said they were motivated to be more active in sharing their faith in Christ with others as a result of having seen the movie.”

Meanwhile, in contrast to this limited effect, how many have been misled and disillusioned by what is portrayed in the film? How many have been led into serious error? It is difficult to say, but the numbers may well be far greater than those for whom the film provided a positive impact.

The danger is clearly described in Scripture: “I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it!” (II Cor. 11:3-4, NKJV).

Though this motion picture has been lauded by many, there is another point of view to be considered. This critique of The Passion is intended to balance the sometimes naive and ill-informed commendations that have been given to Gibson’s dramatic and colourful distortion of the truth.

SOURCES

The material for this presentation came from a multitude of sources. Following is a partial list of sources use.

Buksbazen, Victor. Miriam, the Virgin of Nazareth. Philadelphia: Spearhead Press, 1963.

Conway, Monsignor J. D. Facts of the Faith. New York: All Saints Press, 1961. (A detailed explanation of Catholic teaching for the layman.)

Lloyd-Jones, Martin. Roman Catholicism. London: The Evangelical Press, (undated).

McGuire, John P. The Mass Presented to Non-Catholics. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1958. (An illustrated book explaining the Mass from a Catholic viewpoint.)

McIlwain, Trevor. Firm Foundations: Creation to Christ. Sanford, FL: New Tribes Mission, 1998.

Showers, Renald E. What on Earth Is God Doing? Woodbury, NJ: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 2003.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998.

Walton, Robert C. Chronological and Background Charts of Church History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Warfield, Benjemin B. Counterfeit Miracles. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962.

(Articles)

Used as well were numerous articles from magazines, and downloaded from the Web, (some written from a secular point of view, as well as those by both Catholics and Protestants). Among them are the following.

Van Biema, David. “Why It’s So Bloody.” Time Magazine, March 1, 2004.

Corliss, Richard. “The Goriest Story Ever Told.” Time Magazine, Mar. 1, 2004.

Cottrill, James. “The Passion After.” A paper written by my son, downloaded Feb. 28, 2004.

Fischer, John. “On a Hill Too Far Away.” Servant Magazine, Issue #69.

Giesler, Norman L. and Ralph E. MacKenzie. “What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 5).” Christian Research Journal, Winter 1995.

Greydanus, Steven D. “Will Mel Evangelize Evangelicals?” An article downloaded from the Net March, 2004.

Johnson, Brian D. “The Power and the Gory.” Macleans Magazine, posted on the Net Mar. 8, 2004.

McAdam, Claudia Cangilla. “The Passion of James Caviezel.” Living Light News, Mar./Apr. 2004.

Laurie, Greg. “The Passion of the Christ.” A tract published by the American Tract Society, 2004.

McBrien, Richard P. “Mel Gibson’s Catholicism.” Downloaded from the Net Mar. 12, 2004.

Miller, Elliot. “The Mary of Roman Catholicism.” Christian Research Journal, Fall 1990.

Neff, David. “The Passion of Mel Gibson.” Christianity Today, posted on the Net Feb. 20, 2004.

Samples, Kenneth R. “What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 2).” Christian Research Journal, Spring 1993.

Wierenga, Emily T. “Hollywood Jesus.” Living Light News, Mar./Apr. 2004.

Concerning Mary of Agreda (one of Gibson’s sources for his film), an article was downloaded from the Web on Feb. 23, 2004, from Rome’s Patron Saints Index, called “Venerable Mary of Agreda.”

Concerning Anne Catherine Emmerich (Gibson’s major source) an article was downloaded from the Web on Feb. 23, 2004, from Rome’s Patron Saints Index, called Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich. Also another article, “Problematic Elements from Emmerich,” critical of her (and citing many quotations from her writings), was downloaded Feb. 23, 2004.

Various interviews with Gibson and others were broadcast on television and radio (for example, Gibson’s one-hour interview by Dianne Sawyer). Some material was drawn from these, too.

