Romans 15:7 (with comments) Part 3

Romans 15:7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.

CROSS REFERENCES FOR FULL-TEXT STUDY, PART 3:

receive. Mk 6:11. *9:37-41. Lk *9:5, 48. 10:8, 10, 38, 39. 15:2. Jn 13:20, 34. Ac *9:26-28, 43. *11:25, 26. *16:15. 17:7. 2 C +*6:9. 7:2, 15. Ga 6:1. Ph 2:29. Col 4:10. 1 T 5:17. Phm 12, 17. He 13:1, 2. 1 P 2:17. 3:8. +*4:8-10. 1 J 3:14. 2 J %10. 3 J %8-10.

CROSS REFERENCE TEXTS

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

This text in Mark 6:11 surely emphasizes the importance our Lord Jesus Christ placed upon “receiving one another.” Failure to receive a fellow believer who could well be or become an instrument in God’s hand to bring needed instruction or encouragement hinders the proclamation of the Gospel. Hindering the true Gospel by failing to receive its message bearers brings the possibility of severe repercussions, for Jesus said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than it will be for those who failed to receive God’s messenger.

The fact that Scripture states here that the judgment of Sodom and Gommorah would be “more tolerable” should, as a point of Bible doctrine, alert us to this very clear teaching that there are degrees of punishment in hell.

I have already proven from Matthew 25:46, the last prior citation of Scripture at the end of Part 2 of the cross references for Romans 15:7, that eternal punishment will last just as long as eternal life will. Since eternal life never ends, neither does eternal destruction or eternal punishment, anymore than God will ever end, for His eternal duration is described by the very same Greek word. “Eternal” in this connection does not describe finality of result, but unending duration of the punishment, punishment which includes torment (Luke 16:24. See also Isaiah 33:14 and Matthew 8:29 in this regard).

Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

The disciples had been arguing amongst themselves who should be the greatest. Mark in his Gospel gives a much abbreviated account of what is reported more fully in Matthew and Luke of similar discussions and questions that arose among the disciples.

For example:

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

In this passage Jesus plainly commands that there should be no hierarchy established in His organization or his church. Such a device was the province of the Gentile rulers, but among the followers of Christ, Jesus commanded “It shall not be so among you.”

Most denominations seem to have ignored this passage. Most local churches have ignored it too. Some denominations pride themselves that they are in strict obedience to this command of Christ, yet in some cases such denominations have a more tightly closed fellowship than most other churches which do have a hierarchy!

Often the fruit of disobeying this command of Christ is the failure to “receive one another,” as commanded by Christ, and further commanded by Paul.

That Jesus considers this to be a most serious matter is confirmed by what He said in Mark 9:42,

Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

It is further confirmed by what Jesus said next:

Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Since the “fire is not quenched,” the fire continues in the eternal age which follows this present age, and continues forever.

Some argue that “unquenchable fire” is mentioned in the Old Testament where it simply means the fire could not be put out until the fire accomplished its object, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Surely the fire in Jerusalem was unquenchable, for the Jews could not put it out, and it accomplished God’s purpose of punishment. But that fire did end, it did not last forever. But those who would argue from such an example that the unquenchable fire Jesus threatens will likewise have an end once its mission is accomplished have forgotten the lesson about “eternal” that I presented from Scripture. Sometimes “eternal” is used in a finite sense with reference to things that pertain only to this world or this age. But when “eternal” is used with reference to what takes place in “the age to come” it has an infinite sense as to its duration. So with the word “unquenchable.” In this age, it is limited in duration; in the next age, the eternal age which follows this one, “unquenchable” has an infinite sense, and is unlimited in duration.

Again, this proves that Jesus taught that eternal punishment in hell never ends, but continues undiminished in intensity of torment forever. That is why Jesus said more about hell than anyone else in the New Testament. He warned us all to avoid it at all cost.

But notice Jesus spoke of this subject in the context of “receiving one another.” Jesus said whoever received Him received Him that sent Him, that is, God. Jesus also said that whoever failed to receive those He sent failed to receive Him.

Now the practical spiritual question to face is this: Have you truly received Christ?

Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

Luk 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

We must be very careful about just who we respond to with the action of shaking “off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.” I had the unfortunate experience of having a local Jehovah Witness leader do just that to me. He had just told me that he looked up the cross references I had shared with him for Isaiah 55:3. He said he realized I was correct, and that he and his organization must be wrong. He told me he could not leave the organization because of his family, and because of his business ties to the congregation who formed a good part of his customer base. He said he was glad he did not have to fear eternal punishment, for he would “die just like a dog.” Unfortunately for him and everyone else who believes that mistaken doctrine of annihilation, God in His written Word the Bible does not offer that option!

Luke 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

Luk 10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Luk 10:38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
Luk 10:39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.

Martha and Mary clearly received Jesus into their home. Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His word. That is an example of what we ought to do: receive one another as He commanded, and hear His Word.

Luk 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

Jesus received others, even those who were not received by “polite society.” Sinners were attracted to Christ, not repulsed by Christ. Yet we know from the record we have of what Jesus taught that he did not tone down his message to make it acceptable to them or anyone else.

I wonder if making doctrine acceptable is not one of the root causes behind the rationalistic approach to Bible doctrine practiced by some religious denominations who change the doctrine to fit their sensibilities, just like those who believe and teach the doctrine of annihilation do. The error behind this approach which rejects the doctrine of eternal punishment is the failure to understand the character of God taught in the Bible. Abraham understood this full well when he said (Genesis 18:25), “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Some would rather take it upon themselves to judge God and tell Him what is right, rather than receive the full truth of what is taught in the Bible.

If you must modify the Gospel Jesus preached and taught to fit your own preferences and mistaken notions about the character and attributes of God, you are not teaching the true Gospel, but a false Gospel which is not the Gospel at all but what Paul calls “another Gospel” (Galatians 1:8, 9), which places you under a severe Divine curse.

God’s Word says:

Psa 9:10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

It also says:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Eternal life is dependent upon knowing BOTH God and Jesus Christ. Only those who truly know God and Jesus Christ can be saved. The Psalmist stated that those who know God’s name will put their trust in God. The opposite is also true: those who do not know God’s name cannot put their trust in Him. Knowing God’s name means understanding and believing in His attributes–all of them, not just the ones we prefer. Instead, they will depend upon adherence to a creed, to keeping the commandments, to observing the Sabbath, to doing good works, but they will not in simple faith trust the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ,

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

It is pointedly a matter of obeying the command of Christ to “love one another, as I have loved you,” when we keep the command to “receive one another.”

Failure to receive one another is a failure to love one another as Christ commanded us to do.

The pastor who told me, “Jerry, you talk too much about the Bible and too much about the Lord” the first time he came to my home clearly failed to receive me. Nearly five years later after he and his church board rejected my membership application (I had been invited by them to attend and complete the membership class), he suggested that I “find a church that believes like you do and go there.” Now that is hardly receiving one another in the manner Jesus commanded. I shudder to think of the blood that is on the hands of those who made such a decision to reject me and my family. In other churches I’ve attended prior to that one I was well received. I was provided ministry opportunity like teaching Sunday school, which resulted in many young people coming to Christ, who for the most part are these many years later still committed to following Him according to His Word, the Bible. But in this community, where I was rejected, three young people just last week received life prison sentences for murder, an altogether senseless murder that took place in a house I pass everytime I go to town. Could the lives of those teenagers who planned and committed the terrible murder of one teen’s father and attempted murder of the mother (who was stabbed 20 times) have been changed by the Gospel? I certainly believe that is the case. There are some churches that have apparently failed to communicate the Gospel to the sinners in the community.

The pastor and church board that rejected my membership should have had me meet with them to explain myself, and demonstrate that my doctrine is strictly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Their church creed stated Christ would rule for 1000 years during the Millennium. I stated in my comments that while that is true, the Bible clearly teaches that Christ will reign forever on this earth (Luke 1:32, 33). The church statement of faith stipulated immersion as the mode of Christian baptism. I stated immersion is an acceptable mode, but the Bible speaks of sprinkling or pouring in connection with baptism as well (Hebrews 10:22). My membership was rejected over such very minor matters of doctrine.

I trust that pastors who may happen upon this commentary will take it to heart, and exercise their responsibility to thoroughly teach the truths related to Romans 15:7 as reflected in the associated cross references I have furnished. Teach these truths to your congregation. Teach these truths to your leadership. Failure to do so may well thwart the ministry of the Gospel to others in your midst and beyond your own congregation.

But the best in this series is yet to come, for I have not yet exhausted the presentation of these cross references for Romans 15:7, so “stay tuned” for the next installment!

This entry was posted in Verse-by-Verse Studies and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Romans 15:7 (with comments) Part 3

  1. A. Way says:

    You know Jerry – that I agree – that law can not save, we are only saved by grace ( and recall the definition, Titus 3:5-7 Isaiah 53:11, and that through faith.

    But I’ll give you an example, do you recall the TV “personality” (I’m not using the word evangelist) Swaggert? He was caught with a prostitute, not just once. He claimed that he was saved by grace and that his visiting a prostitute did not change anything. Matthew 7:16 AKJV You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    The law, and by this I mean the 10C is a diagnostic instrument. Romans 7:7 AKJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet.

