Daily Bible Nugget #491, John 7:24

The Nugget:

Joh 7:24  Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 

My Comment:

I made a comment on Facebook just now about a video clip I saw posted, titled “Kavanaugh TORCHES Sen. Feinstein: ‘My Family’s Been Destroyed!’ White House Brief. September 27 at 8:15 pm. Bret Kavanaugh finally got the chance to testify about the uncorroborated sexual assault allegations against him. When he came face-to-face with Sen. Feinstein, there were FIREWORKS.”

Here is what I wrote:

Senator Feinstein literally sat on the letter she received from Dr. Ford (in July) until this critically “opportune moment” in September when it would have the greatest political effect to delay or derail President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
I understand that Senator Feinstein had a one-on-one half-hour interview with Judge Kavanaugh as part of the hearing and confirmation process. Why did she not bring up the existence of the letter she received to Judge Kavanaugh at that time?
The allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh are highly suspect because of their timing.
They are highly suspect because they lack contemporary evidence to validate them. A sign posted on the door of the security office in the high school where I taught says it all:  “If it is not written, it did not happen.”
As an English teacher, I had my students do much writing. Some of my students wrote about very personal and sensitive issues in their lives. I have always kept such matters in strict confidence. But I would think that a girl in high school who suffered the kind of incident claimed by Dr. Ford would have brought the incident to the attention of a trusted teacher or counselor to whom she could now appeal, but no such evidence has appeared to document that this alleged incident ever occurred.
The additional allegations from yet more “witnesses” are even more suspect for the same and additional reasons.
The political connections and allegiances of all of those making allegations are all from one political party. How is it that not one person advancing such allegations is not from the other major party?
Certainly, the Democrats have every reason to prevent Judge Kavanaugh or any other person nominated by President Trump from taking a position on the United States Supreme Court. Democrats are hardly motivated to restore the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men.

Jesus commanded us to “judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). This means Jesus insists that we follow “due process.” “Due process” is not Kangaroo Court in the public media. It means “righteous judgment” is not agenda driven, or politically driven. “Righteous judgment” involves the presumption of innocence whenever someone is charged with wrongdoing. We commonly speak of this as “Innocent until proven guilty,” with the emphasis upon “proven.” The burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused. This principle of law is widely disregarded by some institutions in our government, including the IRS. This principle must be insisted upon. Never vote for a person or a political party that thinks otherwise.

Posted in Daily Bible Nuggets, Justice and the Bible, Politics and the Bible | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #490, Psalm 27:12

The Nugget:

Psa 27:12  Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty. (KJV)

Psalm 27:12 Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes, for false witnesses rise up against me, spouting malicious accusations. (NIV)

My Comment:

It is a very serious matter to speak or spread malicious accusations against anyone. Should you do so, be sure you are in big trouble with God. Solomon gave a list of seven things the Lord hates. Proverbs 6:19 tells us that one of those seven things is “a false witness that speaketh lies.” The Bible further declares that there are certain sins that will keep you out of heaven and send you straight to hell. Consider Revelation 21:8, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” This destiny is not a very pleasant prospect, but it is very real.

In the news this week and last week, accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Bret Kavanaugh have been most prominent. I believe these accusations are politically motivated. This is evident by the timing of the accusations. They are designed by the Democrats to derail the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. They do not want a conservative or a strict Constitutionalist to have a seat on the United States Supreme Court because that would derail all the plans they have against our Constitutional Republic. I believe that their actions demonstrate once again that they are very poor losers. In the light of the teaching of the Bible, I believe these accusers that have lately and most opportunely arisen out of nowhere against Judge Kavanaugh will surely be called to account in eternity.

This nation at its founding was founded upon the moral and ethical principles of the Bible. The so-called “law of nature and of nature’s God” is a direct reference to the Bible, the only Book where such information is contained. If you don’t believe me, you simply demonstrate that you have not read the founding documents of this country carefully. You have not read the sources that the founders were reading and most familiar with.

To make America Great Again, we must return to the principles of the founders, principles found in and based upon the Bible. Do not under any circumstance lend your support in the voting booth to those who make malicious accusations, who support falsehood and lies, or you will share their guilt on Judgment Day. And don’t stay home on election day and refuse to vote at all. Those who do that are, in effect, casting their vote for the “greater evil.”



Posted in Daily Bible Nuggets, Politics and the Bible | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Daily Bible Nugget #489, Psalm 44:17

The Nugget:

Psalm 44:17  All this is come upon us; yet have we not forgotten thee, neither have we dealt falsely in thy covenant. 

My Comment:

When you experience turmoil and stress in your life, you may sometimes feel “All this has come upon me” and wonder why things happen the way they do. It may be that only God knows the reason why, but there are many things the Bible says that will shed light on this issue.

It is not wrong to have such questions. God understands our innermost feelings. He really does care. Even Bible characters have asked pointed questions. I have keyed these to Judges 6:13, where Gideon initially had such questions. Naomi asked such questions, and I have keyed many cross references to Ruth 1:13 and Ruth 1:20 in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and in The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury. These passages and their cross references make for a good practical application Bible study that should be instructive and encouraging to everyone.

It could happen that in our own day we might find ourselves saying “all this is come upon us” both nationally and internationally. There are principles taught in the Bible that we as individuals and nations should follow. If we violate those principles expect to reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7, 8).

Currently in the news we might have a case of someone writing and speaking lies to defame an innocent person with the intent to prevent them from being approved for a position on the United States Supreme Court. The person making the accusations has brought up an alleged incident that took place 36 years ago. The person does not remember almost any details of exactly when or where the event took place. The person does not remember how she got there or how she got home. The person was 15 years old at the time it happened but she did not report it to anyone else at that time. No police report was filed. As a teacher myself, I would question why no report was made to the school counselor. The then 15-year-old student is now a college professor who teaches psychology. Her political background has been that of a strong supporter of the Democratic Party. She wrote a letter to Senator Diane Feinstein back last July. Senator Feinstein did not release the letter until a couple of days ago, and the accusation it contained has created quite a firestorm in the current news cycle.

This kind of unsupported accusation against a candidate for office or position has been used all too frequently, and almost always by Democrats against Republicans, or as in this case, against an appointee to the Supreme Court made by our Republican President. I am convinced that the timing of the release of this accusation in and of itself marks it as a false accusation. It fits a pattern. This repeated ploy by the Democrats, in my opinion, ought to be resisted by all American voters of whatever political party because it is morally wrong. In my estimation, everyone should refuse to vote for any Democrats this November to teach everyone that such blatant falsehoods backed by a complicit national media that refuses to tell the truth but instead broadcasts propaganda at every turn will not be tolerated.

I watched a clip of Senator Feinstein herself state that she was not entirely sure about the truthfulness of the letter she received. I understand that Senator Feinstein had a face-to-face meeting with the Supreme Court candidate and that she did not bring up the written accusation she had received against him. I also understand that the same college professor wrote a similar letter against the first Supreme Court appointment by President Trump, but the letter was never acted upon. If true, that surely casts doubt upon the truthfulness of the accuser.

As a former English teacher, I am appalled at the apparent lack of ability of many consumers of the American news media to detect or sense propaganda when they see, read, or hear it. The moment I heard of the psychology professor’s accusations against the current Supreme Court nominee, I sensed this was blatant falsehood, because of the timing of the revelation. The letter writer has a political agenda.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I believe every Christian must stand up for the truth and express their faith at the ballot box. We need to be truthful ourselves, and never try to use a lie to further any agenda we might have. We are not to forget God, and we are never to deal falsely in any matter.


Posted in Daily Bible Nuggets, Politics and the Bible, Practical Application Bible Studies | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

The Atonement of Jesus Christ

by Vijay Chandra


The most important and significant event in history was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Most people know that Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago in Palestine. Many people even have a vague idea regarding the meaning of Christ’s death. They know it has something to do with salvation. But, when people are questioned regarding the biblical theological significance of Jesus’ person and work most display a woeful ignorance of God’s Word. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a small primer on the atonement.

The word ‘atonement’ is a theological term that is used to describe the substitutionary act or work of Christ. The word occurs in the KJV in Romans 5:11. It has the basic meaning of ‘reconciliation.’ The word often is used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew word kipper and kippurim, which means ‘propitiation’ or ‘expiation.’ The word atonement encompasses Christ’s work of redemption on behalf of His people. The center of Christ’s work, the main event to which the whole Old Testament pointed and which the whole New Testament expounded was Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, or His blood, or His cross (Rom 3:25, 5:9; 1 Cor. 10:16; Eph.1:7, 2:13, Col.1:20, Heb 11:12, 1 Peter 1:2, 1 John 1:7; 5:6,  7, 8, Rev 1:5).

Many people today regard the idea of the atonement as barbaric and outmoded. They often say: Why would God require or even allow His Son to be tortured and killed in such a bloody humiliating manner? Isn’t God a God of love? Couldn’t He just forgive people’s sins without the awful shedding of blood? A Protestant liberal theologian has even argued that the classic Christian concept of the atonement is nothing short of child abuse. Such comments reveal an ignorance and/or rejection of divine revelation. They also show us that in order to understand the meaning of Christ’s death we also must learn some things regarding God’s nature, sin, man’s estate and so forth. Thus, while on the one hand, the subject of the atonement is simple, it also is very rich and multifaceted.


The Necessity of the Atonement:

When discussing the necessity of the atonement some different aspects of the atonement need to be considered for the sake of clarification.

First, a distinction needs to be made between necessity, as it relates to God’s motive or moving cause to save sinners, and necessity, as it relates to God’s method or means used to achieve salvation. These topics need to be treated separately because they deal with different questions, each of which the Bible answers differently.