Unpardonable Sin

Unpardonable sin is a frightening prospect. But that seems to be what Jesus is calling the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. How does one do that–or avoid doing it? And can a Christian be guilty of doing it?

Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus’ discussion of this particular offence (Matt. 12:31- 32; Mk. 3:28-30), and the incident which precipitated the Lord’s teaching is also recounted by Luke (Lk. 11:15-23). Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has been called “the unpardonable sin” as well, on the basis of Jesus’ words (Matt. 12:32).

Much has been written on the subject of the unpardonable sin because it raises a number of critical issues. What is the sin? And can it be committed today? Can a born again Christian commit this sin? And how does its “unpardonable” nature square with verses such as First John 1:7 and 9 which assure us that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin?

“Blasphemy” is a transliteration of the Greek word blasphemia, meaning: to slander, to speak contemptuously–in particular about God.

So, what is the context in which Jesus’ startling teaching occurs? The Lord had just delivered a demon possessed man, to the amazement of the watching crowd. Many had begun to wonder, “Could this be the Son of David [in other words, the promised Messiah]?” (Matt. 12:22-23). At that the Pharisees saw the possibility of their hold on the people slipping away, and they said sarcastically, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub [Satan], the ruler of the demons” (vs. 24). Mark tells us they also said, “He has Beelzebub” (Mk. 3:22)–in other words, that Jesus Himself was demon possessed; the spirit at work in Him was the devil.

It is that particular allegation which Christ refers to as blasphemy (slander) against the Holy Spirit. Jesus declares, “‘He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation’–because [explains Mark] they said, ‘He [Christ] has an unclean spirit'” (Mk. 3:29-30).

The power of the Holy Spirit was repeatedly evident in Christ’s life and ministry (Lk. 3:21-22; 4:1, 14). And Jesus specifically declared this to be in fulfillment of a messianic prophecy of Isaiah’s (Lk. 4:16- 21; cf. Isa. 61:1-2). So, in making their slanderous accusation, the Pharisees were rejecting the words of the prophet, and the evidence before them, in effect calling the Holy Spirit of God a demon!

Matthew shows how this incident comes at a decisive point when official rejection of Christ had crystallized. The Jewish leaders have, in fact, begun plotting to destroy Him (Matt. 12:14). Following their open expression of contempt, Jesus begins teaching more in parables. And a new element is introduced: if He is rejected He will depart.

Matthew 13 presents one parable after another, designed to show the nature of the kingdom during the absence of the King–what theologians sometimes call the “mystery” form of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 13:11). We are specifically told that the Lord switched to this parabolic method to conceal the truth from those who had hardened their hearts against Him (Matt. 13:10-16).

Two key statements recorded in Matthew provide further insight. Jesus says, “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you [as indicated by the presence of the King]” (Matt. 12:28). That was the real issue, and His enemies knew it–the identity of Jesus. He had come in the power of the Spirit of God, fulfilled one Old Testament prophecy after another, and fully demonstrated to anyone open to consider the evidence that He was (and is) the Christ, the Messiah-King of Israel. But in their rebel unbelief, the rulers of the Jews rejected Him and His authority over them.

The only alternative, if they denied the truth, seemed to be to claim that Jesus’ power was evil and satanic. And the Greek verb tense in Mark 3:30 is continuous–literally, they kept on saying He has an unclean spirit. They did so over and over. However, “whoever blasphemes” (Mk. 3:29) uses a Greek verb describing a one time completed action, not something that is repeated. It would seem that vs. 29 is speaking of the inward conclusion, a firm conviction that is established in the heart, while vs. 30 represents the ongoing and outward fruit of such a commitment.

The other key statement regarding this sin is found in Matthew 12:32. Amazingly, “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

What is remarkable about that is it seems to exalt one Person of the Trinity above another. So is it all right to slander Jesus, but not to slander the Holy Spirit? And does this mean one Person of the Godhead is worthy of greater honour than another? Or that the Holy Spirit is more important than God the Father, or the Lord Jesus? If so, what do we do with John 5:23, “All should honour the Son just as they honour the Father”? Or what about Colossians 2:9, “In Him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”?