    One does not keep the law in order to be saved, or get God to think you a good person. One should keep the law because it is the right thing to do. Romans 6:14-16 KJV For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

    When we continue to sin, we are slaves to sin. Romans 5:20-21 KJV Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Again, the law is a diagnostic instrument which identifies sin. But where sin abounds, grace (see above definition) abounds more! Romans 7:24-25 KJV O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

    We are to serve the law of God, not the law of sin. We are saved by grace through faith. It is Christ that does the saving, not our works. But should be continue to sin? Quoting Paul, GOD FORBID!

  2. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I think we agree that salvation is by faith, not works, not even works of the law.

    We agree that we should not sin. This is a major matter, for it may be that there are some who do not think that obedience to Christ is a central part of the gospel. That it is a central issue should be clear from John 3:36, where it literally says that “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Notice that belief must be continuous, not a single action in the past; note also that those who are believing now have everlasting life; those who are not continuing to obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God continues to remain upon them.

    We agree that one of the NT definitions of sin is that sin is the transgression of the law.

    We agree that no one was ever saved by keeping the law, and that no one except Christ has ever kept it perfectly.

    We agree that those who claim to be saved but who practice the forbidden sins listed at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are not likely to be truly saved. The evangelist you mentioned probably fits this category, though only God knows the heart, and Paul admonished us all to judge nothing before the time.

    I notice you cited the passage that states we are not under law, but under grace.

    We may be more in agreement than might first be supposed. But our emphasis appears to be different. I have stressed that God works in us to do his will by means of the Holy Spirit who has brought regenerative change to each person who has truly placed their faith in Christ, and who continues to believe in Christ and hear His word and follow Him. Being “in Christ,” the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the spirit, against which there is no law, thus fulfilling the requirements of the Law of Christ.

    It is written that the Law came by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. That surely indicates a major shift in emphasis under Christ, for if we are under Christ, we are not under the Law of Moses. If we place ourselves under the law, we have placed ourselves in bondage, and Christ is become of no effect to us, for we have fallen from grace (see Galatians 5:4), a pointedly very serious matter which may well mean loss of salvation. Paul thought it serious enough that he considered that his work would be in vain if those he had ministered to and brought to faith turned in this direction.

  3. A. Way says:

    John 3:36 ESV Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

    There is that word – OBEY.

    Romans 6:15 AKJV What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    Oops – there it is again – we should not go on sinning, and sinning is transgression of the law.

    You quoted Galatians 5:4. Recall what Paul was saying in Galatians. There were those that were saying that salvation was by Jesus plus… Plus circumcision. Some were even spying on Paul and Titus who was a Greek. Galatians 2:3-4. There are two laws, the ceremonial laws which were a type, fulfilled in Christ, and the moral law of 10 commandments.

    Where we differ is what is the Law of God that defines sin. I say the 10C. You say the 9C. Since we are speaking about Galatians, you might quote Galatians 4:10 ESV You observe days and months and seasons and years! I will say concerning this verse, days, and months. Paul here refers to the seven ceremonial sabbaths and the new moons of the ceremonial system (Leviticus 23; Numbers 10:10; Numbers 28:11-15). There is no basis in Scripture for assuming, that the “days” of which Paul here speaks refer to the seventh-day Sabbath. Nowhere in the Bible is the seventh day referred to in the language here used. Furthermore, the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted at creation, I know you deny this, ( Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11), before the entrance of sin and some 2,500 years before the inauguration of the ceremonial system at Mt. Sinai. Exodus 16 proves that it pre-dated Sinai. If observance of the seventh-day Sabbath subjects a man to bondage, it must be that the Creator Himself entered into bondage when He observed the world’s first Sabbath! And that conclusion is unthinkable. Times. Literally, “appointed seasons,” here, the annual set festivals of the Jewish religious calendar ( Numbers 28:2). Years. The sabbatical year and the year of jubilee (Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 25:8-12).

    If I keep the seventh-day Sabbath, you say I’m trying to achieve salvation by works. I think I have already proven that one is not saved by works. If I keep the Sabbath, I do it because Jesus commanded it. It was Jesus that gave the 10C at Sinai, written on tablets of stone and placed into the Ark of the Covenant. The placement of the tablets INSIDE the Ark is a type of the New Covenant were the law is written on the heart, Jeremiah 31:33 AKJV But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    Do note Jerry, that the new covenant is with “the house of Israel”. If you throw out Revelation as being only for the Jews as some futurists do, you will miss Revelation 11:19 ESV Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, The 10C are God’s law, and they point out sin. They do not have power to save, only condemn. Being “under the law” means to be under condemnation of the law. By grace (Titus 3:5-7; Isaiah 53:11), God can heal us, set of free of sin, and restore the image of God back into us. That is salvation.

    The whole heart must be yielded to God, or the change can never be wrought in us by which we are to be restored to His likeness. By nature we are alienated from God. The Holy Spirit describes our condition in such words as these: “Dead in trespasses and sins;” “the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;” “no soundness in it.” We are held fast in the snare of Satan, “taken captive by him at his will.” Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26. God desires to heal us, to set us free. But since this requires an entire transformation, a renewing of our whole nature, we must yield ourselves wholly to Him. This can only be done by the Grace of Jesus.

  4. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I have before in our discussions cited Galatians 4:9, 10 and proven by an exhaustive study, presenting each associated Bible reference in full text, that the expression Paul uses, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and seasons,” has reference to ALL Jewish celebrations involving a stipulated time of regular observance, and that the expression includes the weekly Seventh Day Sabbath.

    The expression or its equivalent in reverse order is used throughout the Old Testament. Recalling off the top of my head, the order of expression as Paul gives it is the same order as is found in the book of Ezekiel.

    I agree with your repeated complaint that the cross references as now given in study Bibles, the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and my two expansions of that resource are at times not complete enough. But checking just now for Galatians 4:10, it appears that I greatly expanded what was in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, so the references given in both The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at Galatians 4:10 are quite complete.

    By the way, should it happen to be that you are familiar with the use of cross references, you will agree with me that they serve a totally different function than a concordance. Therefore, though Bible software gives wonderful help in tracking the use of an original language word by its Strong number, such references found that way are of much narrower scope than what is furnished by cross references. Cross references track the same idea, theme, doctrine, prophecy, figure of speech, for example, even when expressed in different words.

    I have now completed the basic work of expanding the cross references for the book of Ezekiel, and am now working on Daniel, chapter 4.

  5. A. Way says:

    Quote:”I have before in our discussions cited Galatians 4:9, 10 and proven by an exhaustive study, presenting each associated Bible reference in full text, that the expression Paul uses, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and seasons,” has reference to ALL Jewish celebrations involving a stipulated time of regular observance, and that the expression includes the weekly Seventh Day Sabbath.”

    No – it does not. The Seventh-day Sabbath was given for MAN, not just the Jews. Jesus said so. Mark 2:27 AKJV And he said to them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: It does not say, the Sabbath was made for the Jews. You do not separate the ceremonial law with the moral law of 10 commandments. I do. You can be as vocal as you’d like, but it does not change how I read the Bible. You still have not demonstrated to me any knowledge of the ceremonial law, and its purpose. Even you with your extensive reading of the Bible, for how many years? believed that the Sabbath was made at creation. You now reject that idea, but without real good reasoning. The Bible clearly predates Sinai. Nehemiah 9:14 talks about God instructing the people about His Holy Sabbath. The ceremonial sabbaths are not talked about as being God’s sabbath. One example, Leviticus 26:43, it talks about the land’s sabbath. This is not God sabbath, but the land’s sabbath. Another, Hosea 2:9-11 AKJV Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.(10) And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of my hand.(11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

    “Her sabbaths” is not referring to God’s sabbath day. It is referring to the ceremonial sabbaths, which are a shadow of the plan of redemption.

    Our differences are the 10C. You claim there are only 9C. I claim there are 10C. THAT is the difference as I see it. You claim that the Sabbath is a burden, putting us under bondage. But this is CONTRARY to Scripture! Isaiah 58:13 AKJV If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words:

    Do you see the key words? MY HOLY DAY. Whose? GOD! CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT? Are these words of BONDAGE????? NO! IF you call the Sabbath a bondage, then God is under bondage because the Sabbath was made at creation, Genesis 2:1-3. God blessed the seventh-day, and sanctified it. The commandments say REMEMBER. Exodus 20:8 AKJV Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    Does keeping the Sabbath save you? NO! I have not murdered anybody all day. Does that save me? NO. But the 10C point to moral behavior that one will do if they love the Lord, with all their heart, mind and strength, and their neighbor as themselves. All the other ceremonial laws, were fulfilled at the cross. Circumcision is no longer required. The sabbath DAYS, are no longer required (Colossians 2:16). These were shadows. The passover sabbath was a shadow of the cross. The feast of trumpets is a shadow of the message of warning to the world, which by the way, fits the historicist view quite nicely. The feast of tabernacles is a shadow of the 2nd coming. All 7 ceremonial sabbaths were a shadow depicting the plan of salvation. The seventh-day sabbath is not part of the ceremonial sabbaths. It was made at creation for all humanity. The ceremonial sabbaths pointed forward, to the coming Messiah and salvation. The seventh-day sabbath pointed backward, to known reality, creation.