Did God because of something within His own nature or something intrinsic to man have to save sinners? Did God’s attributes of love, mercy, and compassion force Him to act? Could God have left the whole human race to perish in their sins if He so desired? The Biblical answer is that God’s decision to save a people for Himself was a free choice that was not determined by any internal or external necessity. Paul says that God’s predestination of the elect to salvation in Christ was ‘according to the good pleasure of His will’ (Eph 1:5, also see in Gal 1:4 and Gal 1:19). All these passages clearly indicate that God’s decision to save sinners was a free sovereign choice.

Note also that the Bible repeatedly speaks of salvation as a ‘free gift’ given by God. This does not mean that achieving redemption was without cost for the Bible says Christians were ‘bought at a price’ (1 Cor 6:20, 7:23), that Christ redeemed the church with His own precious blood (1 Pet 1:19). The free gift passages refer to the fact that God bestows salvation upon the elect freely or voluntarily. God was not obligated to save anyone, but out of his own good pleasure He gave ‘freely.’ Paul says that believers are ‘justified freely by his grace’ (Rom 3:24), that God will ‘freely give us all things’ (Rom 8:32); that the Holy Spirit enables us to ‘know the things that have been freely given to us by God’ (1 Cor 2:12). God’s freeness in giving salvation to the elect is intimately connected with the biblical concept of grace. Grace means that God gives His favor and salvation to those who deserve wrath and hell-fire, to those who hate God and are His enemies. Salvation is never presented in the Scriptures as bestowed because of obligation or debt. Neither a foreseen faith, nor good works, or bloodline, or nationality have anything to do with God’s free choice (Rom 9:18, 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Although the Bible teaches that the moving cause of the atonement was God’s Sovereign good pleasure, this fact does not mean that God’s decision was purely arbitrary. Yes, it was a free act but it was an act rooted in God’s nature. The Bible speaks of the atonement as the provision of God’s love (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9, 10, 11). The love of God is the spring from which the atonement flows. Jesus’ death was the supreme demonstration of God’s love. ‘But God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ (Rom 5:8). Paul informed us in Romans 8:29 that God’s love preceded election, ‘For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed o the image of His Son’ (the word ‘foreknew’ in this passage is used in the Hebraistic sense of ‘to love beforehand’). The fact that God the Father sent His only begotten Son to die for sinners because he loved them beforehand should spur every Christian not only to wonder and amazement but also a profound adoration, love, and praise toward God. The Father didn’t have to send the Son and the Son didn’t have to humble Himself, but because of their love and mercy toward the elect, Jesus came and died (Psalm 100:4, 5).


A second distinction that needs to be made is between a hypothetical necessity and an absolute necessity. Some of the early reformers (Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli) held that the atonement was necessary only in the sense that God sovereignly decreed to save sinners by Christ’s death. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ had to take place because God predestined it, not because it was the only method that did not contradict God’s moral perfection. If God had wanted to, He could have decreed other methods of securing the salvation of the elect. It is important to understand the difference between a hypothetical and absolute necessity because many passages which point to an absolute necessity could also be used to support a hypothetical or relative necessity viewpoint. For example, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as You Will” (Matt 26:39; Mk 8:31, Luke 9:22, 17:25, John 3:14, 12:34, 20:9, Acts 17:3). If God has decreed that something take place in history, it must take place.

Having considered the moving cause of the atonement and the hypothetical necessity viewpoint, let us turn our attention to the biblical evidence for the absolute necessity understanding of the atonement.


This doctrine is vital for a number of reasons:

First, it refutes the popular modern day notion that there are many different paths that lead to God and eternal life. This doctrine proves that only the sinless blood of Christ can remove the guilt of sin and consequently God’s wrath against the sinner.

Second, it tells us a lot about the God who is—the God with whom we all have to deal. The God of the Bible is not promiscuous or sloppy regarding ethics. Jehovah Is infinitely holy and righteous and thus cannot dwell or have fellowship with any person who has the guilt of sin.

Third, it teaches us that sin is exceedingly wicked and evil. Sin (the transgression of God’s holy law) is not a light thing. It is a deadly, soul-damning, God-hating, death-loving act. This thought of committing sin against a God of infinite holiness should make us tremble with fear. Sin is the reason that the spotless, harmless, undefiled Son of God had to die to accomplish redemption. Because of sin, the only sinless, good man who ever lived was humiliated, abandoned, tortured and publicly executed as a criminal.

Fourth, as noted above, it teaches us that God’s love of the elect is totally amazing. Although God was not obligated to save anyone, He out of His love, mercy, and kindness decided to save a people from every nation even though this redemption could only be achieved at the ultimate cost of the suffering and blood of the Lord of glory (Rev 5:9, 1 Cor 2:8).


There are four major reasons why the atonement was necessary, most of which are intimately connected with God’s nature or character.

Although the God of the Bible is totally sovereign, all-powerful, all-knowing and infinite in perfection, there are certain things that God cannot do. For example, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18) or tempt man to sin (James 1:13). Jehovah can do anything except violate His own nature. In other words “He cannot deny Himself”(2 Tim 2:13). Therefore, when God determined to save a people from the guilt of sin, He could only choose a course of action consistent with His own character (in particular His moral character). The apostle Paul put it this way, God’s method of salvation had to demonstrate “His righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:26). The attributes of God that directly lead to the necessity of the atonement are God’s righteousness, justness, and holiness.

God’s Righteousness and Justice:

Many people who object to the biblical doctrine of the atonement do so because they do not understand who God is. They reason within themselves; ‘Why doesn’t God simply forgive and forget? Wouldn’t God forgive people as long as they say sorry and endeavor to be a better person? Isn’t the idea that only the death and shed blood of Christ can remove sin extreme and fanatical? ’ The reason God cannot simply let sin slide or sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist is that He is righteous and just. “The LORD is righteous, He is in her mindset, He will do no unrighteousness” (Zech 3:5). “Righteousness and Justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Ps 89:14). “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He”(Dt 32:4). When the Bible speaks of God’s ethical perfection and justice, it does not refer to a standard or realm of ideals outside of God but to God’s very being itself. “God is light and in Him is no standard or realm of ideals outside of God but to God’s very being itself.” God is light and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). Therefore, Abraham, who knew God’s character, could ask Jehovah, ‘Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ (Gen 18:25). Likewise, the apostle Paul could say, “Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!” (Rom 9:14). God can only do what is right. Because of His nature, He can only do what is just.

God’s nature demands that sin be punished. If God refused to give sin its full measure of punishment then he could not claim to be perfectly just. God’s infinite holiness, justice, and righteousness of necessity demand the infliction of punishment on the sinner himself or on an appropriate substitute. The Bible contains many passages that declare that God has to punish sin. We read of this in the following Scripture texts (Ex 23:7, 34:7, Num 14:18, Nah 1:3, Psalm 5:4, 5, 6, Nah 1:2, Rom 1:18). Paul argues in Romans 3:25, 26, that it was necessary that Christ should be offered as an atoning sacrifice for sin, in order that God might be just while justifying the sinner. The important thing was that the justice of God should be maintained.


A common objection against the biblical teaching that God must punish sin is that it makes God less charitable than many people who are willing to forgive offenses without any sort of satisfaction. While it is true that many people can and do forgive personal offenses against them, the comparison between God and a private individual is totally illegitimate. God is the Creator, Sovereign Lord over all, Supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all men. Therefore, He must maintain His veracity, law, and justice. A private individual does not have to contradict his own nature, law, and justice to forgive an offense. The Bible repeatedly affirms that as the Supreme Judge over the whole earth, God will only render just judgment. “But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render each one according to his deeds” (Rom 2:5, 6. cf. Rev 20:12).


Another aspect of God’s character that necessitates the atonement is His holiness. The nature of God is perfect and complete holiness. This is not optional or arbitrary; it is the way God is by nature. He has always been absolutely holy. Nothing more need or can be said. It is useless to ask, Why is God holy? He simply is. Being contrary to God’s nature, sin is repulsive to Him. He is allergic to sin, so to speak. He cannot look upon it. He is compelled to turn away from it. His infinite holiness causes Him to hate sin with perfect hatred. God is so holy that before sinful men and women can come into his presence and have fellowship with Him the guilt of their sin must be removed and they must be clothed with perfect righteousness.

The attribute of God that is emphasized by Scripture above all other attributes (including love) is Holiness. God’s holiness refers to His absolute distinctiveness from all His creatures (His creatures are not holy or perfect but in deep sin) and to His glorious exalted existence above His creation in infinite majesty as well as His infinite moral purity. The God of the Bible is not like the pagan deities who fornicate, get drunk and commit sexual acts with other goddesses and give birth like in Hindu and other eastern religions (Rev 4:8, Isaiah 6:3). ‘Who is like You, O LORD among the gods, Who is like You, glorious in holiness.’ (Ex 15:11).

God demands a perfect holiness in people not arbitrarily but because His own perfect holiness requires it. To the Israelite, He said, ‘you shall be holy; For I Am holy’ (Lev 11:44). Because God is holy, he hates sin and cannot dwell with sinners. ‘You are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wickedness’ (Hab 1:13, Psalm 5:4, 5). Unlike other religions, the God of the Bible cannot be compared with the other gods (man-made gods, deities) or to gods of stone, wood, etc.). He is the HOLY ONE.

When God created Adam and Eve, He made them in His own image (Gen 1:27). Before they ate the forbidden fruit and fell into sin, they were holy and righteous. They were without any ethical spot or blemish. What happened to Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God’s command and sinned against Him? They were cast out of God’s presence. Why? Because a thrice holy God cannot have fellowship with people who are not holy! God is so infinitely holy that every sin that an individual commits merits death: physical, spiritual and eternal. God had warned Adam that the day that he disobeyed Him, he would certainly die (Gen 2:17). God’s holiness of intrinsic necessity set up a separation between Jehovah and all sinners (Isaiah 59:1, 2).