The most logical way to resolve these questions is to see the sin as being unique to the days of Christ’s humiliation. To many He was the lowly carpenter’s son, probably born of an illicit pre-marital relationship between Joseph and Mary (Matt. 13:55; Jn. 8:41). As far as His physical appearance is concerned, there was apparently nothing unusual or remarkable about Him (cf. Isa. 53:2). No halo hovered above His head, as in Medieval paintings.

So how could this peasant from despised Nazareth (cf. Jn. 1:46) be the Son of God? Remember, those who watched Him during His years of public ministry did not have the empty tomb to consider. Nor did they have all the inspired revelation in the epistles that explains so much. To misjudge Jesus was understandable. But the working of the Holy Spirit in the through Christ was a clear matter of Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled before their eyes (Isa. 11:1-2; 61:1-2; and see Isa. 35:5-6; cf. Matt. 11:2-6).

With that background, let us consider whether this particular sin can be committed today. The sin is not simply a matter of using the name of Jesus as a swear word (which is frequently done in our time), or of speaking disrespectfully of the Holy Spirit. The latter is much more rare, but I have heard His name profaned as well. However, the precise nature of the sin is this: It involved witnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry ascribing His works to the devil, and thus slandering the Holy Spirit who worked through Him. That was unique to the days of Christ’s time on earth.

It certainly cannot be that a born again Christian can commit any unpardonable sin. Otherwise, First John 1:7 and 9 are not speaking the truth. And the “eternal” life which is God’s gift is not eternal at all! No Christian has ever or can ever commit an unpardonable sin.

And, if the nature of the sin is as described above, it simply cannot be committed today by anyone. Sinners do not see Christ in His humiliation. Nor are they able to pass judgment on the observable works of a Man. Rather, they have before them God’s completed revelation, the Bible, describing exactly who Christ is and what He has done. It is for their refusal to believe God’s Word concerning His Son that they will face eternal judgment (I Jn. 5:11-12).

Heaven in the Tribulation (The Church in Heaven)

, ,

Question: What will Christians be doing in heaven during the Tribulation and Great Tribulation? Will there be anything (wedding rings and such) left when we return?

Answer: Heaven in the Tribulation. Interesting question. I guess the easiest answer is: we simply don’t know–or we don’t know much. There isn’t a lot of information about that. Most of the book of Revelation, from Chapter 6 through 18, deals in particular with the judgments of God to be poured out on the world during the seven years of the Tribulation. These are things we’ll view (to a greater or lesser degree) from the perspective of heaven.

Here are a few comments on things we do know.

1) We do know the resurrected and raptured church (all Christians) will appear before “the judgment seat of Christ” to receive rewards for what we have done in our life and service for Christ (Rom. 14:10; I Cor. 3:9-15; II Cor. 5:10). This is not a place of condemnation, but of evaluation and reward. The word used for “seat” (bema in Greek) refers to a judge’s stand like those at the Olympics, where winners are crowned. (Given that this will involve millions–perhaps billions–of people, it could take some time!)

2) The Marriage Supper of the Lamb will take place after rewards are handed out (Rev. 19:7-9). Marriage celebrations in Bible times often took a week, so again, this won’t simply be a quick meal. It may be a celebration of weeks or months. Christ, our heavenly Bridegroom, will be in the place of honour, with His bride, the church. Those who are invited guests will be the Old Testament saints, and perhaps the martyrs of the Tribulation.

There is a verse in a parable of the Lord Jesus that has moved me to tears many times. Now, a word of warning: it’s in a parable–a made-up story. We must be careful about being dogmatic about applying the details of parables, or building doctrines on them without confirmation elsewhere in the Bible. Sometimes, details are simply added to flesh out the story. But this is at least interesting.