    As I have pointed out before, the word for the seventh-day in over 100 languages is “SABBATH”. This is more that just Jewish. Just because the whole world now wonders after the beast, most unknowingly, does not change the facts. Spanish – Sabado. German – Samstag. Afghan – Shamba. Russian – Subbota. Ancient Syriac – Shab-ba-tho. Hindustani – Shamba.

    The Sabbath was made for man. It is a day of joy, in fellowship with the Lord. It is not a day of bondage.

    I had one man tell me that he children could not keep the seventh-day sabbath because they needed to work to make money, and the weekend was a busy time for their business. This is telling me that they are not trusting in God to provide. I keep the sabbath by faith in the one who created the sabbath, which is a memorial to His total creation. Keeping Sabbath is an act of faith. And the way I see things changing, this will be even more important in the near future as laws are coming and have come to my relatives in Europe forcing the observance of Sunday as the rest day. Both secular and religious groups are pushing this. Forehead – religious, hand – work/secular: Revelation 13:16; Revelation 14:9; Revelation 20:4.

    Watch…

  6. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    I have before proven directly from Scripture that the Sabbath was first given to the Jews upon their exodus from Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:1-3; Nehemiah 9:13, 14). This is what the Bible directly states in the passages just cited. The Sabbath is not mentioned even once in the book of Genesis for the Hebrew word for Sabbath does not occur anywhere in the text of Genesis. That is why I changed my mind from my former view regarding Genesis 2:3, a change based upon my now more thorough consideration of the evidence, thanks to your motivation which lately impelled my further study of the question.

    You responded that the word for Sabbath is omitted from many other OT books, so the omission is not significant. I responded that books subsequent to the account of the Exodus from Egypt need not mention the Sabbath, directly or indirectly, for that is not at issue in the discussion or argument. What is necessary to show but cannot be shown is that the Sabbath was both given and practiced by the faithful Patriarchs in obedience to a specific command given to them by God before the time of Moses. For this, there is a total absence of evidence.

    And speaking of total absence of evidence, your position fails of any Scriptural support because there is not one instance in either the four Gospels or in any of the Epistles of any repetition of the command to observe the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, not one. All Nine of the other Ten Commandments are repeated as commandments, as I previously demonstrated by direct reference to the explicit Scriptures that form the proof for each.

    You have in the past responded that this is an argument from silence, so is fallacious. I responded that the silence is on purpose, and Scripture directly says so, when the Apostles specifically stated and wrote to all the churches saying “to whom we gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:24),

    Act_15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

    I enumerated 23 Rules of Interpretation (see the October 2010 Archives here) essential to follow if anyone is to arrive at the truth of what the Bible says. I have applied them upon occasion to point out the nature of interpretative errors you have made as you have misinterpreted Scripture. Your response was to scoff at the rules, saying they are my rules. Indeed they are my rules; I did not copy and paste them from someone else’s writing. I devised them in the process of teaching my students how to arrive at the best possible, if not most correct, interpretation of a poem. I also developed some of the rules from my own study of the Bible near the beginning of my Christian life back in 1954. The fact that they are my rules does not invalidate them.

    Your emphasis upon the Sabbath is NOT the emphasis of the teaching of the New Testament, and therefore Sabbath emphasis forms no part of the true Gospel of Christ, but is clearly “another Gospel,” the very serious error Paul warns us against in the first chapter of Galatians:

    Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
    Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
    Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

    I stated and proved (by reference to my prior exhaustive presentation of all the relevant Scripture texts, many of which are given as cross references in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge at Galatians 4:10) that the expression used in Galatians 4:10 and its parallel in Colossians 2:13-17 has reference to ALL stated periodic obligatory observances of the Jews, including the Seventh Day Sabbath. My statement is irrefutable, for the evidence is plain to anyone with the ability to read. The enumeration in Leviticus 23 and the enumeration in Numbers 28 and 29 clearly includes the Seventh Day Sabbath, and so must be included in the expression “Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

    Cross References for Galatians 4:10,

    observe days. Le ch. 23. 25:1, 13. Nu ch. 28, 29. Zc 7:5, 6. Ro 14:5. Col **2:16, 17. months. Nu 10:10. 28:11. 1 S 20:5. 1 Ch 23:31. 2 Ch 2:4. Ezr 3:5. Ne 10:33. Ps 81:3. Is 1:13, 14. Ezk 45:17. 46:6. Ho 2:11. Col **2:16. seasons. 2 Ch 8:13. years. Le 25:2-5, 8-17.

    Your emphasis is not the emphasis of the Bible. Therefore, your position must be mistaken. I pray that the Lord will grant you grace to see the error of your position.

    Rule 21:

    A correct system of doctrine or a correct interpretation of the Bible must share the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible.

    How does one determine the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible? By avoiding denominational or cult literature about the Bible, and reading a plain text Bible at length alone on the metaphorical Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island. Concentrate on the New Testament first. Use the cross references provided in the center column reference system found in a Cambridge Bible, or an Oxford Bible, starting, in this instance, with the cross references given at Acts 2:24 in the Oxford Bible: Acts 2:32. 3:15, 26. 4:10, 33. 5:30. 10:40. 13:30, 33, 34. 17:31. Romans 4:24. 1 Corinthians 6:14. 2 Corinthians 4:14. Galatians 1:1. Ephesians 1:20. Colossians 2:12. 1 Thessalonians 1:10. 2 Timothy 2:8. Hebrews 13:20. 1 Peter 1:21.

    You have heard the expression, no doubt many times, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” I’ve used it many times in my classroom to remind students that I can offer them suggestions about what is important to read in the field of literature, but if they don’t follow through and read for themselves, my good suggestions will do them little good. I have pointed out in this post specific places to make a start in discovering the true balance and emphasis of the Bible. May God bless your study of the Scriptures I have painstakingly enumerated here.

  7. A. Way says:

    You forget that the book of Genesis and Exodus were written by Moses. As such, Genesis is looking back. So that just because the actual word is missing is not proof of anything. The fact remains, that the seventh-day was blessed (H1288) and sanctified (H6942).

    Genesis 2:2-3 KJV And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

    The work translated “rested” is H7673, Shabath.

    H1288
    bârak
    baw-rak’
    A primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason): – X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still, thank.

    H6942
    קדשׁ
    qâdash
    kaw-dash’
    A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): – appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly.

    I’ve read all the verses. You have only “proven” it in your own mind. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.

    Your argument that there is no command to keep the Sabbath is an argument from the negative. It is known that the Jews were strict in keeping all laws, so they indeed kept the Sabbath. Jesus however was accused of being a Sabbath breaker. Was he? According to the Jews, yes! According to God, no. Jesus showed true Sabbath keeping. See John 5. Was the man carrying his bed breaking the Sabbath? No. The Jews seemed to be concerned, not that the man was healed on the Sabbath, but that he was carrying a burden, his bed, on that day. Jewish traditional law provided strict regulations in regard to the carrying of burdens on the Sabbath. Thus the Mishnah lists 39 types of work that cannot be performed on Sabbath, the last one of which is “carrying out from one domain to another”. These are commandments of men, not God.

    You continue to lack of understand the who of the ceremonial law, which was a shadow of the plan of redemption. The Sabbath was a central theme in the crucifixion. Jesus rested in the tomb on the Sabbath. Christians as a whole marginalize this fact. We have “good Friday”, and “resurrection Sunday”. No mention of the Sabbath!!! When Jesus completed his work of creation, he rested, Genesis 2:2-3. When Jesus completed the His work at the crucifixion, He rested.

    You also marginalize all the other references to the Sabbath in the NT. The disciples kept the Sabbath, and never any other day. Proven! The sanctuary in Heaven is seen in Revelation which contained the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark had inside it the tablets of the 10 (not 9) commandments. The Sabbath is not marginalized in the NT. You say the explicit command to keep the Sabbath is not repeated. But the law of 10 commandments is there. Romans 13:8-9 KJV Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Do you think that Paul in writing Romans 13:8-9 was thinking, the 10 commandments are now only 9? NO. To Paul, the law, the 10 commandments, pointed out sin!!! Romans 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. He could just as easily said that we are to remember the Sabbath. But then everyone was keeping the Sabbath, so why repeat it? What they needed to know was what Sabbath keeping entailed, and it is not the 39 laws of the Misnah. The Jews made the Sabbath a burden. True Sabbath keeping is NOT a burden. Isaiah 58:13 AKJV If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words:

    You are correct – you can make a horse drink. Your “true balance” is leaving out so much. You say, concentrate on the NT first. You need to understand the OT to understand the NT. Understand, that it was the OT that Jesus and his disciples had. Do you understand the OT? Do you understand the types of the OT?

  8. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    It is just possible that I may have studied the types of the OT at greater length and more thoroughly than you may think. If you have ever made use of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, you will take careful note of the fact that I employed two different symbols to mark the types in the OT. One symbol marks what appears to be a type. The other symbol marks what is directly declared in the NT to be a type.