Once we understand the holiness of God then we can understand the severe penalty that sin deserves. When God demands that ‘the soul who sins must die’ (Ezekiel 18:4), He is not setting forth an arbitrary penalty but is penalizing sinners exactly as His holy and righteous nature require as we see from the following Scriptures: Rom 1:32, Ps 5:5, 7:11, Rom 6:23). ‘Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death’ (James 1:15). ‘The soul who sins must die’ (Ezekiel 18:4).

The Requirement of a Perfect Righteousness

Thus far we have seen that because God is holy and just, His nature requires that sin be punished with death (spiritual, physical and eternal). Therefore, to be saved we need a substitute who can pay the penalty in our place (Christ is the sinless God-man who could fulfill the necessary requirements to be that perfect substitute). However, the Bible teaches that having the guilt of our sins removed is not enough to gain eternal life with God. Jehovah also requires a positive righteousness. God requires a life lived in perpetual righteousness; a life lived in perfect obedience to His law before eternal life is bestowed. Money wrote ‘In order to gain the blessing of God your obedience must be [1] personal: ‘If you listen to the commandments’ (Dt 11:26); [2] perfect: ‘what does the LORD your GOD require from you but to fear the LORD your GOD, to walk in all His ways and love Him and to serve the LORD your GOD with all your heart and with all your soul’ (Dt 10:12). [3] perpetual: ‘Oh, that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always’ (Dt 5:29, James 2:10).

The biblical teaching that God requires a perfect, personal and perpetual obedience to His law before eternal life is attained is taught by the covenant of works made with Adam. After God created Adam, he told him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). If Adam obeyed he would live. That is, he would gain access to the tree of life. In Rev 22:14, the right to the tree of life and entrance into the heavenly city are linked. If Adam had met God’s condition of perfect obedience, his reward would have been life everlasting in God’s presence. Adam, however, failed, his own act of disobedience caused him to be ejected from Eden to prevent access to the tree of life.

Our problem is not just that we have the guilt of sin but also that we lack a perfect righteousness (Rom 2:13, 3:23, Jn 8:46). The author of Hebrews says that Jesus was ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners’ (Heb 4:15). Paul says, He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21). The apostle John writes, ‘In Him there is no sin’ (1 John 3:5). Peter says that Jesus committed no sin (1 Peter 2:22); that Christ was ‘as a lamb without blemish and without spot’ (1Peter 1:19). Christ is the way, the truth, and the life to heaven: besides Himself, there is no way to heaven or to eternal life. Good works will not save us.

The teaching of the Gospel

When the New Testament epistles explain the death of Christ, they do so in terms of necessity. For example, the authors of Hebrews says that ‘without the shedding of blood there is no remission’ (Heb 9:22). If the method of salvation depended solely upon God’s arbitrary decision then the shedding of the blood would not be necessary. The author of Hebrews speaking under divine inspiration not only says that the blood is necessary but only one type of blood will do—the blood of Christ. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb 10:4, 11, 12, 14). If God could simply by divine fiat pardon sin then the central message of Hebrews 9 and 10 would be totally untrue. Furthermore, the Bible says that Christ appeased the wrath of God (Rom 3:25). If God could have appeased His own wrath by a mere act of volition (without first demanding any satisfaction) then all the passages which speak of Christ propitiating God’s wrath would be not only unnecessary but would be purely for dramatic effect as in a stage play and nothing more. The very idea that God would send His Son to the cross for any other reason than necessity not only is a denial of God’s wisdom but also borders on blasphemy. Paul did not for a moment entertain such thinking: “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sin” (Eph 1:7). Christ made peace through His blood of the cross (Col 1:20).

When we examine the Biblical teaching regarding God’s moral attributes, His law with eternal penal sanctions, the nature of sin and man’s predicament as guilty before God, the need of perfect righteousness for eternal life, and so on, everything points to only one conclusion. Christ’s sinless life and sacrificial death was the only way that sinners could be saved (John 14:6). ‘I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved’ (John 10:9). Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said regarding ‘Jesus Christ of Nazareth,’ ‘Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12).

The issue of the necessity of the atonement is a life and death, heaven and hell matter. Now we should have an understanding of who God really is, why he hates sin and why sin must be punished, how God’s love and mercy sent His only Son to the cross and, why there is no other way to be saved other than Christ’s life and blood. Are you going to trust in Christ alone for your salvation or will you continue on the path of iniquity and destruction? 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9 says: ‘When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power.’


Posted in Doctrinal Discussions, Vijay Chandra Articles | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Today is Literacy Day

The Nugget:

1Ti 4:13  Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 

My Comment:

Literacy, both here in America and around the world, is a very important subject.

The ability to read well is essential to learning. The ability to write is critical to communication.

Reading is a skill that improves with practice. The best way to practice reading is to spend quality time actually reading books.

Parents of school-age children and young people need to encourage reading at home. Reading for pleasure is something all children and students should experience.

Even before children are old enough to attend school, parents can help the future personal and academic success of children by spending regular quality time reading to them.

Reading non-fiction informational books is especially important. Make use of the public library if you have access to such a marvelous place. Choose books that are of interest to your child or student. Read more than one book on the subject. Read the easiest book or books you can find first. Then read a book written for young adult readers on the same non-fiction subject. Finally, read a book written for adults. Your child will be able to understand the more complex adult-level book if your child has encountered the easier books first. Let your student become an “expert” on several different subjects of interest by following this “reading ladder” procedure.

The Apostle Paul encouraged Timothy to “give attendance to reading.” In that day, when copies of the Bible were too scarce and expensive for everyone to own one, the Bible was read publicly to the congregation. Paul urged Timothy to take special care to continue that practice. Now, when we can all own our own Bible, we ought to follow Paul’s advice to Timothy and read the Bible regularly, even daily, for ourselves. That would greatly help us to grow spiritually and increase in our knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For any who may read here, I would mention that I have created a reading program that is available on Amazon. Just type the title into the search box on the Amazon site where it is available as a Kindle book ($9.99) or paperback printed book ($19.99). The book is 350 pages long, with a page size of 8 by 10 inches. The title is The Language Enrichment Program. This resource works to improve reading comprehension, reading speed, and academic motivation.

It works well for users of any age above age 8, and works for speakers of English as a second language too. I have used it with adults. I have used it with gifted and talented high school seniors. I have used it with reluctant learners. I have found it helps everyone I have used it with over a period of more than 50 years. Users on average show a gain of two years in reading comprehension, with many users showing four or five years and even more  in a single semester. The Language Enrichment Program is self-instructional and can be used without the help of a teacher or tutor. Parents of motivated children under age 8 can use this resource if they help the child when the child has a question. The book contains a complete answer key with explanations where I have found explanations to be helpful or needed.

Posted in Education Issues, The Language Enrichment Program | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #488, Daniel 9:13

The Nugget:

Dan 9:13  As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. 

My Comment:

Pastor W. L. Wade of the Lighthouse Bible Church of Danville, Virginia, spoke on this verse, Daniel 9:13, paired with another verse, Psalm 44:17, in his radio program on Friday, August 18, 2018. Pastor Wade is a gifted Bible teacher and preacher of God’s Word. I wish I could capture the essence of his message here in writing, but I am not that talented. Nevertheless, I would like to point out just a few things about Daniel 9:13.

Daniel is making a great prayer to God on behalf of his nation and himself in chapter nine of the book of Daniel. The whole prayer is most instructive.

Daniel understands that the great troubles that have befallen his nation are a fulfillment of the promises (blessings) and curses given in the law of Moses (see Deuteronomy 28:15). Notice that Daniel expresses no doubt concerning the fact that Moses wrote the laws of God as found in our Bible. Daniel accepts the Bible account as true, and so should we.

In his prayer, Daniel confesses that a proper response to all the evil that has come upon his nation has not been made. The right response would be to come to God in earnest prayer.

Daniel understood that proper prayer would lead to a change of heart and a turning to God. This would result in the ability on their part to understand God’s truth as it is recorded in God’s Word, the Bible. Notice that Daniel expresses this truth as a cause/effect relationship, something to take careful note of.

What Daniel prayed, and what Daniel revealed about his own understanding of God’s Word, is applicable to us today, both as individuals, and as a nation.

Much more can be studied regarding what Daniel 9:13 actually teaches, and the bearing of the rest of Scripture on the themes reflected in this verse, by studying carefully the cross references given for this verse:

Daniel 9:13

As it is written. Note: Thus every succeeding part of the Sacred Writings attests and proves the Divine authority of the preceding. The history relates the fulfillment of former predictions; and then new prophecies are added, which future events accomplish, and thus demonstrate their inspiration to the latest ages. See on Dan 9:11, +*Lev 26:14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 <rp. *Deut 28:15 <rp, etc. Deut 31:9, +*Isa 42:9, Lam 2:15, 16, 17, +*Joh 10:35; *Joh 13:19; +*Joh 14:29; *Joh 16:4.

law of Moses. +*Exo 24:4, Neh 1:7.

is come upon us. Psa 44:17.

yet. **Jer 36:24.

made we not our prayer before. Heb. intreated we not the face of, etc. +Exo 32:11, Job 11:19; Job 36:13, Isa 9:13; Isa 31:1; Isa 43:22, *Jer 2:30; *Jer 5:3; +**Jer 10:25; +Jer 26:19 mg. Jer 36:7, Hos 7:7; Hos 7:10; Hos 7:14.

that. +**Psa 9:10.

we might turn. Deut 29:4, 1Ki 8:48, Job 33:23, Psa 85:4; +*Psa 119:18; +*Psa 119:27; +*Psa 119:73, Isa 59:20; Isa 64:7, Jer 31:18; Jer 44:27, Lam 5:21, Eze 18:30; Eze 24:12; *Eze 33:11, Luk 24:45, Joh 6:45; *Joh 8:32, +Act 3:19, Eph 4:21.

and understand. T1733, +Psa 119:27 (T1737). +*Pro 28:5, Eph 1:17, 18, +*Jas 1:5.