The verse is Luke 12:37, in a parable about Christ’s second coming. It says:

“Blessed are those servants whom the master, when he comes, will find watching. Assuredly, I say to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat, and will come and serve them.”

Can you imagine that happening? Oh my! We should be waiting on Him, not the other way round! But it seems, in infinite humility, Christ will again take the place of a servant, and come and serve us. It reminds me a bit of the tradition some follow now of the bride and groom bringing around a piece of wedding cake for each of the guests.

3) As to wedding rings…I don’t know about that. We’ll be dressed in “fine linen, clean and bright,” robes of righteousness (Rev. 19:7-9). And there’s an interesting verse that suggests something that may be the equivalent of wedding rings. Revelation 2:17 says, “To him who overcomes (meaning all the saved) I will give…a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.” We know no more than that. But those personalized white stones make me think of engraved wedding bands.

4) Revelation chapters 4 and 5 indicate that there will be lots of praise and worship around the throne of God. That too will take place during the seven years of earthly judgments. There’ll be a great deal of singing involved in this (Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3).

I expect that in heaven we’ll all have wonderful singing voices–though there are some people I’m definitely looking forward to standing beside, given the voices God gave them here! And there’ll be harps to play as well (Rev. 5:8; 14:2; 15:2). The Greek word for harp is kithara–from which we get our word guitar. (Young people are thrilled when I tell them we might be playing guitars in heaven!)

5) The Bible describes Christians as priests of God. (Perhaps Revelation 1:6 should read “a kingdom of priests,” but we know we’re “a royal priesthood” (I Pet. 2:9), since we’re joint heirs with the King. We’re also destined to reign on the new earth, after the Tribulation (Rev. 5:10). My point here is that we’ll have some kind of priestly ministry (cf. Heb. 13:15; I Pet. 2:5).

Revelation 4:9-11 speak of “twenty-four elders” seated around the throne of God. There’s been much speculation as to the identity of these. My own conclusion (open to further light) is that they are representatives of the church of Jesus Christ. They are given a special priestly role in both praise and service. If their ministry is anything comparable to the elders appointed now to serve in the local church (Acts 15:2; 20:17; I Tim. 5:17), then they’ll have some part in ruling or judging on our behalf.

Will these individuals remain the same, throughout the seven years, or will others of us take a turn at this work? I’m not sure. It’s another thing that remains to be revealed in its time. But there’s another pertinent question to consider: How much will they (and the rest of us) know about what’s happening on earth? We’ll know some things, since they’re described in the Word of God. But will we know details? I’m not sure. But let me make a couple of observations about that.

We know that there will be multitudes saved during the Tribulation (Rev. 6:9-11; 7:13-14; 12:11). But they will be individuals who did not reject the gospel before the rapture, those not given over by God to believe the lie of the Antichrist (II Thess. 2:8-11), and they will pay with their lives for their stand. The Lord Jesus says there is joy in heaven, when a sinner repents (Lk. 15:7), so it could be that those in heaven know about the struggles, and the commitment to Christ of those saved in that time of unparalleled persecution.

6) The earthly judgments are heralded in heaven by the breaking of seven seals on a scroll (Rev.5:8-10), the blowing of seven trumpets, and the pouring out of seven bowls. (The scroll seems to be the title deed to the earth, which only Christ is able to claim.)

All these judgments are telescoped into one another, so that the bowl judgments occur with the blowing of the seventh trumpet, and the trumpet judgments occur with the breaking of the seventh seal. That makes the breaking of the seventh seal of particular importance. The judgments begin to cascade in quicker and quicker succession after that.

Concerning the breaking of the seventh seal we’re told, “When he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour” (Rev. 8:1). Imagine that! All the praise and music stops. Total silence for thirty minutes. We can’t be sure, but I believe this will be a pause of utter awe and wonderment at the coming consummation of the earthly judgments of God.

Again, it suggests an awareness of what this will mean to those on earth. Though these things are terrible and the destruction almost unimaginable, we will view them from an entirely different perspective in heaven. The judgments of God will be seen as the necessary outworking of His holiness and perfect justice. For that we’ll be able to praise and glorify Him.