    Types, except those directly identified as such by the NT, are highly subjective. For that reason I have not majored any further on such study yet. My elderly friend Uncle Frank had studied them thoroughly for a long lifetime. He pointed out to me the books to secure that discussed the types in detail. I’ve told you before that I much appreciate Uncle Frank’s advice. Fortunately, I heeded his advice and obtained the books he recommended. I sat under his teaching of the subject for a decade. When Uncle Frank passed away in 1985 I inherited a good portion of his library. So I have the material here.

    Since types are very subjective, they, like parables, are not the best means of founding our understanding of Bible doctrine. It is sometimes said that we must not found a doctrine on a type.

    I recommend starting with the NT first because it is a shorter, usually easier to understand, set of inspired writings. Not only is it shorter, but the individual books are shorter. Certainly Biblical Christianity is fundamentally founded upon the divine revelation and record found in the New Testament. So for these reasons, it is best to start there.

    You state:

    Do you think that Paul in writing Romans 13:8-9 was thinking, the 10 commandments are now only 9? NO. To Paul, the law, the 10 commandments, pointed out sin!!!

    If this is so, then why did Paul never cite the Fourth Commandment in any of his writings as a specific command to be obeyed by Gentile Christians (or, actually, anybody else)?

    Why, in all 1050 or so commandments mentioned or given in the NT record is the Fourth Commandment never named among them? No one is ever faulted or even cautioned in the NT regarding being a Sabbath-breaker.

    I believe it is clear in the NT that the Fourth Commandment forms no part of the New Covenant provisions or requirements set forth in the NT.

    The position you take is not in harmony with the balance and emphasis given in the NT.

    And when it comes to the central matter of salvation, John in his Gospel of John declares that he wrote his Gospel so that, upon reading and believing it, we might be saved. Therefore, as helpful as a knowledge of the OT might be for further understanding the NT beyond the salvation basics, Scripture itself declares that understanding the Gospel of John alone is sufficient to believe on Christ and be saved.

    Why isn’t this, the true message of the Gospel, your central emphasis?

  9. A. Way says:

    quote:”If this is so, then why did Paul never cite the Fourth Commandment in any of his writings as a specific command to be obeyed by Gentile Christians (or, actually, anybody else)?”

    Because they all kept it. It was NOT a question. The law, the 10C, points out sin.

  10. A. Way says:

    Quote:”Since types are very subjective, they, like parables, are not the best means of founding our understanding of Bible doctrine. It is sometimes said that we must not found a doctrine on a type.”

    Oh, this is a good one!!! LOL Parables are not the best means of teaching Bible doctrine? Are you serious? Mark 4:33-34 KJV And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable spake he not unto them:

    Are you really saying that the method that Jesus used to teach the multitude was not the best method of teaching?

    Thank you Jerry – you made my day…

  11. A. Way says:

    Quote:”Why isn’t this, the true message of the Gospel, your central emphasis?”

    Jesus is the true message. He is central to my emphasis. When I remember the Sabbath, its whole focus is on the Creator, Jesus Christ.

    There is no sanctity in any other day. Those that keep Sunday, keep a spurious Sabbath. There is NO command to keep Sunday.

    I continue to wonder why in Revelation 1:10, you have thought that to be Sunday. Oh yeah, you now say that is really some day in the future. Why are you so anti-Sabbath? The Bible is not anti-Sabbath. You say the Bible “absolutely forbids” keeping the Sabbath. Paul says, Romans 14:5 KJV One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

    Good advice, don’t you think?

  12. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Paul gave good advice, indeed. Now that it is captured forever as part of the written word of God in the Bible it is inspired Scripture.

    So, then, how is it you fail to heed his advice, but continue relentlessly to do the opposite by making the Sabbath question your central issue?

    Paul warned in Galatians 4:9-11 not to go in that direction lest, Paul said, his labor be in vain. Paul’s warning in that text centered on the issue of reverting to Jewish observance of stated obligatory days, months, times, and years. Thus Paul’s divine prohibition encompasses ALL such Jewish observances, and most definitely includes the Sabbath, as a plain reading and consultation of the cross references for Galatians 4:10 will satisfactorily prove to anyone who will read Scripture without Adventist blinders on.

    The logical conclusion to be derived from Paul’s prohibition in Galatians 4:9-11 is that Sabbath observance when practiced as a matter of obedience to the Law of the Fourth Commandment is forbidden, because it is a lapse from the liberty from the law Christ provided by his death on the Cross and bodily resurrection from the dead on the third day, acts which considered in their totality completely fulfilled the Old Testament types and shadows which pointed to His ultimate work for us in grace. The weekly Sabbath was not moral law, but ceremonial law, given as a type and declared as such in the New Testament. Now that the reality has come, the shadow is done away. We are no longer obligated to keep any particular day as a day for corporate worship, especially the Sabbath.

    The same conclusion is to be drawn from the Colossians 2:13-17 passage, with an emphasis on verse 16.

    Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

    The expression “sabbath days” is a standard way of making reference to the Jewish Seventh Day Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment.

    Speaking directly to this issue regarding the scruples of weaker brethren, Paul commands:

    Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

    I am fully persuaded in my own mind that your position on each of several main points is absolutely wrong. I not only do not read the Bible that way, no one else does either unless they have been taught such false doctrine by those who are eager to promote it.

    Jesus was a Futurist. So were the Apostles. So was Daniel. To believe preterism (as so many otherwise respectable but on this point not sufficiently informed scholars do), to believe historicism (as so many fine students of Scripture, including perhaps some of the Reformers), is fundamentally in conflict with what Jesus himself taught, and what the rest of the New Testament teaches.

    To believe that the Seventieth Week of Daniel is past history is nonsense. To argue that there is no unannounced time gap in prophecy between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27 is ludicrous nonsense. Futurism, which I define as Premillennialism, is the undisputed teaching of all Christian writers from the New Testament onward for the first three centuries of Christian history. Your view is a “Johnny come lately,” and is not the view of the New Testament.

    Annihilationism is false doctrine and is by no means the teaching of the Bible. It is the teaching of false cults down through history from the Sadducees which Jesus pointedly condemned and refuted to Adventist, Unitarian, and Arian heresy yet with us today. It is the teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is the teaching of the Adventists. It is the teaching of contemporary Seventh-day Adventists, all of whom are woefully mistaken in their materialist theology.

    You are on these points not on the side of genuine Bible believing Christianity. You are not at all on the side of anyone who has taken a plain text Bible in hand on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island and read the Bible for itself to learn directly from its text what the true balance and emphasis of the Bible is.

    Apparently you have not as yet engaged in Real Bible Study. But I still have hopes that you will. Years ago one of the students in my Comparative Religions Club at Cass Technical High School invited me to his faith community. The group turned out to be the original Jehovah’s Witnesses, not the group that goes by that name now, which broke off from this original group in 1918 or so. Known today as “Christian Bible Students,” they followed the teachings and published the writings of their founding teacher, Pastor Charles Taze Russell. Russell made the statement, I think in volume 1 of his Studies in Scripture, that to remain faithful to his teaching one must continue to study his writing. He said that for anyone to stop studying his writing and turn to studying the Bible alone would, within two years, bring them back into darkness. Well, the fact is, that continued study of his writings, if one were to believe them, would certainly place one or keep one in darkness, not light. And what Russell felt was “darkness” was the very opposite: the light of truth from Scripture alone.

    Mat_6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

    Russell’s statement is one of the clearest I’ve read that points to how to get out of false religion or false or mistaken religious groups: stop reading or listening to their material for at least two full years, and instead make a careful study of the Bible itself in the manner I have advocated here by doing Real Bible Study!

    That is why I urge everyone to go by the light of Scripture alone. That is why I have used the metaphor of going to Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island to study, like he did in the famous work of classic literature, from “three good Bibles,” plain text ones like he had.

    I have suggested a list of unbiased additional resources that are permissible as study helps on Robinson Crusoe’s Island. I have named as denominationally unbiased resources such tools as Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, a source or sources of cross references such as The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or reference Bibles like the Teacher’s Edition of the American Standard Version published by Nelson or the Oxford Long Primer Reference Bible which have remarkably full cross references. Study Bibles like Nave’s Study Bible and the Thompson Chain Reference Bible are likewise highly recommended. The recent NET Bible with 60,000+ Notes is also allowed because its notes are not doctrinal or denominational but linguistic, so far as I have noticed in my use of it.

    But I have warned repeatedly that everyone who wishes to gain an understanding of the truth of what the Bible says must avoid like the plague all denominational and cult resources. Studying from denominational and cult resources is to study from poisoned wells and is highly dangerous.

    I think it is likely that you have learned the positions you take from the poisoned wells I warn against. My reasons follow.

    You have failed to grasp at all the truth of Romans 4. You have demonstrated no insight whatsoever into the important issue Paul addressed in Galatians 5:1, but promote as truth the very error Paul sought to correct.

    Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    Your stance against Futurism, the position Jesus himself took as is plain by the context in which he mentions Daniel in the Olivet Discourse, placing the significant event of the Seventieth Week into the distant future to be fulfilled immediately prior to his second advent.