Posted in Daily Bible Nuggets, Practical Application Bible Studies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

More on Holiness from a Brother in Africa

The Nugget:

Heb 12:14  Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: 

The Message from Africa:

Pastor E.A. Adeboye speaks on make-up, Jewellery, Wigs & Bleached Hair.

The General overseer of The Redeemed Christian Church of God, Worldwide, Pastor E.A. Adeboye speaks on make-up, Jewellery, Wigs & bleached hair. Below are the details of what Daddy said:

The elders have a say, “if children of the same mother enters into a room to talk and come out smiling, they have not told each other the truth.” Alright, so in the next 3 minutes, you might not be smiling as I am going to tell you the truth, because am your daddy. Strictly speaking I have searched the scripture, there is nowhere that I have found where it is written, if you wear make-up, you will go to hell or you will not make it to heaven, I can’t find it in the Bible. It is not to be found anywhere at all, but I have done my own research.

There are two places in the whole Bible where references were made to painting of face, only two places, and the two places are bad. One of the places talked about Jezebel. How many of you will name your daughter Jezebel? 2 Kings 9:30, the day Jezebel was going to die, she did make up properly, painted her face, dented her face with jewelries, but at the end of the day, dog ate her.

The second place is in Jeremiah 4:29, 30 where God was speaking in anger to daughters of Zion, He says, “when I make up my mind to deal with you, you can paint your face as you like, it is not going to deliver you.” Read it, you have your Bible to read. Those are the only two places I found, and they are terrible references.

Now as far as am concerned, it is up to you to decide how you want to look, you want to make up, you want to paint yourself, you are at liberty.

If for any reason whatsoever God decides not to allow you to enter heaven, sorry o!!!

The point I’m making is this, nobody ever add sugar to honey. Have you seen anybody adding sugar to honey? Anytime you see a piece of furniture that is painted, wooden furniture that is painted, the wood is inferior. When the wood is ebony, nobody paints it, no no no. I think children of God should realise they are precious enough, by the special grace of God and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. They are honey, they don’t need sugar.

Some people go about in the name of fashion wearing wigs. I’m not being judgemental at all. This is not law, there is no where in the Bible which says if you wear wigs, you can’t make it to heaven. But this hair that you are wearing, from whose head was it cut? Do you know who was the original owner of the hair? Do you know what kind of anointing is in that hair? It is put in the most important part of your body, the head!!! “Thou anointed my head.” Things are so bad now that some ladies comes for ordination with wigs on. I always asked them, which one do you want me to anoint, the wig or the head? I told you, you will not smile by the time I finished. I have not been legalistic, I have not said thou shall not wear wig. I’m only talking to my daughters, my own children.

I read something in the book of Revelation 7:1, 2, 3. Some angels were sent from heaven to deal with the inhabitants of the world, after the rapture, the Bible says, “I heard the Almighty God said, before you begin to deal with people, let me mark them, let me seal them on their forehead, so that we know those that the bullet should not hit.”

What we wear matters. Why do you think the army wear uniforms? It is so that they will not accidentally shoot their own members. Can God recognize you at a glance, that is, as a child of God? Some people say it does not matter, and that what is inside is what is important, I agree with the last part, but what is inside will show outside. it will show on the outside, it will show, don’t let anybody deceive you.

When I became General Overseer, I brought a group of teachers to come and teach in the Bible College and they began to teach series of things I did not bargain for. They were teaching that God is not interested in the outside, He is interested in the inside, this man (the G. O.) is legalistic, he is too strict. So I went to Oyingbo market to buy two oranges, one ripe and the other green all over. My Bible students were beginning to turn to rebels and God gave me wisdom, so I stood before the class and I said, which of this oranges will you take if I ask you to pick one? They all pointed at the yellow and ripe one, and I said why? They said because that one is going to be the sweeter one. How do you know when you have not seen the inside? They all said what is inside the orange portrays and shows what is reflecting outside. An orange is sweet from the appearance because its inside is sweet and vice versa to unripe oranges….

It was at this point I passed the real message to his people and the Holy Spirit gave them change of heart afterwards.

People of God, God cannot be mocked, you cannot begin to tell people that God only dwells in the heart of man, seeks the heart alone and not the facial appearance, It is A LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL !!! …

You cannot sit on the fence, it either you are cold or hot… Say no to FASHION OF HELL … Why not be and remain the way God created you? Why are you adding to what God has created? In other words, you are telling God that, “God ooh, see you are senseless to have created me this way I am, I am going to recreate myself back with make ups.” (God forbid).

May you not be an enemy of God. Amen. “Let your dressing be in modest apparell, not of painting of face or using of gold, necklaces or earrings, but of pure heart, shamefacedness and modesty.”

Have you considered Jezebel in the Bible? She was a perfect example of the usage of all these things, and she made all these things of demonic value. May you not be among her descendants in Jesus mighty name. Let your watchword be ”WORLDLINESS FORBIDDEN.” Instead of the world copying good things from us (believers), we the believers are the one copying bad things from the world! Very shameful and pathetic!
Remember, “friendliness with the world equals to enmity with God.”
Beware of the end time vices and change your ways now!

My Comment:


Thank you, Emeka Francis, for posting this message. It is much needed today.

My wife and I have been studying the subject of holiness in the Bible, and particularly Hebrews 12:14. She has brought up the subject of Christians who dye their hair a completely different color than what God created them with. My wife states that dying of hair is like telling God that “I do not like the way you made me.” It is contrary to 1 John 2:15, 16, 17. 

The message you posted surely confirms her insight:

“You cannot sit on the fence, it either you are cold or hot… Say no to FASHION OF HELL … Why not be and remain the way God created you? Why are you adding to what God has created? In other words, you are telling God that, “God ooh, see you are senseless to have created me this way I am, I am going to recreate myself back with make ups.” (God forbid).”

Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Posted in Christian Living, Practical Application Bible Studies, Principles of Christian Living | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Two Natures—One Person: The Unipersonality of Christ.

By Vijay Chandra

After noting how the orthodox statement of Chalcedon beautifully and succinctly defends the doctrine of two natures in one person, we need to examine and analyze some of the Chalcedonian propositions more closely. This examination will involve review.

A. We noted that Christ is truly God and truly man.

Everything that can be predicated of God is true of Christ. He is truly God and truly man. He is consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead. When the creed speaks of the Mediator having God’s nature (Greek, ousia’ Latin, substentia, or natura), it means identity of essence and implies numerical unity. God is three persons (Muslims reject this) who are one in being. God the Son (who was and is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit) became man. The second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature. When Chalcedon speaks of Christ assuming human nature consubstantial according to manhood, it refers to [generic] unity with man. Jesus has all the attributes of humanity: a real flesh and blood body, a rational soul that grows in knowledge, which is finite (i.e., He doesn’t know all things), that experiences the full range of human emotions.


B. In Christ, two distinct natures or substance are united in such a manner that the distinct properties of both natures are preserved.

The attributes of God are not somehow passed to man and the human properties are not transmitted to God. There is no mixing, intermingling or confounding of the two natures to form a new third substance. Not only is intermingling or mixing of the two natures impossible (the finite cannot be made infinite), even if possible it would destroy the incarnation. Such a mixed being would be neither God or man. Hodge writes “In teaching, therefore, that Christ was truly man and truly God, the Scriptures teach that He had a finite intelligence, and will, and also an infinite intelligence. In Him, therefore, as the church has ever maintained, there were and are two wills, two energeia or operations. His human intellect increased, his divine intelligence was, and is infinite, His human will had only human power, his divine will was, and is almighty” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:390).


C. The Bible and the Chalcedon creed insist that the mediator is one person, not two.

When the second person of the Trinity was incarnated He was hypostatically united to a genuine human nature. The mediator did not unite Himself to a human person with a separate personality but with a human nature and thus the personality of Christ and the personality of the Logos are one and the same.


The unipersonality of the Mediator is by far most difficult aspect of the incarnation to understand. The doctrine of two natures in one person is to a certain degree beyond human comprehension. Thus, the best way to explain it is to first present the Scriptural evidence for the unipersonality of Christ and then define it theologically as best as we can. Note the following argument from the Scriptures.

If our Lord was two distinct persons and not one there ought to be some Scripture evidence to prove it. However, there is none. On the contrary, Jesus always speaks, prays and acts as one person. With the doctrine of the Trinity there are three persons and one God.

Thus, there are abundant examples of the Father speaking to the Son (Mk 1:11; Luke 3:22), of the Son speaking to the Father (Mt 11:25, 26; 26:39, Jn 11:41, 12:27-28) and the Holy Spirit praying to God (Rom 8:26). Yet, we never encounter the human person Jesus praying, speaking or worshipping, or communing with the Son. There is no I—You consciousness or relationship within the Mediator.

The Mediator is always represented as one person. He is called or addressed as prophet (Acts 3:22), priest (Heb 5:5-6), King (Ps 2:6), the good shepherd (Jn 10:11), the Christ (Matthew 16:16), the lamb of God (Jn 1:29), the Mediator (1 Tim 2:5, Heb 8:6), Lord of lords (Rev 19:18), God (Jn 20:28, Rom 9:5), man (Jn 8:40), redeemer (Prov 23:11; Jer 50:34; Ga 3:13), savior (Eph 5:23); Son of God (Ps 73:15, Mt 24:36, Mk 13:32), and Son of Man (Mt 16:27). These titles and functions are predicated of the God-man and apply to the whole person. Does this mean that the divine and human natures are mixed or confused in any way? No, not all! It simply means that the one person Jesus Christ partakes of the attributes of both natures “so that whatever may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed of the Person.” Theologians refer to this doctrine as the communion of the attributes.