7) Revelation 22:3 says, “His servants shall serve Him.” Whether that service will begin during those seven years, or await the millennial kingdom, I’m not sure. We’ll have to wait and see. But we can be sure it will be thrilling and rewarding. And perhaps it will take some time to prepare for our future work, and have various duties assigned.

Again, there’s something interesting found in a parable about the second coming. It may or may not be literally fulfilled, but I add it here for your consideration. In Luke 19:12-27, servants who serve their master well during his absence are awarded with jurisdiction over a number of cities. (See, for example, vs. 16-17). Since we will reign on the new earth, perhaps that will involve jurisdiction over a certain number of towns or cities. Just an idea.

Bottom line concerning heaven in the tribulation: The Lord has pulled back the curtain and shown us a little of the future, but there is much more to come. The most important thing now is to be ready for it, through faith in the Saviour.

Satan and Moses’ Body: Why was Satan interested in Moses’ body?

,

Question: Sue asks, “What does it mean in Jude verse 9, ‘But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses…’?”

Answer: Thanks for the good question. There are some mysteries here, but I think we can hazard a reasonable guess as to what may well have been going on.

Moses is one of the greatest leaders who ever lived. He was the man who led the children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt, and through their wilderness journeys, for about 40 years.

God had condemned the older generation (the male fighting force, in particular) to die in the wilderness, because of their initial refusal to go in and conquer the land of Canaan (Num. 13–14). Because of their faithful stand, Caleb and Joshua were the only men of that generation to live to enter. Moses might have been a third one to do so, but he disobeyed the Lord, and as a result was told that he could not (Num. 20:2-12).

Deuteronomy 34:1-8 describes the death of Moses. The Lord allowed him to see the land of Canaan in the distance, from atop Mount Nebo. Then he died. And we are specifically told that “He [God] buried him in a valley in the land of Moab…but no one knows his grave to this day” (vs. 6).

Now, what did Michael have to do with that? Apparently God has commissioned the archangel Michael to look out for the needs of the nation of Israel and protect them (Dan. 12:1). It is quite probable that the Lord assigned Michael to care for Moses’ body on His behalf, or to guard it for a time.

But why was this necessary? And why keep the location of his grave a secret?

That may have been because of the exalted position Moses held in the eyes of the people. He was the only leader the Israelites had ever had. Most of them had been born or had grown up under his rule. And though the people often whined and complained about what he did, after his death they would no doubt have wanted to honour him in a special way.

We get some inkling of that in Deuteronomy 34:8 which tells us the Israelites wept and mourned for him for a month after his death. It’s quite possible they would have wanted to carry the body of Moses with them into the land of Canaan (as they did that of Joseph), bury him, and erect an elaborate shrine over his remains.

It is easy to see how this could have deteriorated into a centre for idolatrous worship. After all, Second Kings 18:4 reveals that the Israelites had carted around the bronze serpent Moses had erected in the wilderness at God’s command (Num. 21:5-9). Then they set it up on the Promised Land and began to worship it! (They’d even given it a name!)

Finally, how does the devil figure into this? He seems to have attempted to get the body of Moses for himself, or at least find out where it was buried. If the devil had had his way, the body likely would have come into the possession of the Israelites. And he would have tempted them and seduced them to misuse it. But Michael, being a very powerful angel, prevented this.

Now, let me add one other thought. The full text of Jude 1:9 says, “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation [a slanderous judgment], but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you'” (NKJV). The latter half of the verse deserves careful attention.

There are those in our day who think it is their job to rebuke the devil, and they often do so in a mocking and sarcastic way. That is a dangerous thing to do! We are called to “resist” Satan (Jas. 4:7; I Pet. 5:8-9), not rebuke him.