    Your belief in the heretical doctrine of materialism, which includes the false doctrine of annihilationism, all refuted by Jesus directly when he trounced the unbelief of the Sadducees.

    Your misplaced emphasis upon the Old Testament Law, including the Ten Commandments, which were given AFTER the exodus from Egypt at Sinai. The OT law was not given to or for the Gentiles, but exclusively to the Jews.

    Your failure to accept all the provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants as applicable to the literal nation of Israel, and thus your consequent mistaken theology which replaces Israel by the Church, as if “Spiritual Israel” now takes the place of literal Israel in those covenants given to the physical descendants of Abraham.

    I prefer not to follow such errors when the plain statements of Scripture clearly teach otherwise.

  13. A. Way says:

    I have liberty if Christ. I think it is you that is bondage, with your concept of hell. Hell is a very dark concept, contrary to the truth about God. 1 John 1:5 ESV This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

    The “unannounced” break in the timeline of the 70 week prophesy, I’m sorry, makes no sense. The position of history bears out the prophesies of Daniel and Revelation perfectly. And yes, there is still future fulfillment. I guess I am a futurist in that sense. The man of sin, the antichrist, the mark of the beast, and so much more can be clearly understood. These ideas were well understood, and rightly so, but most of the reformers. The object of their focus has worked hard and very well in turning the truth away from themselves. You have fallen for the bait. All I can say is, keep watching. The truth will become clear to that that are looking for it.

  14. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Above on this discussion thread you made the most interesting comment:

    You do not separate the ceremonial law with the moral law of 10 commandments. I do. You can be as vocal as you’d like, but it does not change how I read the Bible.

    Since I have been a reading specialist and an English teacher for many years, you might well suppose that part of my job description was to teach my students how to read better. I succeeded in doing so. I even wrote my own self-instructional reading program featured on my other website at http://www.readingsteps.com, where I make available much information directly from my lesson plans and self-created teaching materials for those who wish to explore the site.

    It looks to me like it is you who may have ignored the difference between ceremonial law and moral law. The Sabbath institution and command is ceremonial law, not moral, and as such, having been a Type, the Type now fulfilled by Christ as stated in the New Testament, the Fourth Command is not obligatory for New Testament Christians, who rightly choose, in honor of the resurrection of Christ, to worship on the First Day, but again, not an obligatory day (Romans 14:5, 6).

  15. A. Way says:

    The Pope claims to be God on earth. I reject that claim. You are trying to make me believe you because of your credentials. I know many people who are top in their field, and I rejects many of their beliefs. Why? Because of the facts! We interpret then differently.

    I read the Bible, and you did FOR MANY YEARS by your own account, that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. I still believe that, and I think the record bears this out, see Exodus 5 and 16. You then claimed that it was instituted at Sinai, if you look back at our discussions. Then you back tracked as said that it was instituted when the Children of Abraham left Egypt (Exodus 16). Yet, my reading of the same texts show that it was more revelatory than commandment in Exodus 16. Nehemiah also speaks of it be revelatory, in other words, re-instituting that which was lost. Nehemiah 9:14 ESV and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant. But you are the reading expert. The expert that took how many years to change his mind? The ceremonial law, for which again, I have seen no understanding from you on this, was forward looking. The 4th commandment is backwards looking. “Remember”. Remember who your creator is. The ceremonial law pointed forward to the work of redemption, which was accomplished by Christ. You are very free to not keep the 4th commandment. I do not condemn you. As Paul says, let everyone be persuaded in their own mind. I just hope you have the same charity and stop condemning me. You acknowledge there is no sanctity in Sunday. I agree.

    The other great error you hold is the immortality of the soul. I wonder, have your read Edward Fudge’s book, “The Fire that Consumes”? http://www.edwardfudge.com/written/fire.html Perhaps you should. It is an exhaustive study on the subject.

    You claim that the Sabbath was Jewish only. Yet, you have not answered my observation that in over 100 languages, that the 7th day is called, “Sabbath”. Why do you think that is?

    You claim that the old covenant was for the Jews only. Is not the new covenant for the house of Israel only too?

    Jeremiah 31:31-33 AKJV Behold, the days come, said the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband to them, said the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    There is ample evidence that the Apostles kept the Sabbath. Jesus, our example kept the Sabbath, and is indeed Lord of the Sabbath. He is the one that created it. And the Ark of the Covenant, seen in the Heavenly temple in Revelation is significant in that the 10 commandments, ALL 10, not 9, is see. Revelation 11:19 ESV Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. Also in the Ark was the bowl of Manna. Manna which fell only on 6 days of the week, and not on the Sabbath. A significant type, which like parables, you think hard to understand.

    The Sabbath was made for man. It is an acknowledgment of the faith was have in Christ. We are saved only by Christ, His Grace (Titus 3:5-7; Isaiah 53:11) and that through faith.

  16. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    You most recently commented:

    I have liberty if Christ. I think it is you that is bondage, with your concept of hell. Hell is a very dark concept, contrary to the truth about God. 1 John 1:5 ESV This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

    Yes, you have liberty to believe as you wish. That does not guarantee correctness on either my part or yours.

    It may be that you are in bondage to what you think and believe is the truth. I say “in bondage,” because you so far have not been very open to changing your view on the basis of any of my carefully presented evidence. I think I may be slightly less in bondage to my present understanding of the Bible because I keep studying the Bible, and am at liberty to modify my understanding and belief on the basis of additional Biblical evidence. But perhaps in reality you are equally open to accepting new evidence and changing your mind too when warranted.

    But when two careful students of the Bible read its text and come up with contrary opinions about what it means, how can either reader determine which viewpoint is correct?

    I guess the Roman Catholics think they have the advantage on this point, for they can let the Pope sort it all out.

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses have their teaching authority vested in an Organization in Brooklyn, New York, which issues “meat in due season” which they think contains the only authoritative source of Biblical interpretation.

    I think the way to the correct interpretation is to be found elsewhere than human organizations and teaching authorities. The truth is found within Scripture. Jesus commanded (and in Greek, it is strictly a command, for the verb in the initial position when the indicative and imperative forms are identical is a command) that we are to “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39).

    So, to unravel the correct meaning of the doctrine of hell as taught by Scripture, one must study all the Scripture relevant to the subject.

    In doing this, we find that Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. It is said that he makes direct reference to hell more than to heaven. I do know from studying the subject that Jesus warns against anyone choosing a path that leads to hell.

    Mat_5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
    Mat_5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
    Mat_5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
    Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
    Mat_11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
    Mat_16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
    Mat_18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
    Mat_23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
    Mat_23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
    Mar_9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
    Mar_9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
    Mar_9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
    Luk_10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.
    Luk_12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
    Luk_16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    There are other passages that directly bear upon the subject, even though they don’t use the word “hell.” Just one example that comes immediately to mind is Matthew 8:29.

    Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

    This would surely imply, even actually state, that hell is a place of torment.

    That seems to tie in quite well with this:

    Mat_25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

    I see that interesting word “everlasting” is used in this verse too. “Everlasting,” when used of matters pertaining to the Age to Come, has an infinite sense.

    The word “everlasting” is used twice in the same verse, even grammatically in the same sentence as it were, at the end of the same chapter I just cited from:

    Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    In this verse “everlasting” and “eternal” translate the same Greek word. Thus, the grammar of the sentence requires that the duration asserted of the one (“eternal life”) is the same as the duration of the other (“everlasting punishment”).

    Surely Jesus was not speaking falsehood. Surely Jesus is giving a forthright warning for all to heed. He was not speaking by way of parable here. And surely Jesus knows the character and attributes of the Father perfectly well. The fact of the penalty of future “everlasting punishment” certainly does not contradict the revealed attributes of God as we find them in Scripture.

    In both Old and New Testament it is said that “our God is a consuming fire.”

    Heb_12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

    Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

    A correct view of God must incorporate and accommodate all the divine attributes, not just the ones we think we like.

    This is in accordance with the Rules of Interpretation I’ve furnished in the October 2010 Archives here:

    Rule 6.

    Interpret a particular passage in harmony with ALL other passages which may have a bearing on the subject.

    Rule 7.

    Be sure to include all relevant passages upon a theme before determining the interpretation of any particular passage.

    Rule 10.

    Interpret a passage according to the grammar of the original language text, Hebrew or Greek.

    Rule 17.

    You cannot leave out material which, if included, would require or necessitate a change in the interpretation.

  17. A. Way says:

    quote:”It may be that you are in bondage to what you think and believe is the truth. I say “in bondage,” because you so far have not been very open to changing your view on the basis of any of my carefully presented evidence.” ABSOLUTELY. You find it incredible that the evidence can be read differently. No – I have seen no evidence presented by you that compels me to change my view. NONE. I see your view as contrary to scripture. Particularly in the immortality of the soul.

    Luke 16 is a parable. We have gone over that one. The other quotes, consider this on eternal fire. Jude 1:7 ESV just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? They are an example. Isaiah 33:14-16 ESV The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: “Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?” 15 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, 16 he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; his water will be sure. So, who LIVES in the everlasting burnings? THE RIGHTEOUS. Not the sinner. That sinner is consumed and the result is everlasting.