This union in one person explains why the human nature of Jesus receives special treatment by the holy angels and men. The God-man Jesus Christ is the object of worship (Matt 2:1, 2; 14:33, 28:9, Rev 15:3, 4), prayer (Rev 5:8, Mt 8:2, 15:25) and adoration (Rev 5:8-12). Although the ground of worship and prayer toward the messiah lies in His deity, nevertheless the union in one person of two natures makes the religious worship of the divine-human person lawful, appropriate and commendable. The adoration of Jesus’ body would not be lawful if He were two persons.

Christ the person will make “I” statements that can only be applied to His divine nature (e.g., “Before Abraham was ‘I am’” (Jn 8:58, 10:30). At other times He will make statements that can only be applied to His human nature (e.g., “I thirst” Jn 19:28). Further, there are passages where what can only be said of our Lord’s human nature are applied to the Lord of God (e.g., “crucified the Lord of glory,” 1 Cor 2:8; The Son is said not to know the day or hour of His own coming (Mk 13:32). There are even passages where the person Jesus Christ is addressed according to His human nature and then explicitly spoken of as God “from whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, the eternal blessed God. Amen”(Rom 9:5; Rev 5:12, Jn 6:62). If our Lord were two separate persons the writers of Scripture could not freely and simultaneously ascribe to Christ attribute of humanity and divinity. “They call Him Lord, or Son and attribute to Him, often in the same sentence, what is true of him only as God, what is true only of his humanity, and what is true of Him only as the God-man (John 1:1, Rom 8:3, Gal 4:4, 5, 1 Tim 3:16, Heb 2:11, 12, 13, 14, 1 John 4:2,3).


Only the orthodox Chalcedon doctrine of the two natures in one person does justice to Christ’s works, especially His work of redemption. One encounters Jesus the person controlling the weather (Mk 4:39-41), forgiving people’s sin (Mt.9:2), telling people that they are saved (Lk 23:43), saying that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Mt. 12:9), creating food (Mt 14:14-21), shining like the sun (Mt 17:1-6) and offering Himself on the cross (Heb 10:12).

The incarnate Son of God is the only source of life for the elect. Only people who believe in Him as fully God and fully man (who as one person secured a perfect redemption) can obtain eternal life. Only a Mediator who is both God and man in one Person can offer a sacrifice of infinite value and can provide a perfect righteousness for God’s people. It is because of the union of two natures in one person that the infinite merit and efficacy of His work are due. The heretical idea that Christ is both two persons and one person at the same time not only contradicts Scripture but also defies simple logic. Jesus cannot be two persons and one person at the same time. If the mediator were two separate persons then the incarnation would not be a true personal union but would be in effect a mere  indwelling of the divine nature in the human person. Such a view is essentially adoptionist in nature.


Posted in Doctrinal Discussions, Vijay Chandra Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Sabbath Questions and Answers

The Nugget:

Mar 2:27  And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 

Mar 2:28  Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. 

My Comment:

Jesus Christ as the Son of Man declared He is Lord of the Sabbath. As such, He has authority to bring us new revelation, revelation recorded for us in the New Testament. The New Testament shows by direct example as well as by omission that for genuine believers in Jesus Christ, observance of the Seventh-Day Sabbath is no longer required. Christians may worship God on any day of the week they so choose, including every day! Practice as recorded in the New Testament shows conclusively that the Apostles met for specifically Christian worship on the First Day of the week, and that practice has continued until this day. The First Day keeps in constant memory the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead on the first day of the week, “the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21).

There has been a continuing but now completed discussion regarding the Seventh Day Sabbath issue. I wrote several responses during the discussion thread. I thought it would be good to share what I wrote here for future ease of reference.

Now that I have transcribed that discussion here below, I am amazed at how long this post is. Despite the length, including considerable repetition for good measure, this ought to teach anyone who will take the time to read it just what the Bible says about this issue.

The Challenge:

“If we follow Christ should we not walk as he and the apostles walked ? We know if Christ didn’t keep the sabbath this would have been transgression of the law making him a sinner . Our rest in Christ is speaking in a spiritual sense because through Christ we attain the Holy Spirit and it is the spirit that changes our heart so it is not us that does good but the spirit within us.”

Jerome Smith are you implying Paul didn’t honor the sabbath ?? And you are aware the sabbath was set apart sanctified at creation and kept prior to the law.” (Rali Mosley)

My Responses:

My response to Mr. Mosley:

Paul NEVER kept the Seventh Day Sabbath as a matter of specifically Christian worship (involving participation in the Lord’s Supper or Communion).

Paul attended the Synagogue for a time as a witness to the Jew first, in obedience to the command of Christ in Acts 1:8.

Paul does allow for Seventh Day Sabbath keeping and worship for those Jews who had recently become Christians as a matter of their conscience (Romans 14:1-5.

Paul sternly condemns the practice of Seventh-day Sabbath observance for those of the Gentile churches Paul founded (Galatians 4:9-11).

The Sabbath was NOT set apart at creation and kept prior to the Law.

God is the One who rested in Genesis 2:3, not man. The Sabbath is never once mentioned by name in the book of Genesis. There is no observance of a weekly day of rest anywhere in the Genesis record.

I have discussed these matters at my own website:




Mr. Mosley’s response to me:

 Jerome Smith you understand that would make Paul a liar right ?

My response to Mr. Mosley:

 Rali Mosley, if you are in error then what Paul has to say may seem like a lie. But Paul always tells the truth.

Mr. Mosley’s response to me:

 Jerome Smith you understand that would make Paul a liar right ?

When Paul was accused of teaching against the law he went to go take a Nazarite vow and paid for the other two to take there’s

 Jerome Smith “And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city. Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭24:12-14‬ ‭

 Jerome Smith “but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭21:21-24‬

Please don’t try and make Paul out to be a liar . He walked orderly and kept the law which included honoring the sabbath.

 Jerome Smith Thoughts ??

 TruthSeekers Read, help ya brotha out.

My response to Mr. Mosley:

Of course, Paul was not a liar. Paul did reach out to his fellow Israelites in his attempt to win them to Christ. But that has nothing to do with the issue of Christians being obligated today to keep the Seventh Day Sabbath as a matter of law-keeping.

I believe I made reference above to Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:9, 10, 11. There he commanded that Gentile Christians must not involve themselves in observing Jewish days and seasons, the expression includes the Seventh Day sabbath observance.

The commandment to keep the Sabbath was given exclusively to the Jewish nation and those living within its borders. The Fourth Commandment was never given as a commandment to Christians.

There are no instances of the Fourth Commandment being stated in the imperative mood in the Greek text of the New Testament as a commandment addressed to Christians.

Paul warned against any attempt to impose the observance of the Fourth Commandment Sabbath Law given exclusively to the Jews upon Christians.

Those who today attempt to make the Sabbath Observance a central issue as though it is an obligation to be placed upon other Christians are not walking according to the Gospel of Christ and often have missed the whole message of the transforming power of the Gospel through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is the emphasis of the New Testament.

Rali Mosley, here is a passage I’m sure you know about that states the motivation behind what Paul did:

Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
9:23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.


Mr. Mosley’s response to me:

I just showed you where Paul said he didn’t teach against the law and kept it himself.

My response to Mr. Mosley:

Rali Mosley, thank you for reading my comments. You must read and understand the Bible in terms of what it says, not what you or I may want it to say. We must believe and teach according to the balance of truth presented in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole.

Paul was a Jew, and in order not to offend the Jews, he did some things that we as Christians today have absolutely no obligation to do. Paul never commanded his Gentile converts to make vows and go to the Jewish Temple and follow the prescribed rites in the manner that he himself did.

Every false doctrine and every false cult or religion or belief will fail the test of matching the balance of emphasis upon the doctrine or teaching involved as given in the Bible itself.

Your emphasis upon the Seventh Day Sabbath observance and the Fourth Commandment does not agree with the balance and emphasis of New Testament teaching.

I have stated that the Fourth Commandment regarding Seventh Day Sabbath observance is never repeated in the New Testament as a commandment.

I have stated that there is not even a single example of specifically Christian worship involving participation in the Lord’s Supper or Communion taking place on the Seventh Day Sabbath.

Now, in the logical form which I have expressed my argument, my argument is very easy to refute. All you have to do is produce just ONE example of the Fourth Commandment stated as a command in the imperative mood in the New Testament.

Or, you may produce evidence to show that Christians met specifically for Christian worship (as evidenced by partaking of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion) on the Seventh Day Sabbath.

My comment that the Sabbath issue does not represent the emphasis given in the New Testament is based upon the fact that such an emphasis is simply not there in the text. If this were a matter of concern, surely the new Gentile Christians would have been in need of instruction in this matter and evidence of this instruction would be reflected in the New Testament. Gentile Christians surely would have been cautioned against Sabbath-breaking. But no such instruction is found in the New Testament.

The motivation which underlies what Paul himself did is well expressed by what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:22,

“To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

What Paul specifically did in those special and individual particular historical circumstances does not form a rule of conduct we are to replicate today. Paul instructed us to be followers of him as he was a follower of Christ. Christ brought new revelation through the Apostle Paul which has been preserved in the letters of Paul found in our New Testament.

Paul’s emphasis is the witness to the bodily resurrection of Christ as the supreme evidence of the truth of the Gospel. That is what we should be emphasizing today.


Mr. Mosley responded to me:

Paul’s own words make it very problematic for anyone to argue he didn’t keep the sabbath.

Before I address what you said can we first agree your statement that Paul didn’t keep the sabbath was in error?


My response to Mr. Mosley:

Produce your evidence that refutes the two claims I have made:

(1) The Fourth Commandment regarding keeping the seventh day Sabbath is never once found repeated in the form of a commandment (in the imperative mood in the Greek NT) anywhere in the New Testament.

(2) There is not a single example of Christians meeting for specifically Christian worship (as evidenced by partaking of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion) on the Sabbath.