Resisting him involves doing as Jesus did, through the use of the Word of God (“It is written…” Matt. 4:1-11). We are to reject his lies, trusting instead on what God has said. If an incredibly powerful angel such as Michael did not dare to deal directly with the devil, we have no business doing so. We need to call on God to protect us and to take care of Satan in His own way and time.

For a helpful discussion of the topic of spiritual warfare, see the book A Holy Rebellion, by Thomas Ice and Robert Dean. It’s a practical and biblical study, that avoids so many of the extremes in current literature. The book jacket describes it as, “A biblical strategy for spiritual warfare that defines the conflicts and answers the difficult questions believers are facing today.” Published in 1990, it’s out of print now, but it is well worth tracking down a used copy.

Satan Becomes Evil: How Did Satan Become Evil?

Satan becomes evil! How? And exactly what was he like before? The short answer is we simply don’t know. But let me review a few things the Bible has to say about this fallen angel. I cannot cover the entire biblical record on the subject, but we need to see several things to at least approach some kind of answer to the question.

1. Satan at the Beginning of the World

The devil first steps into human history shortly after creation. In the guise of a “serpent” he appears in Eden. And his wicked character is immediately evident in the temptation of Eve. The first words out of his mouth constitute an attempt to cast doubt on the Word of God (“Has God indeed said…?” Gen. 3:1). This quickly progresses to an outright denial of God’s earlier warning. The Lord had told our first parents of the penalty for disobedience: “You shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). But Satan brazenly stated, “You will not surely die,” (Gen. 3:4).

The Lord Jesus does not mince words in describing this evil angel, saying, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (Jn. 8:44). The book of Revelation identifies him with a number of revealing titles, “The great dragon…that serpent of old, called the Devil [meaning false accuser, or slanderer] and Satan [meaning adversary], who deceives the whole world” (Rev. 12:9).

By studying the Scriptures we learn how he operates. “We are not ignorant of his devices” (II Cor. 2:11), and the Lord has equipped us to resist his attacks (I Pet. 5:6-9). We are to “put on the whole armour of God, that [we] may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). Because Satan tells lies, chief among our weapons against him is the Truth, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17). That is how the Lord Jesus resisted, and gained the victory over him when He was on earth. He rejected the devil’s evil ploys, declaring repeatedly, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

That much we know for certain. Satan is our enemy, and the enemy of God. And we are told about his interference in human history because that is something we need to know in order to defend ourselves against him. God makes no attempt in the Bible to simply satisfy idle curiosity about his past. But of course there is more to the story. It seems that the devil was not always like he is now. At least a couple of passages suggest what may have been his “pre-history.”

2. Satan at a Time Pre-dating Eden

In Ezekiel 28, the prophet is commanded by the Lord to speak a word against a man identified as “the prince [or king] of Tyre” (vs. 1). But many Bible scholars view some things in the passage (especially in vs. 11-17) as reaching beyond this human ruler to a shadowy figure that is the true power behind the throne, namely Satan. Expressions such as “you were in Eden” (vs. 13), and “you were the anointed cherub” (vs. 14), simply cannot apply literally to a human king of Ezekiel’s day.

We have a similar pairing of a human being, and Satan as the power behind him, in the New Testament description of the end-time Antichrist. He is called “the man of sin” (II Thess. 2:3) and “the lawless one” (vs. 8). And “the coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders” (vs. 9). Not all agree that the Ezekiel passage is telling us some things about Satan’s origins, but I believe it is. And if we take that as a possibility, it suggests some important things that relate to the questions above.

This being is called “the anointed cherub who covers,” and the Lord says, “I established you in the holy mountain of God” (Ezek. 28:14). The cherubs are angelic beings (the plural form of cherub in Hebrew being cherubim). They appear to be spirits assigned specific tasks related to guarding and protecting. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were cast out of Eden, and cherubim guarded the entry to the garden so they could not return (Gen. 3:24).

Later, the most sacred object in the tabernacle of worship that the Lord commanded Israel to construct was the ark of the covenant (Exod. 25:10-22). The lid of the ark was made of solid gold, and was referred to as the mercy seat. It was above the mercy seat that the Lord manifested His presence in a blaze of glorious light.