    Have you read Edward Fudge’s book, “The Fire That Consumes”? I bring up this book because he is an evangelical Christian that when he studied all the scripture on the topic came to the conclusion that I have come to, that the soul is mortal. Of course, the Bible says that only one is immortal, and that is God.

    1 Timothy 6:13-16 ESV I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time–he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

    Who gives life to all? God. Who only has immortality? God If sinners are punished consciously eternally, the it is God that keeps them alive to torture them for eternity. This is contrary to what God said in Genesis, that sinners will die. Satan told the lie, which you have fallen for, that we will never die. Such eternal torture is a dark teaching. 1 John 1:5 AKJV This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

    Revelation 21:1 ESV Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. All sin will be destroyed. All things will be made new.

    Immorality of the soul is the foundation of Spiritualism. Think that one through.

  18. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Your contentions for what you believe is the truth of Scripture are somewhat in error on many major points.

    I see your view as contrary to scripture. Particularly in the immortality of the soul.

    I have not affirmed the immortality of the soul; that is your position. There is no such thing. I affirm the immortality of the spirit, or as I previously expressed it, the immortality of the person.

    It is only the body that dies physically; not the soul or spirit.

    The body upon resurrection or Rapture receives or puts on immortality when we receive our resurrection or glorified body, therefore of course the body does not possess immortality now. But since the soul or spirit do not die, they live forever, and according to Scripture are very much conscious after death.

    Your error is the failure to believe Scripture when it speaks of spiritual death as something different from physical death. That is because both you, and apparently Mr. Fudge, think that physical death was the penalty at the Fall. It wasn’t, it was one of the consequences of the Fall. Both of you are caught up in the heretical doctrine of materialist theology, which as I’ve pointedly explained before, was refuted by Jesus, who said that upon death, “all live unto him.”

    Does the Bible teach the consciousness of the person after the death of the body? Absolutely. I explained this in a main post here about Luke 23:43, a verse which materialists foolishly try to side-step by fooling with the punctuation, an absurdity contrary to the Greek grammar of the sentence involved. And I have much more evidence from Scripture that I have never yet presented here to establish that the Bible teaches that we are conscious after death. Maybe I should make it a major article for a main post.

    Luke 16 is a parable. We have gone over that one. The other quotes, consider this on eternal fire. Jude 1:7 ESV just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?

    Note that Jude, in speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, and surrounding cities, is by a usual figure of speech, speaking of the people in them. So, while the cities were burned up long ago, the people are still suffering conscious punishment, which is the point of Jude’s stating they are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Once again, since the vengeance takes place both now in this age and continues into the Future Age, “eternal” is a reference to the infinite sense of this word. The temporary fire by which they physically perished is not said to be the eternal one which they now suffer. Notice that the suffering is expressed in the present tense, which in Greek signifies it now continues, “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    So, once again, you or your sources appear to be in error. I have not yet reached the book of Jude in my preparation of a new study resource of expanded cross references for every verse in the Bible, so I may take additional opportunity to study this text again when I reach that point, but just now your use of the text appears very arbitrary and mistaken, for it is not in accord with the meaning of the text.

  19. A. Way says:

    Quote:”But since the soul or spirit do not die, they live forever, and according to Scripture are very much conscious after death.”

    No – I do not read that anywhere in the Bible.

    Luke 23:43 – funny – Greek scholars I’ve talked to say that the punctuation can be placed contrary to what you contend. Luke 23:43 He replied, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

    Sodom and Gomorrah – again, your viewpoint. Yes, the punishment is eternal. They will be gone and dead forever. There is no evidence they are currently suffering.

    Why have not addressed the issue of the character of God that will torment sinners consciously for eternity? Is that how you would want to be treated? Is that how you love your neighbor as yourself? Is that what a God who is love would do? Is the Devil right and God wrong? (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8; Micah 6:8; Genesis 2:17)

    The immortality of the soul/spirit, is a false doctrine. A great error. And the basis of spiritualism. Are you a spiritualist? Can we consult with the dead, who you say are not dead? Does the Bible ever support doing this? If not, why not? If so, where?

    Leviticus 20:6-8 NRSV If any turn to mediums and wizards, prostituting themselves to them, I will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people. 7 Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the LORD; I sanctify you.

    Deuteronomy 18:10-12 NRSV 10 No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. 12 For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD; it is because of such abhorrent practices that the LORD your God is driving them out before you.

    Isaiah 65:3-4 GNB They shamelessly keep on making me angry. They offer pagan sacrifices at sacred gardens and burn incense on pagan altars. 4 At night they go to caves and tombs to consult the spirits of the dead. They eat pork and drink broth made from meat offered in pagan sacrifices.

    Isa 8:19 But people will tell you to ask for messages from fortunetellers and mediums, who chirp and mutter. They will say, “After all, people should ask for messages from the spirits and consult the dead on behalf of the living.”
    Isa 8:20 You are to answer them, “Listen to what the LORD is teaching you! Don’t listen to mediums—what they tell you cannot keep trouble away.”

    I fear Jerry, you are on the road to Fatima.

  20. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Did it ever enter into your mind that there is a possibility that you might be wrong?

    Take the issue of spiritualism. You introduced the topic and the term, not me.

    But the fact that the Bible forbids such things, the Bible indicates that there must in some sense be such things in order to forbid them.

    The case of the Witch of Endor comes to mind. Many scholars think that the witch impersonated Samuel, but the text clearly indicates the witch was frightened out of her wits, and that therefore the phenomenon experienced that day was real, not imaginary or counterfeit. That ought to catch you and others up short in a hurry when you are forced to deny the plain facts of Scripture. For fuller reverent scholarly treatment of this subject, study the works of Merril F. Unger, either his book Biblical Demonology, or his Unger’s Bible Dictionary for a more adequate and complete presentation of the evidence for the reality of this incident.

    Paul (who was actually citing Old Testament Scripture) clearly states that the worship of idols involved the work and worship of demons (“devils,” in the KJV).

    And as for the character of God, your Adventist materialist position makes a mockery of the truth of Scripture, because it is a severely truncated presentation of the Biblical evidence. To arrive at Bible truth, you must consider and account for all the evidence, without arbitrarily sweeping the portion of evidence you don’t like under the rug.

    Your argument that the love of God would not permit the eternal punishment of the wicked is nonsense. It is God Himself Who has declared what He will do, and you deny what He has declared (Matthew 25:46).

    Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    You ignore the holiness of God (Psalm 5:4).

    Psa 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

    Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: …

    You even more ignore the justice of God. Even more than that, you ignore the abiding wrath of God upon unbelief and disobedience (John 3:36).

    Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

    The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). But what kind of death? Not physical death, but spiritual death. That there is such a thing as spiritual death is clear from Ephesians 2:1, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” In another place Paul speaks of “But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (1 Timothy 5:6). See also 1 John 5:16, where John speaks of the “sin unto death,” another reference to spiritual death, not physical death:

    1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

    And so the threat in the Garden of Eden was not the threat of physical death, but of immediate spiritual death upon disobeying the one command of God not to eat of the fruit of the one forbidden tree:

    Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    The rendering “surely die” interprets the emphatic figure of speech Polyptoton, which literally reads “dying thou shalt die.” That death was promised to take place that very day, and most certainly did, for the promised death was spiritual, not merely physical death. Evidence that the penalty was exacted immediately is abundant, for Adam and Eve suddenly were afraid of God and hid themselves (thus exhibiting a very changed relationship to their Creator), whereas previously they enjoyed His fellowship in the Garden.

    Now Satan, who Jesus said was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44), came up with the Adventist lie and directly contradicted what God had threatened, as recorded in Genesis 3:4,

    Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    Notice that the Devil made the same interpretative error that the Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all who hold to materialist theology do, and represented that the promised penalty was physical death, which Satan said would not happen that day. And it did not. So the Adventists in reality think Satan was right.

    But then the Adventists turn right around and charge those who believe the truth of the Bible by accusing Bible believing Christians of gross error for believing in consciousness after death, and thus, in the warped view of Adventists, charge true believers with the supposed error of teaching “Ye shall not surely die,” because we believe that God’s Word clearly teaches that there is continuing consciousness immediately after death.

    Adventists, who are very poor students of Scripture and Biblical theology, mistakenly assert that to teach the doctrine of conscious existence after death is to assert the immortality of the soul, which they think is the very lie presented by Satan to Eve.

    Totally misapplying Paul’s statement that only God possesses immortality, Adventists claim that to teach continuing consciousness of the person after death is a doctrinal error. But they are misapplying 1 Timothy 6:16 to a doctrinal figment of their own imagination. Informed true Bible believing Christians know that only the body sleeps in death, not the spirit or soul. The immaterial part of man continues forever conscious even after the death of the body. Only bodies die physically; only bodies can be resurrected (not spirits or souls), and only bodies are to be given immortality at the resurrection and to the living at the Rapture when all true believers “will be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-53).

    1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
    1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

    Paul asserts only God possesses inherent immortality; to press this text further as Adventists and all materialists do is an error in logic and interpretation.