Now produce your evidence from the New Testament record that refutes either or both of my assertions. But be very careful to produce evidence that fulfills the requirements.

READ MY CLAIM ABOUT PAUL very carefully: Paul NEVER kept the Seventh Day Sabbath as a matter of specifically Christian worship (involving participation in the Lord’s Supper or Communion).

Nothing you have presented refutes my claim about Paul whatsoever. It is your misreading of my claim, not my claim itself, that is in error.


Mr. Mosley’s response to me:

ok so then we agree Paul Kept the sabbath ??

A simple yes or no will suffice

And let’s be clear the burden of proof is on you. The sabbath was made holy at creation it was kept prior to the law being given and was kept by Christ and all the apostles. Christ says he didn’t come to destroy the law Paul says we establish the law. Yet you say because we don’t see a commandment that was kept before the commandments were given commanded again it is void ??? If you follow Christ you will walk as he walked and we know he kept the sabbath. We actually see Mary wait until the sabbath was over before visiting Christ tomb.

This is what happens when you ask questions that causes one to think for themselves and not copy and paste what they learned at Bible study.

My response to Mr. Mosley:

And just who is “copy and pasting what they learned at Bible study”?

I write my own material from scratch based upon my own long and careful study of the Bible.

So far, you have NOT addressed my challenge at all.

Kindly go back and actually READ with understanding what I wrote and provide the evidence I requested to refute my two assertions.

Until you do, you have failed to address my argument, and have lost the debate.


Mr. Mosley’s response to me:

lol first this was a dialogue not a debate . Second as I said the burden of proof is on you and none of your answers sufficed any of the questions I’ve asked . But if saying I lost the debate is pleasing to your flesh then fine I lost lol

 It took 6 hours to come up with that excuse ??

My response to Mr. Mosley:

You know very well that what you have said here in response to my challenge and correction of your expressed point of view regarding the Seventh Day Sabbath has not addressed the challenge I presented you.

So, whether you want to call this a dialogue or a debate, I raised two or more crucial issues that refute your position regarding what the New Testament and the Bible as a whole teach about the Seventh Day Sabbath question.

As for six hours, I do not spend much time using this computer. I have my own studies to pursue. But the time delay provides you some time to prepare a good answer to my two challenges, neither of which you have addressed yet:

(1) How is it that the New Testament nowhere in its pages contains a command for Christians to keep the Fourth Commandment?

(2) How is it that there is not a single example in the New Testament of Christians keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath for specifically Christian worship involving participation in the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion?

If the issue is as important as you seem to suppose, your view of this matter of keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath Holy ought to have some degree of emphasis in the New Testament. So far, you have not shown that this is the case.

I have already answered you in full regarding Paul’s actions regarding his accompanying individuals in the keeping of vows at the Temple in Jerusalem. What Paul did in that incident has nothing to do with keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath. Paul did what he did to avoid unnecessarily provoking conflict with Jews who mistakenly thought that Paul taught Jewish converts not to keep the law of Moses. I cited the Scripture from Paul’s own writings that stated the principle Paul was following.

Mr. Mosley’s response to me:

Maybe you aren’t understanding something here . As I said prior simply saying it’s not directly commanded in the New Testament some how makes the commandment void is folly . You must first show where the change was made in the commandment we see the sabbath being observed all throughout the New Testament Jews and gentiles alike observing the sabbath . Again the burden of proof would be on you sir.

So you are saying Paul lied to avoid conflict.

To address your questions even though the burden of proof is on you .
1) listen to what you said “ nowhere in the nt is there a command to Christians to keep the [Sabbath or Fourth] commandment” 🤔.

It’s a commandment so you have to show where any commandment contained w
ithin the moral law / Decalogue was commanded to be changed. That’s how it works my friend .

2. The fact is we see Jews and gentiles alike honoring the sabbath in the New Testament. You are asserting it wasn’t for Christian worship. I think first you have to deal with the term Christian which didn’t come until later and was said as an insult . But it simply means followers of Christ . So again did Christ honor the sabbath? If so are you walking as he did ?

Also the first day of the week was never thought to be the new sabbath it was simply a day they gathered together to discuss finances, etc. and most likely they did that on that day because they honored the sabbath the previous day.

My response to Mr. Mosley:

Thank you for your good replies and additional challenges to my position.

(1) The Seventh Day Sabbath has not been changed to the First Day of the week. It remains as it was originally instituted for the Jews in Israel. It remains still in force for the Jews today, so it has not been changed.

(2) Jesus was a Jew. During His earthly life he kept the commandments perfectly. Jesus observed the Seventh Day Sabbath in accordance with the Ten Commandment Law.

(3) Paul was a Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, and while he lived as a Jew before he met Jesus Christ on the Damascus Road he surely kept the Jewish law fastidiously. Paul received new revelation directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, and that new revelation is reflected in the doctrines taught in the Pauline Epistles.

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

We, therefore, must study and obey the new revelation given by our Lord Jesus Christ through Paul as preserved in the Pauline Epistles and the Book of Acts.

(4) If anyone today believes they should carefully observe the Fourth Commandment as given in the Law of Moses, they should realize what is meant by keeping the Sabbath holy. There are many specifics given in the Old Testament Scriptures that detail how the Jews were instructed to keep the weekly Sabbath. It is highly unlikely that there are any Christians today who actually fulfill the stipulated requirements that accompany the command to keep the Sabbath holy as given to the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures.

You are correct that the First Day of the Week was never regarded as the new Sabbath. Gentile Christians were never taught to observe the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, Paul quite sternly commands his converts not to do so in Galatians 4:9, 10, 11. The First Day of the Week is observed by Christians in the New Testament as the day for Christians to gather for specifically Christian worship. The nature of those worship services can be discerned from the record of their observance recorded in the Pauline Epistles. The services included the singing of hymns, prayer, preaching of the Gospel, mutual instruction and correction in the ministry of the “one another gifts,” and so forth. The First Day of the Week had special significance for Christians then and now because that marks the day that our Lord Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead “on the third day.”

As for the term “Christian,” it appears as early as Acts 11:26. The term also occurs at Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16. The term simply means “follower of Christ,” and does not necessarily have any negative association with its first use as recorded in Acts that I can see.

As for walking as Christ did, just because Jesus observed the Seventh Day Sabbath as an obedient Jew does not at all mean that Christians today who are not Jews must do the same.

We are not under the law, but under grace:

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

I have established by your lack of specific response to my two challenges that, at least so far, you have found it impossible to answer them.

Of the Ten Commandments, nine commandments are repeated in the New Testament for our admonition and instruction. One commandment is never repeated in any listing of the ten commandments in the NT, neither by Christ nor any of the NT writers. The reason is plain to read: the commandments which were against us have been nailed to the cross (see Colossians 2:14 and 2 Corinthians 3:7 and its context).

Those who truly believe in our Lord Jesus Christ have become new creations in Him. True faith results in regeneration (Titus 3:5) and transformation (2 Corinthians 5:17), such that we walk in newness of life, empowered by the Holy Spirit to produce the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23). This is the focus of our new life in Christ, not law-keeping (Galatians 2:21). We are now free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).

Mr. Mosley replied to me:

ok so you agree Israel should keep the sabbath 👍🏽
The revelation Paul received was not and could not contradict the Torah as Christ and Paul both said they believe all things in the law and prophets and neither came to destroy .

You stat
ed Paul told converts not to keep sabbath in ga 4:9 this is a grave error and completely out of context . This is why audience relevancy is very important.
We must first understand who Paul was writing to. Former pagans
“But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, Gal 4:9.
Notice he says they didn’t know God prior so why would they be turning back to the sabbath that makes no sense. Context is key.

Sadly most don’t understand what Paul meant by saying we are not under the law. Romans 7 in its totality explains this. The law of sin no longer has dominion over us because we have attained the spirit and now we are given the grace to repent.
Hebrews 10 tells us if we sin willfully there is no more sacrifice.

Gal 5 tells us the lawless will not inherit the kingdom, as does Rev 22:14 .

God created the sabbath for us it was not meant to be burdensome it’s sad most reject the gift god gave

I wrote this response to Mr. Mosley:

Thank you again for a kind and interesting reply.

I believe the balance of Bible evidence demonstrates that you have not correctly understood Galatians 4:9, 10, 11.

Here are my notes and cross references as I have prepared them for my Bible reference study tool, “The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury”:

Galatians 4:10
Ye observe. or, observe carefully. Gr. paratēreō (S# G3906, Mar 3:2). Leviticus 23, Numbers 28, 29, Luk 14:1, +**Col 2:16.

days. The weekly sabbaths (Hogg & Vine, p. 202). Lev 23:2, 3; Lev 25:1; Lev 25:13, Num 28:9, 10, 1Ch 23:30, 31, 2Ch 2:4; 2Ch 8:13; 2Ch 31:3, Neh 10:33, Eze 45:17, **Hos 2:11, Zec 7:5, 6, **Rom 14:5; **Rom 14:6, **Col 2:16; **Col 2:17.

months. The new moons. Num 10:10; Num 28:11, 1Sa 20:5, 1Ch 23:31, 2Ch 2:4; 2Ch 8:13, Ezr 3:5, Neh 10:33, Psa 81:3, Isa 1:13, 14; Isa 66:23, Ezek 45:17; Ezek 46:6, Hos 2:11, **+Col 2:16.

seasons. The three annual feasts of the Jews. (1) Feast of unleavened bread, Lev 23:5-14; (2) Feast of Pentecost, Lev 23:15-22; (3) Feast of tabernacles, Lev 23:33-44, Exo 23:14; Exo 23:17; Exo 33:23, Lev 23:4, 2Ch 8:13, Zec 7:5, 6.

years. Sabbatic years, and years of jubilee. While it is improbable that the Galatian churches had actually been observing a year of jubilee, yet if they observed the least of the ceremonial days, they acknowledged the principle, and it was as though they had observed them all. The Apostle had heretofore mentioned only circumcision as indicative of the declension of the Galatian believers. But of course they could not draw the line at that; once they put themselves under the law, they became debtors to do all the law enjoined (Gal 5:3). Moreover, the religious observance of days [including the Sabbath] is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel; to keep a day is a tacit admission that that day is, in some sense, holier than other days, whereas, to the Christian, every day is holy (see Hogg & Vine, pp. 202, 203).