And significant to our subject, two golden cherubim were formed at either end of the mercy seat, facing inward, with their wings overshadowing the ark. It is likely that this was actually a physical representation of God’s throne in heaven. When Ezekiel is given a vision of God’s glorious throne (Ezek. 1:1-28), it is surrounded by “four living creatures” which are later identified as cherubim (Ezek. 10:1-22).

Though we cannot be dogmatic about it, all of this suggests that Satan, before his appearance in Eden, was given the privilege of being one of the guardian cherubs around the throne of God. Further, Ezekiel 28 gives us some important information about this being, and his fall. The prophet says, “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you” (Ezek. 28:14). That tells us that God created Satan, and that when he was created he was a holy angel, without sin.

God could not be perfectly righteous Himself and create something evil. But He clearly made Satan with a will, and with the ability to choose whether to obey Him or not. Thus while God did not create evil, He allowed for the possibility of evil.

As an aside, it is likely that all the angels, in the beginning, had this ability to choose, just as the first human beings did. The Lord wants willing servants, not mere robots or puppets. When Satan rebelled and was cast out of heaven, some believe a third of the angels decided to follow him, becoming what we now know as “demons” (cf. Rev. 12:3-4, 9) However, it is my conviction that in God’s perfect heaven, now and forever, angelic beings that are holy have been confirmed in their holiness, and perfected in holiness, and have no danger of falling. It will be the same for us in our glorified state (Rev. 22:11).

But to return to the subject of Satan’s fall, he was holy and good “until evil was found in [him]” (Ezek. 28:14). What evil was that, and where did it come from? We (speaking of the human family) had, in the devil, an outside evil agent who lied to us, and who tempted us to sin. But how did the first being that sinned (likely Satan) go from being holy to being sinful? At some point, evil entered the universe, and it seems to have begun in the heart of Satan. But how?

3. How Did Satan Become Evil?

There is another passage which may shed some light on this, though it does not provide a final answer to the origin of evil. In Isaiah 14, the prophet is commanded to pronounce judgment on the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:4), another of Israel’s enemies. And as with Ezekiel’s words against the king of Tyre, once more at least part of the passage seems to address a being far greater than a mere human king. It seems to speak of the evil influence behind the earthly throne. This is especially true in vs. 12-15, where one called “Lucifer [meaning the shining one]” is addressed. Here, I believe, we are given a look at what was going on in the heart of Satan.

As this “anointed cherub” gazed upon the throne of God, several thoughts came into his mind. Some we know of from Scripture, others we can only speculate about. Here is what I think. I believe Satan’s fall may have involved a question–something he was curious about. He wondered, “How did God become God? Has He always been God? Perhaps not.” I believe it was in a thought process something like this that Satan conceived of the idea of evolution.

We know about the theory of evolution as it concerns our natural world. And since it denies the truth of Scripture about God’s creation of all things, it can only be Satan’s lie. He is the one who prompted fallen men to give birth to the theory. So, what if Lucifer began to wonder, way back, whether perhaps God had not always been God, but that He had somehow evolved into what He is. (We know this is not true, of course. The Bible says, “Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God,” Ps. 90:2. He did not evolve into His deity!)

But we know the devil was thinking something like the above, since that is the possible advancement he held out to Adam and Eve (“You will be like God,” Gen. 3:5). Lucifer was the greatest of all the angelic beings, “the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (Ezek. 28:12). And he gloried in his perfection; in fact he became proud of it. “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendour” (Ezek. 28:17). And I think he began to imagine that perhaps he was only one tiny evolutionary step away from becoming a “God” himself. We certainly know he began to covet God’s throne. The Isaiah passage quotes him as saying, “I will be like the Most High” (Isa. 14:14).