    1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
    1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
    1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

    But logically speaking, physical death cannot be the intended penalty, because all suffer physical death (unless they have been translated directly to heaven like Enoch and Elijah, or are alive at the time of the Rapture and so do not experience physical death, 1 Corinthians 15:51). But if all suffer the penalty of physical death, then the justice of God is satisfied, and he cannot in justice and righteousness exact the penalty twice, so then all who die physically and who have therefore suffered the penalty must be saved, which would assert universalism, another false doctrine, which logically proves we must conclude that physical death is not the penalty God promised Adam and Eve in the Garden that day.

    You state:

    Sodom and Gomorrah – again, your viewpoint. Yes, the punishment is eternal. They will be gone and dead forever. There is no evidence they are currently suffering.

    Correction: not my “viewpoint,” but the direct assertion of the grammar and syntax of Jude 7,

    Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
    Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    “Suffering” in English is the “present progressive tense.” The Greek is identical in meaning to this most correct English translation of the Greek present active participle present in this text. The meaning is that the people who experienced this severe judgment of God for the terrible sins they were practicing are even now yet continuing to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. This is not my opinion, it is fact established by understanding rudimentary principles of both English and Greek grammar.

  21. A. Way says:

    The Bible says, “have no other gods before Me”. By your logic, there must be other gods. No. There is only one true God. Oh, there are spirits. And who are they? They are NOT those of our long lost relatives.

    You continue to make false allegations about my interpretations. “Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ” I fully agree!!! The punishment will be everlasting. No question. I agree 100% with the verse, as I do with the whole Bible. Psa 5:4, Hab 1:3, I agree this them, 100%. It is you that disagrees with scripture! Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. I agree with this verse 100%. Absolutely true. Those that do not believe in the Son will not see life. You claim the opposite.

    Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: This is a Lie of Satan. You claim we will not die. The wages of sin is DEATH. You said, “Satan said would not happen that day. And it did not. So the Adventists in reality think Satan was right.” Wrong. Satan was wrong, he was lying. The Hebrew can be read, dying though shalt die. Gen 3:4 (AHRC-MT) and~he~will~Say the~Serpent To the~Woman Not >~Die you(mp)~will~Die. Satan’s assertion contradicted God’s explicit command in the most emphatic manner of which Hebrew is capable, and which may be rendered, “Ye will positively not die.” Satan challenged the truthfulness of God’s word by an unconcealed lie, for which reason Christ was right in calling him the father of lies (John 8:44).

    Jerry said, “Adventists, who are very poor students of Scripture and Biblical theology, mistakenly assert that to teach the doctrine of conscious existence after death is to assert the immortality of the soul, which they think is the very lie presented by Satan to Eve.” This is a very clever twisted argument. Do you do this intentionally? And it is still wrong. There is no consciousness at all in death. Period.

    Jude 7 – suffering. You are the English teacher, you should now better. But alas, your interpretation is wrong. Suffering. Gr. hupechō, literally, “to hold under,” hence, “to undergo.” Jude’s use of the present tense implies that the destroyed cities are still undergoing their punishment. Their punishment is their state of utter destruction. Their punishment therefore continues. Absolutely correct. You continue to make God the sadistic monster that Satan has accused Him to be.

  22. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    It appears that on these themes, we are not in agreement!

    You state:

    You continue to make false allegations about my interpretations. “Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ” I fully agree!!! The punishment will be everlasting. No question. I agree 100% with the verse, as I do with the whole Bible.

    Your reply to my argument is an interesting example of the logical error of equivocation. You are not using the term “everlasting punishment” in the sense of eternal duration, but of eternal effect. I am sure you will agree that I am correct in pointing out the sense in which you use the term.

    Do you affirm that the duration of conscious eternal life for the saved is the same in its duration as the duration of conscious everlasting punishment for the unsaved?

    The Bible says Yes.

    Adventists of old, and Seventh-day Adventists now, say No.

    What do you say?

    As for Satan’s lie–what was it? God said that in the day that Adam or Eve ate the forbidden fruit, that day they would die. God emphasized the penalty by saying “dying thou shalt die.” It is the emphatic figure of speech Polyptoton.

    Was the threatened penalty physical death? If it was, then God did not dispense the asserted or threatened penalty when He said he would do it.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding of Adventist belief that they assert the threatened penalty was physical death.

    Now it is clear to me as I read the passage in Genesis that Satan affirmed to Eve that God would not carry out His threat, for Satan said “you shall not surely die.” And, if Satan interpreted the threat as a reference to physical death, Satan apparently was correct, for having tasted of the fruit of the forbidden tree, Adam and Eve did not die “in that day.” As a matter of fact, they apparently went on to live for many years.

    But it is clear from Scripture that the term “die” can and sometimes does have reference not to physical death (the interpretation Satan followed), but to spiritual death. Perceptive readers see in the immediate context that Adam and Eve suffered an immediate and negative change in their relationship with God just as soon as they disobeyed the one command He had given them. This is evidence for immediate spiritual death, which is what took place that day.

    Satan’s denial of the penalty God threatened has no bearing upon the false issue of immortality of the soul. There is nothing in the context that refers to such a thing. To argue that Satan’s denial of the death penalty God threatened is a lie because it teaches the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is a very poor and mistaken line of reasoning engaged in by Adventists and other materialists grasping at straws, unable to pose a reasoned argument that is true to the text and context of this Scripture.

    Strictly speaking, the so-called doctrine of the “immortality of the soul” is a misapplication of the Biblical use of the term “immortality,” for the Bible applies this term to the body which shall in its glorified state at the resurrection or Rapture receive.

    Souls and spirits (the Bible in this sense uses these terms interchangeably) cannot die physically because they are not physical entities. Only physical beings can die physically.

    So, Adventists, who are in theology materialists, support the same view of the nature of death that Satan appeared to assume as he lied to Eve. Surely Satan knew better, but that is his nature, to tell lies to accomplish his purpose. Neither Satan at the time nor Adventists or materialists generally today admit to the truth that the threatened penalty was spiritual death. By no means did God threaten annihilation!

    Lastly, as for Jude 7, my argument still stands. Your answer is mere denial, with no new facts presented for that text that would overturn the reasoning and interpretation I gave. You cannot very well argue against the plain grammar of the text, especially if you don’t know either Greek or English grammar.

    Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    Just who were giving themselves over to fornication?

    Not the cities. Cities are inanimate things, and cannot sin in this way. The reference is clearly to the people of those cities who committed such sin.

    When were these cities set forth for an example?

    They are now set forth as an example based upon what happened when they were destroyed. Now the cities as well as the people of the cities were physically destroyed back in the days of Genesis.

    But Jude does not say, “having suffered the vengeance of eternal fire.” Rather, he wrote, “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” In English, that is the use of the present progressive tense, which indicates the vengeance is ongoing at the present time. This is the same meaning that the present tense used in the Greek text for “suffering” provides: it is ongoing, continuous suffering that will last for ever in terms not merely of its effect but its duration.

  23. A. Way says:

    Jerry – Did God lie in Genesis 2:17? Genesis 2:17 AKJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.

    Did God lie?

  24. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Certainly God did not lie. Satan did, and so have the Adventists and others of the materialistic theology school about this text, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  25. A. Way says:

    You logic is beyond me.

    Genesis 2:17 GNB except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day.”

    Genesis 3:4 GNB The snake replied, “That’s not true; you will not die.

    I say (and you lump other groups with me) that Satan lied in v3:4. You say God did not lie in verse 2:17 for which I say of course God did not lie. And you say I side with Satan? It is you that has sided with Satan in that you say there is something that will not die and suffer eternally. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). You say no, it is not death, it is eternal conscious torment. I say the wages of sin is death, eternal death, eternal non-existence. That is the eternal punishment.

    You do very interesting twists with scripture. The Bible says, Revelation 21:1 AKJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. But you say, not the present earth will not pass away. The Bible says, Revelation 21:4 AKJV And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. But you say, no, that is only for a small group. The sinner will be suffering eternally, crying in pain. The Bible says, Daniel 9:24 AKJV Seventy weeks are determined on your people and on your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. But you say, yeah, but there is an “unannounced” gap in the time line.

    You have made the claim that your word is true because you have authority by your reading and study and that we should believe you because of you believe you have this extensive knowledge. That is exactly what the church in the dark ages said, and many churches today say. The Gospel is simple. A child can understand it. But there are those that can take the plainest words, and obfuscate them. Why should we take your word? Only as it fits scripture.

  26. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    The modern English translation you selected seems to me to make my point nicely:

    Genesis 2:17 GNB except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day.”

    If Adam and Eve indeed died “the same day,” if the death was physical, then I guess they must have been resuscitated, or perhaps even resurrected, for the story to go on!

    That, I believe, is the absurdity one gets into who would claim the death threatened was physical.

    I affirm, in accordance with Scripture, that Adam and Eve did die the very same day, in that they experienced spiritual death the very same day they broke the one commandment God gave them.

    Then you remark:

    It is you that has sided with Satan in that you say there is something that will not die and suffer eternally.

    Satan himself said to Eve,

    Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    What kind of death was Satan referring to when he contradicted God and told Eve, “Ye shall not surely die”?