Paul received his doctrine directly by revelation from our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12. **1 Cor 14:37.). The gospel Paul preached and taught did not include the necessity of Sabbath observance. Paul criticizes the Galatians for listening to the Judaizers that had come among them, and warned them that to follow their lead would be to deny Christ, and lose the benefit of Christ’s death for them (Gal 2:21; Gal 5:2), and make Paul’s labor to bring them the gospel utterly in vain (Gal 4:11). Falling from grace (Gal 5:4) surely means loss of salvation. Paul nowhere in Galatians suggests that the Galatians had gone this far (Gal 3:26), and speaks of them as brethren (Gal 4:12), but the warning is clear.

While Paul grants some degree of liberty in the matter of choice of day of worship (see Rom 14:5, 6), yet he clearly teaches here that to observe the Sabbath as a matter of keeping the Fourth Commandment is to turn back, thus to turn away from Christ, to place one under bondage (Gal 4:9).

It is very striking that the Fourth Commandment is never once given as a command in the New Testament, though the other nine are repeated as commands for Christians [(1) Exo 20:3 with Col 3:5 and 1Jn 5:21; (2) Exo 20:4 with Act 17:29 and 2Co 6:16, 17; (3) Exo 20:7 with Rom 2:24, 1Ti 6:1, and Jas 5:12; (4) Exo 20:8 but not enjoined in the NT, though mentioned as observed by Jesus (Luke 4:16) and the Jews (Luke 23:56); (5) Exo 20:12 with Luke 18:20 and Eph 6:1, 2; (6) Exo 20:13 with Mark 10:19 and Rom 13:9; (7) Exo 20:14 with Mat 5:27, 28 and Jas 2:11; (8) Exo 20:15 with Mat 19:18 and Rom 13:9; (9) Exo 20:16 with Luke 18:20 and Rom 13:9; (10) Exo 20:17 with Luke 12:15 and Rom 7:7; Rom 13:9].

Christians never met for specifically Christian worship on the Sabbath in order to keep the Sabbath. In obedience to the command of Christ (Act 1:8), Jewish Christians attended the Synagogue on the Sabbath for witness to the Jews, not for Christian worship. They regularly met upon the first day of the week (Acts 20:7 note. 1Co 16:2) for Christian worship and fellowship.

The Sabbath was never changed to Sunday. Jews still worship on the Sabbath, but properly taught Christians worship Christ on the First Day of the week, and have done so since the beginning of the New Testament Church. See related note at Isa 58:13 note. Lev 25:2, 3, 4, 5; Lev 25:8-17.

Mr. Mosley made this response to me:

 While I you seem to be rather exhaustive with your studies the problem is you are looking to prove your point rather then find truth.
When we look into ancient Roman culture we will see they observed many holidays some were annual , weekly and monthly. With that being said you would have to reconcile the beginning of gal 4:9 I noticed you started at 4:10 . You would have to explain why he says they didn’t know god prior . Here’s some info on ancient Roman holidays . (Not my writing)

Festivals in ancient Rome were a very important part of Roman religious life during both the Republican and Imperial eras, and one of the primary features of the Roman calendar. Feriae (“holidays” in the sense of “holy days”; singular also feriae or dies ferialis) were either public (publicae) or private (privatae). State holidays were celebrated by the Roman people and received public funding. Games (ludi), such as the Ludi Apollinares, were not technically feriae, but the days on which they were celebrated were dies festi, holidays in the modern sense of days off work. Although feriae were paid for by the state, ludi were often funded by wealthy individuals. Feriae privatae were holidays celebrated in honor of private individuals or by families.[1] This article deals only with public holidays, including rites celebrated by the state priests of Rome at temples, as well as celebrations by neighborhoods, families, and friends held simultaneously throughout Rome Feriae were of four kinds:

Stativae were annual holidays that held a fixed or stable date on the calendar. Calendars helped back then.
Conceptivae were annual holidays that were moveable feasts (like Easter on the Christian calendar, or Thanksgiving in North America); the date was announced by the magistrates or priests who were responsible for them.
Imperativae were holidays held “on demand” (from the verb impero, imperare, “to order, command”) when special celebrations or expiations were called for.[2]
One of the most important sources for Roman holidays is Ovid’s Fasti, an incomplete poem that describes and provides origins for festivals from January to June at the time of Augustus.


Mr. Mosley made this response to me:

And as I stated previously the burden of proof would be on you, so you would have to show where the change in days occurred. Now I know you are saying the sabbath didn’t change but you said “properly taught Christians worship on the first day of the week.” This infers that there was a change in days which one should worship.

My first statements were never addressed:

1) the sabbath was made holy at creation prior to the commandments.

2) the sabbath was observed prior to the law being given to Moses at Sinai.

If we see it was holy before the law of Moses and we see it being before the law was given to Moses at Sinai . How can we take it upon ourself to say because it wasn’t commanded AGAIN it has become void. I think Paul would say god forbid rather we establish it.
The New Testament is clear as I stated previously: the sabbath was made for man by our creator why reject what he made for us ??

Pastor Anderson made the following comment to Mr. Mosley:

You are selective In Your thinking. No one never said that you could not worship on Saturday. The problem is when you seek to judge others in relation to the CHRISTIAN CHURCH following the practice of the Apostles (early church) worshiping and breaking bread on the first day of the week (Sunday). As you well know these were Jews. You may [need] to use a time capsule and go back to the first century to correct things and tell the Lord he rose on the wrong day. I Applaud professor Smith who have exhausted biblical truth on you for days on my original post. You could learn something, if you parked the “I know mind set.”  He is the only reason I didn’t turn off notification on my own post.

Mr. Mosley responded:

I would say you should take your own advise my brotha . As I stated the text he used Gal 4:9 is clearly not speaking to people that were keeping the sabbath prior. 
Secondly I am not judging you Christ will do that. Breaking bread and fellowship is one thing that does not change the fact the sabbath is set apart and was created for us . Continue to reject the gift of god [if] you want.

[My response to Mr. Mosley, here on Real Bible Study, not posted on Facebook:

Some very good scholars and modern commentaries would agree with you that the Galatians as unsaved Gentiles before the ministry of Paul to them with the gospel of salvation did not observe the Jewish Sabbath.

What those scholars and you have failed to see is that Paul is telling them that for them to step back from the Gospel truth he had taught them and to instead follow the Judaizers by observing the Jewish Seventh-Day Sabbath was tantamount to forsaking our Lord Jesus Christ to now follow a very mistaken idea promoted by the Judaizers, namely, to follow the Law of Moses in addition to the commands of Christ. Paul said that would put them in a position even worse than they were in as pagan Gentiles and that this would result in the loss of their salvation.]

The disputant (Rali Mosley) addressed this comment to Pastor Robert Anderson:

The difference is you were taught by a man; my only teacher is the Holy Spirit and the Word of God . You guys are merely parakeeting what you learned in seminary whether you recognize it or not. And that is why you would be the one to suffer from selective thinking cause a man taught you how to think. Hence, Pastor Moss is no different than Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell or Muhammad. When we get our understanding from men and not the Holy Spirit we are destined to be in error.

Pastor Anderson responded before I did with the following comment:

Stop lying on the Holy Spirit and following every lesson we put up. Ignorance can lead to arrogance; YOU should be so blessed as to be taught biblically by the likes of Pastor Moss, Professor Smith, and others. You show your ignorance in putting these men in the same category of Charles Russell and Paula White. But I understand your childish tactics. But Neither Moss or Smith needs defending, because they don’t point people to themselves, skin color, organizations, etc. These two men point to one person, Jesus Christ. You have been coming from the background on our FB lives for over a year claiming humility, but are here as a serpent in disguise. So since you won’t unfriend us and we are false teachers, I’m going to help you. I’ll block you out of love. You can thank me later.

The points you suggest I did not address I believe I actually did address.

(1) Genesis 2:3 speaks of God’s resting from his act of the creation of the earth. It does not constitute a command to keep the Seventh Day Sabbath. Actually, the Hebrew word for Sabbath does not occur in the Book of Genesis. Most importantly, there is no evidence in the Book of Genesis of the keeping of any weekly observance of a stated day of complete rest.

It is the case that what is said in Genesis 2:3 is appealed to at the giving of the Ten Commandment Law in Exodus 20:11. When the Ten Commandment Law is repeated in Deuteronomy 5:12, 13, 14, 15, where the fact that God delivered Israel from Egypt is the appeal.

In both instances, an appeal is made to what we might today call a “type.”

But notice that in Deuteronomy the Fourth Commandment indicates just for whom this commandment has been given: those who had been slaves in Egypt, those the Lord delivered as a nation from Egyptian slavery.

None of us today among Christian Gentiles are a part of that group! That constitutes some evidence that the Law of the Sabbath does not apply to us, for it was given exclusively to Israel. This is also stressed in Deuteronomy 5:6.