That “I will” capsulizes his inner attitude of rebellion against God. Of course, that still does not answer the question of where such an idea came from, when there was (as far as we know) no devil to tempt the devil! Picture Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and remove Satan from the picture. Would it have been possible for the two of them to come up with the ideas that: a) Maybe they wouldn’t die if they ate the fruit God had forbidden; and b) Maybe God was somehow holding out on them; and c) They had a chance to be their own gods, and be independent of their Creator?

Think of a wind-up clock. (Not many of them are around any more!) But that clock, in order to fulfil the purpose for which it was created, and in order to do “right” (i.e. to tell the correct time) has to be wound by someone regularly, and overruled and adjusted by someone. It not only took someone to create the clock, but someone (perhaps the same person) to sustain its “life.”

But what if the clock were somehow granted very limited self awareness. And what if it were given the will to choose whether to be wound up or not. All created things have finite perceptions of how they have become what they are, and how to maintain their meaningful function. The clock is pleased with the work it does. Even more pleased as time goes by. But it does not understand its utter dependence on the great Clock Winder to do it. It reasons that perhaps it is possible the power to do it comes from within, in an inexhaustible supply. (I wonder!)

I realize this does not solve the underlying issue of the origin of evil. But the Bible simply does not explain the matter. Evil obviously exists. And Satan had a major part in introducing it into human experience. At some time prior to that, he went from being a holy angel to an unholy one. His terrible fall was rooted in attitudes of pride, and a desire to be more than he was, to have the power and glory due to God alone.

In a created being with the freedom to choose, the potential for the birth of these attitudes had to exist. At some point “Praise God!” metamorphosed into “Praise me!” But what the catalyst was that began the growth of this spiritual cancer the Lord has not seen fit to tell us. Perhaps it would either be too dangerous for us to know, or simply be impossible for us to understand. We do know with certainty that the devil is destined for eternal hell (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10), as are all those who have not laid claim, by faith, to God’s gift of salvation (Jn. 3:18, 36; Rev, 20:15).

Cain’s Wife: Where Did She Come From?

Cain’s wife raises questions about the accuracy of the Bible. “Where did Cain get his wife?” is an old question, sometimes considered unanswerable by the skeptics. If one takes the early chapters of Genesis literally, it is supposed that Adam and Eve, and their two sons, Cain and Abel, were the only four people on earth. Where then did Cain’s “wife” of Genesis 4:17 come from?

Genesis 4:17 - Cain's Wife

First, it is important to note that the details provided in the early part of Genesis are sketchy. Chapters 1-11 skim over several thousand years, with only as much information included as the Lord deemed necessary for us to have.

Chapter 4 speaks of three specific sons of Adam and Eve: Cain, Abel (whom Cain murdered), and Seth. We are given more detail on these, as both their spiritual history and their descendants prove to be significant later on. But these three were not the only children of Adam and Eve. We learn from Chapter 5 that Adam lived to the age of 930, and “had sons and daughters” (vs. 4-5). He and Eve could easily have had dozens of children in that time.

The existence of Cain’s wife is not the mystery it seems. All that was necessary for Cain to have a woman to marry is for at least two of Adam’s children to marry each other and have children of their own. Perhaps Cain married a sister too, we do not know. And we are not told how long Cain lived. But if he lived to be over 900 years of age, as his brother Seth did (Gen. 5:8), there could well have been many generations of the family born during that time.

Today, there are civil laws prohibiting siblings from marrying. However, in the beginning the Lord apparently permitted it, in order to get the population started. It was only with the giving of the Law to Israel around 1400 B.C. that a man was forbidden from marrying his sister or other close relation (Lev. 18:6, 9–where the “one flesh” sexual aspect of the relationship is euphemistically described as “uncovering the nakedness” of the woman).

We know that today the intermarriage of family members can be genetically dangerous, as it can pass on various birth defects. However, in the early years following creation, the genetic pool was uncontaminated and there was no specific health reason for the restrictions that came later. (This is also likely part of the reason why people lived much longer in the beginning.) An all-wise Creator knew when to introduce limitations, and just what they should be.

Load More