    There is no evidence in the text or its context or any other allusion to this scene elsewhere in Scripture that suggests Satan was affirming the immortality of the soul. That is the invention of Adventists and other materialists in theology, an invention made necessary by the exigencies of their system.

    If God meant to say that Adam and Eve would die physically the very same day they broke His command, then Satan successfully called His bluff, for Adam and Eve did not die the very same day physically, exactly what Satan told Eve.

    We would both agree that Satan has never successfully called God’s bluff.

    Since Adam and Eve did not die immediately on the very same day physically, God must have intended the meaning I have attributed to this text, that the reference is to spiritual death not primarily physical death. I believe my position fits the whole of Scripture. The immediate context shows that a change took place in Adam and Eve reflected in their immediate estrangement from God. That is evidence of spiritual death. Spiritual death is in evidence in other passages of Scripture, so it is a Biblical concept: “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) is one example; I gave other examples before, including Ephesians 2:1 (“…who were dead in trespasses and sins”).

    It is very clear from the whole of Scripture that physical death was not the threatened penalty. If it were, then everyone who has died or will die physically has both suffered and thus paid the penalty. If they paid the threatened penalty, then they ought to be saved and accepted by God, who in all fairness and justice would not and could not exact a double penalty without violating His character, something He cannot do. That would lead, however, to the mistaken doctrine of Universalism, which is not in accord with the Bible, since very clearly God declares that most will be lost and only a very few will be saved (Matthew 7:14, “and few there be that find it”). Therefore, I think we must conclude that physical death cannot be the threatened punishment.

    I maintain, therefore, on the basis of very clear Scripture, that Genesis 3:4, the lie of Satan, has absolutely no bearing upon the so-called doctrine of the immortality of the soul, for that cannot possibly be its reference.

    I already explained that souls and spirits are never spoken of in the Bible in terms of immortality, for immortality with reference to created beings here on this earth has to do with bodies which receive immortality upon either resurrection or upon the change that occurs in living persons that are saved at their translation at the Rapture without physical death, as I explained before when I made reference to 1 Corinthians 15:51-53.

    Souls and spirits of individuals that return to God upon death of the physical body do not die physically, as Jesus clearly said in Matthew 10:28 and the parallel text at Luke 12:5.

    Those who die unsaved do indeed begin to suffer eternally immediately upon physical death, which is a point of doctrine I would have thought you deny, yet you seem to suppose that I deny it!

    But I note that you make reference to “eternal non-existence” as the punishment declared for the lost by Scripture. Chapter and verse please? There is no such thing as “eternal non-existence” for those on earth today who die unsaved. And non-existence is scarcely to be thought of as any punishment at all, for even you state that a person who has died is immediately unconscious. If unconscious, they know neither bliss nor suffering, that is for sure.

    Since what I believe is based upon a careful, continuing study of Scripture, I’ll let any who may read here, including yourself, judge whether indeed I have made a careful study of Scripture or not.

    You have bought a pig in a poke. By that expression I mean to say that you have bought the theological system and conclusions of that system. The system you have bought into is theological materialism, Adventism, and Seventh-day Adventism. Whoever produced that system of belief did not do so by engaging in any Real Bible Study on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, studying FIRST from a plain text Bible. I most demonstrably have. So as for authority, my authority is the authority of the Bible itself carefully interpreted in accordance with standard rules of interpretation.

    If I am mistaken, I welcome correction.

    It is very clear that if you are mistaken, you do not welcome or receive correction, because you assume that your position is correct and cannot be corrected. So as far as any evidence you have furnished by your most welcome comments here, you have never yet admitted any error in your belief or belief system.

  27. A. Way says:

    Quote:”If it were, then everyone who has died or will die physically has both suffered and thus paid the penalty.” No, they have not paid the penalty. There is a resurrection, of both the righteous and the sinful. There is the first death and the second death.

  28. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    Here is what I said:

    It is very clear from the whole of Scripture that physical death was not the threatened penalty. If it were, then everyone who has died or will die physically has both suffered and thus paid the penalty.

    Here is your response:

    No, they have not paid the penalty. There is a resurrection, of both the righteous and the sinful. There is the first death and the second death.

    I am glad that you once again agree with me.

    We agree, therefore, that physical death was not the penalty.

    Therefore, spiritual death is the penalty.

    That is the Biblical position.

    The “first death” is physical death of the body. The “second death” is spiritual death, continuing conscious separation from God and unending punishment in the Lake of Fire.

  29. A. Way says:

    Quote:Therefore, spiritual death is the penalty.

    That is the Biblical position.

    The “first death” is physical death of the body. The “second death” is spiritual death, continuing conscious separation from God and unending punishment in the Lake of Fire.”

    Please give me a scripture reference that says, “spiritual death”. I can if you use the NLT. But that’s it. You are inferring it is “spiritual death”. The second death comes after the RESURRECTION. Therefore, they are alive people, with bodies. The first death, which is a real physical death of the entire being, is not the end, Hebrews 9:27. The after the second death, there is no resurrection. It is a permanent death. Sin is destroyed completely, COMPLETELY. The works of the devil completely destroyed. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3:8.

    Jesus demonstrated the death that a sinner will die in the end. Jesus suffered the “second death”. Does God execute the sinner? NO. Did Jesus have a real body? Yes.

    Romans 5:10 GNB We were God’s enemies, but he made us his friends through the death of his Son. Now that we are God’s friends, how much more will we be saved by Christ’s life!

    How does the death of Christ, make us His friend?

    ESV puts it this way: Romans 5:10 ESV For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

    How did the death of Christ reconcile us to God? Certainly not in any legal model!! We are won back to Him as friends because we understand that God is not the cause of the second death. The second death is the wages that sin pays, not God. God is not out to torture any one. It is the natural consequence of sin. Sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. First and Second death. The first death has a resurrection of both the righteous and the sinner. The second death is final. And no, there is no torture after the second death.

  30. Jerry says:

    Dear A. Way,

    You state:

    Please give me a scripture reference that says, “spiritual death”. I can if you use the NLT. But that’s it. You are inferring it is “spiritual death”. The second death comes after the RESURRECTION. Therefore, they are alive people, with bodies. The first death, which is a real physical death of the entire being, is not the end, Hebrews 9:27. The after the second death, there is no resurrection. It is a permanent death. Sin is destroyed completely, COMPLETELY. The works of the devil completely destroyed. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3:8.

    Your statement may be in error for the following reasons:

    (1) That spiritual death is not named in Scripture in those precise terms does not establish that the Bible does not teach that there is such a thing as spiritual death. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not so named in the Bible, but the doctrine is taught by the Bible. When the Bible speaks of living persons still in their bodies as having been “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), and in another place of someone who is “dead while she liveth,” it is clear that the death spoken of is spiritual, not physical death.

    (2) Yes, I agree, that I am inferring it is spiritual death. Inference is an important and necessary reading skill. Students at all levels from elementary school to post graduate school often lack or are deficient in this particular skill. Many Bible doctrines are certainly taught by the Bible, but are derived by means of necessary inference that I wrote Rule 22 of my 23 Rules of Interpretation about:

    22. Much important truth found in the Bible can only be derived from the Bible by means of necessary inference derived from a careful study and comparison of related Bible passages.

    You will find the full listing of the Rules of Interpretation in the October 2010 Archives here.

    (3) Yes, the second death comes after the first resurrection. Jesus said that both the righteous and the unrighteous shall be resurrected (John 5:28, 29). Thus there is a resurrection of the just. There is also a separate resurrection of the unjust. Those who participate in the resurrection of the unjust are those who were spiritually dead. They are unsaved, and suffer an eternal never-ending conscious existence in the Lake of Fire. These two distinctly different resurrections do not take place at the same time, but are separated by a period of 1000 years.

    (4) “The second death is final. And no, there is no torture after the second death.” It is true that the second death is final–those who experience it will never be granted the gift of eternal life because they failed to believe while they had the opportunity to receive the Gospel. But the Bible declares that those who suffer the second death have a destiny in the Lake of Fire, and that is surely a place of never-ending torture or torment, as Scripture clearly states.

    Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

    You cannot get away with re-writing the plan of God as He has declared it in His Word, the Bible, to suit your own moral sensibilities and truncated view of the attributes of God.

    (5) Yes, it is true that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. But you may be giving the devil too much credit. Did the devil create hell? Not according to my Bible. Therefore, the eternity of hell and the Lake of Fire has no bearing upon the fact that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, for hell and the Lake of Fire was prepared for the devil and his angels as a permanent place of torment. Unfortunately, some humans may end up there forever too. Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost. But there are many who refuse to receive Christ. If one chooses not to receive God’s free gift, they choose to take the other alternative:

    John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

  31. A. Way says:

    Quote:Did the devil create hell?

    He created it in the terms that is is propagated by many “Christians” these days.

    Christ said, John 14:9 ESV Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

    Christ is the exact representation of God. Hebrews 1:3 ESV He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    Did Christ torture anyone? Kill anyone? Nope. Jesus was God, and the exact representation of God. The idea of an eternally burning, torturing conscious hell is nowhere taught in the Bible. Is the punishment of the wicked eternal? Yes. Conscious? No.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.