Take a look at Deuteronomy 5:3,

Deut 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Here are my notes and cross references for Deuteronomy 5:3 from “The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury,”

Deuteronomy 5:3

The Lord. Deut 11:10, Exo 34:10.

made not. Deut 29:10-15, Gen 17:7; Gen 17:21, Psa 105:8-10, Jer 32:38, 39, 40, Mat 13:17, Rom 4:23, 24, Gal 3:17-21, Heb 8:8, 9.

this covenant. Deut 29:1, Exo 34:10, Jos 24:25, 2Ki 11:17, 2Ch 23:16, Est 9:27, Jer 31:32; Jer 34:13.

with our fathers. Deut 8:16, Gen 15:15, **Neh 9:13; **Neh 9:14; Neh 10:29, +2Pe 3:4.

but with us. This is a most clear statement that the Law was given first on this occasion at Mount Horeb to Moses, and never given at a prior time, including the Sabbath commandment, an affirmation confirmed by the combined witness of the following Parallel Passages. +*Deut 5:2, %+*Gen 26:5, **Neh 9:13; **Neh 9:14, *Jer 11:4; Jer 34:13, **Eze 20:9, 10, 11, 12; **Eze 20:20, **Mal 4:4, **Rom 5:13; **Rom 5:14.

even us. Jer 31:32.

here. Deut 11:7.

live this day. Deut 26:17; Deut 29:12; Deut 29:15, Heb 12:19.

(2) “the sabbath was observed prior to the law being given to Moses at Sinai.”

Your second point I have now answered from Scripture, for my note at Deuteronomy 5:3 for the keywords “but with us” provides the answer with Scriptural proof in the form of the cross references I have supplied. The Bible directly states that the Law was first given at Sinai, not previously, and not previously given to “our fathers.” This should settle the question.


Posted in Doctrinal Discussions, Sabbath Issues | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Hypostatic Union

by Vijay Chandra


The Bible teaches that the Christ is both God and man. Proving the deity and the genuine humanity of the Mediator is not difficult. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that the church has always dogmatically affirmed that Jesus is both truly God and truly man. The major difficulty in defining the Mediator has been how God and man exist together in the one Person. Not only are there several heresies [false teaching about the Person and work of Christ propagated by Islamic scholars, Hindu scholars, SDA, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.] regarding the person of Christ, but the orthodox definitions of the two natures in one Person is a very difficult doctrine for our small minds to fathom. Therefore, we will examine the orthodox confessional statement regarding the two natures in one person and then explain it in the simplest language possible.


The most complete statement of Christological orthodoxy that to this day has not been supplanted or improved upon, even by the reformed symbols, is the Creed of Chalcedon [A.D. 451]. It declares “We, then, following the holy [Nicene] fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in godhead and also perfect in manhood, truly man, of a reasonable [i.e. rational] soul, body; consubstantial with the Father according to the godhead, and consubstantial with us according to manhood; in all things like unto us, yet without sin; eternally begotten of the Father according to the godhead, and in the latter days, for us and our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten to be acknowledged in two natures, without mixture, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but, one and the same Son, and only begotten, and only begotten God the Word (John 1:1-18, Phil 2:1-10), the Lord Jesus Christ, as prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us.”


Before we define and analyze terms such as nature, person and consubstantial, it will be helpful to guard the church against a wide variety of heresies. In God’s providence, the council of Chalcedon was the brilliant orthodox capstone to generations of conflict over the person of Christ. Note how virtually every perversion of Christology under the sun is refuted by the Creed of Chalcedon.


Chalcedon refutes everyone who teaches that the Messiah was not truly God, or, was not consubstantial [i.e., of the same substance, or, identity of essence] with the Father. The denial that Jesus was really God in every way was a common problem that had to be dealt with by the early church as it still does today. There were second-century Jewish heretics, the Ebionites [this group was zealous for ceremonial law; refused to fellowship with Gentile believers and denied the divinity of Christ] and Eikasites [i.e., ascites versions of Ebionites] who taught that the Messiah was only a man.

There were the Arians [A.D. 320] [the modern Jehovah’s Witnesses] who plagued the 4th century and beyond. They believed that the Son was the first created being [same as the Koran]. He was the highest or greatest of created beings [Mormons hold this view as well]. However, he was not God and “there was a time when He was not.” They also believed that this great creature simply inhabited the flesh of Jesus; the Messiah did not have a real human soul. The modern Jehovah’s Witnesses have a heretical Christology almost identical to the early Arians.

Then there were semi-Arians who taught a mediating position between the orthodox and the Arians. The Arians taught that Jesus was dissimilar or different substance [anomoios] with the Father. In other words, Jesus is not just a man but he is not the same as God either. Such a compromise is really no better than Arianism. It is a damnable heresy. The Orthodox said that the Son was of the same substance [homousios] with the Father.

Against all men who taught that Christ did not have a genuine human soul, Chalcedon declared that Jesus had a rational soul. This statement refutes Apollinaris [A.D. 310-390] who applied platonic psychology to the person of Christ. Instead of following the biblical concept of dual nature of man as spirit and body, he combined the Greek concept of man having an animal or irrational soul, a spirit and a body. He believed that if the Logos assumed a true and complete human nature which included a human spirit, then Jesus would have been corrupted with human sin. Therefore, Logos took the place of the human spirit. Such a view does not really recognize the true humanity of the mediator and thus needs to be condemned.

Chalcedon preserves the truth against all forms of Monarchianism that caused problems in the real church. One form developed by Paul of Samosata called Dynamic Monarchianism asserted that although the Logos was consubstantial or of the same essence with the Father, it was only because the Logos was an impersonal force or power from God. In other words, they rejected the apostolic teaching of the Son as the second, distinct person in the Godhead.

Another form of this heresy is called Modalistic Monarchianism [or Patripasianism because it asserts the Father suffered in the form of the Son]. This view was first propagated by Sabellius [early 3rd century] who asserted that God is one person who sometimes exhibits himself as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. Once again the distinct personhood of the Son, as well as the Spirit, is denied. All modalistic theories are essentially Unitarian in their concept of the Godhead. Such views are still quite popular today and can be found in cults such as the Jesus-only and Oneness Pentecostals.

When Chalcedon asserts that the Son is truly God of the same essence with the Father and at the same time asserts that the Logos is eternally begotten of the Father, it recognizes that although Jesus is God of very God, He also is a distinct person in the Godhead. He is not an impersonal force or simply the Father appearing as the Son.

Chalcedon condemned the idea that Jesus was two distinct persons by declaring that there are two natures in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons. This statement is a rejection of the heresy of Nestorianism [Nestorius died c. A.D 451] which held that Christ was two persons, that there was not a unity of the one person. According to this view, one should not think of Jesus as the God-man but as a man controlled by God. Nestorianism destroys the undivided [hypostatic] union of the two natures and the universality of the Messiah.

The Chalcedon creed refutes all forms of Docetism by teaching the real undivided union of the two natures in one person and by declaring that Mary was the mother of God [God-bearer].

Docetism is a heresy which redefines the true humanity of Christ. Its Christology was not derived directly from Scripture but from Greek philosophy. In the first centuries of the Christian era, platonic and non-platonic philosophies were quite popular. According to the Platonic worldview, there were traditions of reality and ethical quality in the world. Spirit or mind is far superior to that which is material or matter. Physical things [according to this view] such as flesh, blood, and bones were inherently defective and evil. Men who accepted these pagan Greek presuppositions argued that Jesus could not have developed inside of Mary or have had a real human body. Therefore, Jesus only appeared or seemed to have a body; thus, the name ‘Docetism’ comes from the Greek verb dokeo—‘ to seem or appear.’ The rejection of the true humanity of our Lord was a serious problem in the early church and was advocated by other heretics such as the Gnostics (John the apostle dealt with an early form of Gnosticism in 1 John) and the Marcionites.

In order to combat such thinking, Chalcedon affirmed that “Christ was ‘perfect in manhood,’ ‘truly man’ with a rational soul and body consubstantial with us according to the manhood. Further, Mary was a God-bearer.” Jesus derived his human nature directly from her and was truly of the seed of Abraham and David.

Chalcedon condemns all varieties of kenoticism. This theory [which became quite popular in the nineteenth century] asserts that when God the Son became man he voluntarily laid aside all or some of the divine attributes. This view is based on an erroneous interpretation of Philippians 2:7, which in some translations says that our Lord ‘emptied Himself.’ The Chalcedon creed refutes kenoticism by saying that “the distinction of nature being [is] by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.” The union does not alter the divine nature in any way. Further [as noted above], the idea that God could somehow cease to be God is unbiblical and absurd.

The Chalcedon creed refutes the Lutheran doctrine of the communication of attributes between the divine and human natures. Luther and some early Lutherans occasionally spoke of a communication in both directions — In the subsequent development of the doctrine, however, the communication from human nature to the divine nature soon receded from sight, and only from the divine to the human nature was stressed. Chalcedon says that the two natures are united “without mixture, without change.” The hypostatic union preserves the property of each nature. If, as Lutheran theologians assert, the divine attributes are communicated to Jesus’ human nature, then the Messiah ceases to be truly human. Further, the gospel accounts make it perfectly clear our Lord’s human nature was truly human in every conceivable manner [e.g., intellectual growth, limitations of knowledge, physical weakness, etc.]. The Lutheran view probably came into being to explain their bizarre understanding of the Lord’s supper [i.e. consubstantiation: Jesus’ real flesh and blood is in, with, and through the elements of the bread and wine all over the world at the same time]. Lutheran theology virtually destroys the incarnation.

Chalcedon condemns all forms of adoption. Adoptionists hold to the view that the Messiah was born a regular man. Then, at some time during His life [most Adoptionists choose Jesus’ baptism, while some prefer the resurrection] God adopts our Lord’s body. In other words, Christ exists independently for a lengthy period of time before God enters His body.

The Chalcedon creed rejects this heresy when it refers to Mary as the “God-bearer” [theotokos]. The orthodox view is that there never was a time when the human nature of the Savior existed independently of the divine nature. From the very moment of conception, Jesus was both God and man in one person. The orthodox teaching is clearly supported by the conception and birth narratives in the gospels, the meeting between the pregnant women, Elizabeth and Mary, the virgin birth as well as the worship that the baby Jesus received by men and holy angels.

Posted in Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, Vijay Chandra Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment